3 ms·

Your math is slightly wrong. .018% of 2000 is about 1/3 (.36). So, its 1 in 6k and 3600 in Australia. The numbers are miniscule and I believe arguments made

Your math is slightly wrong. .018% of 2000 is about 1/3 (.36). So, its 1 in 6k and 3600 in Australia. The numbers are miniscule and I believe arguments made using this group and trying to apply it to society as a whole is likely not made in good faith. I would be willing to bet that most people who bring up intersex individuals when talking about a 'sex binary' would be unwilling to agree to: "We have male, female, and medically-intersex as the sex."

thrown_22 4y ago
Similarly we have one headed and two headed individuals. Therefore we must use the plural they as the default pronoun as to not cause offense to people already struggling with acceptance.
defrost 4y ago
I skimmed his paper and then reread other papers I have on intersex .. the frequency estimates vary but we're ballpaking. The key thing is that is lower bound as 0.18% comes from a fairly well accepted restrive definition of intersex, there's a larger pool of "commonly accepted as intersex". So, we can at least agree that these people exist. > I believe arguments made using this group and trying to apply it to society as a whole is likely not made in good faith. That's your belief of what others are trying to do and I believe you may be misrepresenting and casting as homogeneous these "others". Your in good comapny here, the author of the paper does the same in his initial paragraphs when casts "feminists" as a near monolith with a predominant belief. Clearly he hasn't gotten out much. Fo my part I'm a pragmatic data science, mainly geophyics with a dash of consulting. I take issue with livestock tracking software that cannot accept by design in breeding patterns - this is something that happens in reality. I also take issue with older versions of religuos genealogy programs that cannot deal with cycles in a graph representation of a family "tree" - as abhorent as fathers having offsring with daughters may be it's a reality that must be dealt with in order to correctly document Pharohs, Royalty, and various families from the backwoods. In the same manner it's just poor software practice to restrict fields for Sex: to a simplistic two value entry when clearly the real world is different to that imained or desired.
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  >> I believe arguments made using this group and trying to apply it to society as a whole is likely not made in good faith. > That's your belief of what others are trying to do and I believe you may be misrepresenting and casting as homogeneous these "others". Correct, it is my belief of those using this group in arguments, but I do not believe a boogey man "others" as I think this group is disparate enough that over time it will eat itself. The problem with purity tests is that eventually everyone fails it. Regarding my opinion that you cast doubt on - maybe we can prove me wrong right now. Do you believe a persons biologic sex is male, female, and medically-intersex-from-birth?
- raffraffraff 4y ago
  Given that we're talking about whether or not the passport should have additional options, and are citing this % as a reason for providing additional options, it's important to ask: Q: How do we know that the people who want more than 2 options for sex are, in fact, these same 0.018% of the population who have DSDs? In my limited experience, they are not the same people at all. Clair [https://differently-normal.com/author/clarecais/ https://differently-normal.com/author/clarecais/] has CAIS, and has "F" on her passport. Statistically, non-binary people have no DSD, and are unambiguously either M or F but wish to identify as something else. Therefore making an arguing for additional options in the passport sex field using an intersex stat is precisely what Clair complains about in her blog: ie, she's pulled into a fairly toxic social/political debate by a group that wants to use her condition for its own gains. Clare is one data point of course, but her slant tallies with the assertion that "arguments made using this group and trying to apply it to society as a whole is likely not made in good faith".
raffraffraff 4y ago
...and of the 0.018%, how many "identify" as non-binary? Many individuals with DSDs (aka "intersex" conditions) don't appreciate it when their medical condition is used by LGBQTIA+ organisations that usually do nothing to help them with the medical complications they can have. Clare talks about living with DSD, including the serious medical complications that can go hand-in-hand with them. It's a very interesting blog, particularly the top two posts: https://differently-normal.com/author/clarecais/ https://differently-normal.com/author/clarecais/

thrown_22 4y ago

Similarly we have one headed and two headed individuals. Therefore we must use the plural they as the default pronoun as to not cause offense to people already struggling with acceptance.

defrost 4y ago

I skimmed his paper and then reread other papers I have on intersex .. the frequency estimates vary but we're ballpaking. The key thing is that is lower bound as 0.18% comes from a fairly well accepted restrive definition of intersex, there's a larger pool of "commonly accepted as intersex". So, we can at least agree that these people exist. > I believe arguments made using this group and trying to apply it to society as a whole is likely not made in good faith. That's your belief of what others are trying to do and I believe you may be misrepresenting and casting as homogeneous these "others". Your in good comapny here, the author of the paper does the same in his initial paragraphs when casts "feminists" as a near monolith with a predominant belief. Clearly he hasn't gotten out much. Fo my part I'm a pragmatic data science, mainly geophyics with a dash of consulting. I take issue with livestock tracking software that cannot accept by design in breeding patterns - this is something that happens in reality. I also take issue with older versions of religuos genealogy programs that cannot deal with cycles in a graph representation of a family "tree" - as abhorent as fathers having offsring with daughters may be it's a reality that must be dealt with in order to correctly document Pharohs, Royalty, and various families from the backwoods. In the same manner it's just poor software practice to restrict fields for Sex: to a simplistic two value entry when clearly the real world is different to that imained or desired.

OrangeMonkey 4y ago
>> I believe arguments made using this group and trying to apply it to society as a whole is likely not made in good faith. > That's your belief of what others are trying to do and I believe you may be misrepresenting and casting as homogeneous these "others". Correct, it is my belief of those using this group in arguments, but I do not believe a boogey man "others" as I think this group is disparate enough that over time it will eat itself. The problem with purity tests is that eventually everyone fails it. Regarding my opinion that you cast doubt on - maybe we can prove me wrong right now. Do you believe a persons biologic sex is male, female, and medically-intersex-from-birth?
raffraffraff 4y ago
Given that we're talking about whether or not the passport should have additional options, and are citing this % as a reason for providing additional options, it's important to ask: Q: How do we know that the people who want more than 2 options for sex are, in fact, these same 0.018% of the population who have DSDs? In my limited experience, they are not the same people at all. Clair [https://differently-normal.com/author/clarecais/ https://differently-normal.com/author/clarecais/] has CAIS, and has "F" on her passport. Statistically, non-binary people have no DSD, and are unambiguously either M or F but wish to identify as something else. Therefore making an arguing for additional options in the passport sex field using an intersex stat is precisely what Clair complains about in her blog: ie, she's pulled into a fairly toxic social/political debate by a group that wants to use her condition for its own gains. Clare is one data point of course, but her slant tallies with the assertion that "arguments made using this group and trying to apply it to society as a whole is likely not made in good faith".

raffraffraff 4y ago

...and of the 0.018%, how many "identify" as non-binary? Many individuals with DSDs (aka "intersex" conditions) don't appreciate it when their medical condition is used by LGBQTIA+ organisations that usually do nothing to help them with the medical complications they can have. Clare talks about living with DSD, including the serious medical complications that can go hand-in-hand with them. It's a very interesting blog, particularly the top two posts: https://differently-normal.com/author/clarecais/ https://differently-normal.com/author/clarecais/