11 ms·

The piece satirized the confusion between sex and gender. It has only been very, very recently that we have gone from "gender is a social construct" to "sex is

The piece satirized the confusion between sex and gender. It has only been very, very recently that we have gone from "gender is a social construct" to "sex is a social construct." It's still a highly debated topic and well within the public sphere of debate. Also, this person was a public official and was in the news from general news outlets (named Woman of the Year) which puts them well within the public realm of ridicule, even if you or I don't agree with it. If the piece had advocated physical harm that would be much much different.

mbesto 4y ago
> It has only been very, very recently that we have gone from "gender is a social construct" to "sex is a social construct." What? Since when is sex a social construct?
- jl6 4y ago
  Some people believe sex is a spectrum, or that it can be changed, but it’s super-fringe and mostly reflects ignorance of the difference between sex and gender rather than being a serious philosophical position.
  - searealist 4y ago
    It may be fringe in the sense that people don't state what they actually believe out of fear, but it is not fringe on official policies and the direction they are heading. If you don't agree with the statement "Trans women are women", and all the conclusions that leads to, ie. trans women in sports, then you risk being cancelled.
  - howinteresting 4y ago
    "Sex is a spectrum" is hard scientific truth. Unlike computers, biology doesn't work in binaries. Intersex people exist and are surprisingly common.
    - jl6 4y ago
      “Sex is a spectrum” is nonsense: https://areomagazine.com/2022/01/05/race-is-a-spectrum-sex-is-pretty-damn-binary/ https://areomagazine.com/2022/01/05/race-is-a-spectrum-sex-i...
      - howinteresting 4y ago
        Binary means 0 and 1. It does not mean 0, 1, or 2 1.7% (or even 0.018%) of the time. Of course, the word "binary" is a social construct, and "spectrum" is a social construct as well. However I would expect that in a forum focused on computers, binary generally means 0 or 1 with no other values possible even 0.0000001% of the time. "Some men choose to identify as women." Really? This is not a serious statement that engages with the science behind gender transition.
    - the_doctah 4y ago
      Allow me to introduce you to the X and Y chromosomes.
      - howinteresting 4y ago
        Allow me to introduce you to Klinefelter syndrome and the difference between genotype and phenotype.
        the_doctah 4y ago
        A "random genetic error" (by definition) is not an argument for sex being a spectrum. >A genetic condition in which a male is born with an extra copy of the X chromosome So still a male, got it.
        howinteresting 4y ago
        It sure is an argument for sex being a spectrum. The word "error" is a social construct. I prefer "variation", which also is a social construct, but doesn't imply a judgment. (Of course, judgments are social constructs.)
- thelopa 4y ago
  I think they’re being glib, but sex absolutely is a social construct. What exactly constitutes THE properties of the female and male sex is defined by society more than biology. For example, people who have androgen insensitivity syndrome develop perfectly normal looking “female” bodies, but their genetic sex is “male”. People generally still consider those individuals to be “female”. If you want to get down to it, all words are socially defined. They usually attempt to describe or capture reoccurring details about the observable world, but nature (especially biology) has too much variety and weird exceptions for any simple linguistic model to perfectly match the physical world. That’s doubly true for a linguistic model used in everyday life as opposed to scientific discourse. That’s not to say that “sex isn’t real” or some absurd position like that. There is a real phenomenon in biology where genetic and phenotypical variance tends to follow a limited set of patterns. Biologists call those patterns “sex”. But, the idea that “sex” as we use it in normal day-to-day life is a rigidly defined system based on hard biological facts is laughably false. When was the last time you insisted on seeing someone’s genetic karyotype test results? When was the last time you asked someone to drop their pants so you could examine their genitalia and determine their sex? The phrase “sex is a social construct” is technically true in the same way that “chairs are a social construct” is true. The word describes a fuzzy subset of the set of all things, and what we consider in or out of the set is largely based on what we think should belong to it, and that is absolutely influenced by societal expectations. Where do chairs end and tables begin? Where does the female sex end? Once you get to that point, the phrase almost has no meaning. If all word definitions are social constructs, then that’s table stakes and it doesn’t make sense to call out a specific word as having that property. Surely the phrase “is a social construct” must mean something more than “is like any other word”. Indeed, the meaning of that phrase is larger than what it literally says. There is a socially defined meaning that is attached to it. That phrase implies the word in question “is arbitrarily defined (more than most words)” and “is up for interpretation (more than most words)”. If you agree with me this far, then the right way to frame this discussion is “should we pin ‘sex’ as it is used in every day life to specific physical properties or should we allow it to be more porous?”. This isn’t as straightforward as it might seem. If we pin it, for example, to genetic karyotype, then we need to stop using it in contexts where the genetics of the person are unknown and must admit the existence of several additional sexes (e.g. X, XXY) AND recognize it’s no longer useful for describing the phenomenon of what a person looks like or how their body works. If we make it porous, then we will endlessly debate about whether boundary cases fall into one bucket or the other and possibly hurt some feelings along the way. The fun thing is that we get to pick what words mean, and we get to pick what we do with “sex”. Language is, after all, a social construct.
- howinteresting 4y ago
  All language is a social construct. We recognize patterns in the real world and assign words to them, but patterns in complex systems like human biology have all kinds of exceptions. Social construct doesn't mean fake, though. It's real, and it describes a real thing, but is a simplified model of it. The fight is over which model is better.
slg 4y ago
>It has only been very, very recently that we have gone from... Would you have said the same thing about ridiculing someone for being openly gay in government 30 years ago, being Catholic in government 60 years ago, or being Black in government 80 years ago?
- partiallypro 4y ago
  No, because those aren't even remotely similar things. It wouldn't be a "hate crime" to call a Catholic a Protestant, or a Gay person a Straight person or a Black person a white person. It would be a hateful to deny them rights or to call for abuse. In this instance the "hate crime" is merely saying someone's biological sex is x, even if they say they are y. However, If I called a non-trans woman a man or a non-trans man a woman, that's not a hate crime. So, the whole idea is fairly inconsistent. I still think it's very much up for debate, unlike the instances you listed. I have trans friends, and while I can't speak for them, I don't believe they think the debate is as settled on some of these issues, especially in regard to "misgendering" being a hate crime. Hell, I've misgendered one of my non-binary friends constantly by accident and we're still friends. I'm not banned and haven't been charged with a hate crime. Would I want someone intentionally misgendering them just to get to them? No, I think that's cruel, and I'd defend my friend; but I don't think that person should automatically lose their account or be arrested (which has happened outside the US.) There's an important distinction there and it's an important debate.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ajross 4y ago
    > In this instance the "hate crime" is merely saying someone's biological sex is x, even if they say they are y. That's mischaracterizing what was said. Here's the actual article: https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year-is-rachel-levine https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year... This is ridicule, quite clearly. I won't get into the "is it or is it not a hate crime" bit, but this isn't "merely" stating anything. The term "biological sex" doesn't even appear in the article. The point the reader is supposed to take from this article is quite clearly not "mere" information about Rachel Levine's gender and/or "biological sex". It's that Rachel Levine's presented gender was very funny to the authors and that we should laugh at her for it. > Would I want someone intentionally misgendering them just to get to them? No, I think that's cruel Seems like you're putting an awful lot of weight on the distinction between "hate" and "cruel" to me. What about here on HN? Do you think it's OK for users here to be "cruel" to others, or should dang ban them? Because HN bans people for being cruel, probably every day. Why is Twitter different?
freemrkt8 4y ago
There is no right to zero consequences for speaking freely. I say give users the moderation power and let aggregate voting dictate content that remains visible. No one wants public control of democracy though. What these guys want is a business friendly soapbox.
- partiallypro 4y ago
  Where did I claim there was? You can philosophically believe that free speech (and also know that the 1st Amendment does not apply to private companies, but that the "right" to it is a general philosophy outside of government) should exist while holding the position that you can be held accountable for some things. The question is how much a public forum should allow or not, especially one that has advertisers but is also an important forum for our democracy. That's very important and just saying everything under the sun is hate speech is not a good debate starter, especially when it's unevenly applied, and the rules are written by one viewpoint. I think the "downvote" system which does eventually hide comments (until you request them) is a feature that already exists in beta. I think that's better than the "shadow banning" and suspensions in some instances. Obviously, you still can't tolerate some things, such as calls for violence, rioting, etc. Moderation is very difficult, but I err on the side of more openness than locking things down and stifling speech and debate.
  - freemrkt8 4y ago
squidbeak 4y ago
Even if none of those things were true, satire and pisstaking shouldn't ever be banned.
andsoitis 4y ago
> It has only been very, very recently that we have gone from "gender is a social construct" to "sex is a social construct." I don’t think I’ve seen anyone say that sex is a social construct. Gender yes. And that gender and sex are orthogonal. And that gender is a spectrum but sex in humans is binary. Maybe I missed the evolution of the conversation but I don’t think I’ve seen any volume of argument that sex is a social construct. I’m open to be convinced.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Orthogonal means uncorrelated. Sex and gender are in reality highly, though not perfectly, correlated.
  - andsoitis 4y ago
    Concur. What’s a better word/phrase?
    - rayiner 4y ago
      I’d say “not coextensive.” Unfortunately no single word that means exactly that.
  - zajio1am 4y ago
    I would say 'orthogonal' is used for conceptually independent, not causally independent nor statistically independent (uncorrelated). So i would say that sex and gender are conceptually independent, although in reality statistically highly correlated.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      I think the word you're looking for is "distinct."
- partiallypro 4y ago
  There are many pieces now that proclaim biological sex (not gender) is a social construct. There are pieces in Forbes, Psychology Today, Professor curriculum, etc that are now saying this. I would say it was fringe if it weren't for the fact that it's been elevated by major publications. When I was younger "gender is a social construct" mostly meant that if you were a man you were allowed to enjoy feminine things and if you were a woman, you could be a tomboy, etc. It also applied to trans individuals. However, that has shifted heavily over the last few years to be something very different and has gone so far as to go fully to the extent that sex (not gender) at birth is up for debate (even outside of Turner Syndrome or Intersex births.)

mbesto 4y ago

> It has only been very, very recently that we have gone from "gender is a social construct" to "sex is a social construct." What? Since when is sex a social construct?

jl6 4y ago
Some people believe sex is a spectrum, or that it can be changed, but it’s super-fringe and mostly reflects ignorance of the difference between sex and gender rather than being a serious philosophical position.
- searealist 4y ago
  It may be fringe in the sense that people don't state what they actually believe out of fear, but it is not fringe on official policies and the direction they are heading. If you don't agree with the statement "Trans women are women", and all the conclusions that leads to, ie. trans women in sports, then you risk being cancelled.
- howinteresting 4y ago
  "Sex is a spectrum" is hard scientific truth. Unlike computers, biology doesn't work in binaries. Intersex people exist and are surprisingly common.
  - jl6 4y ago
    “Sex is a spectrum” is nonsense: https://areomagazine.com/2022/01/05/race-is-a-spectrum-sex-is-pretty-damn-binary/ https://areomagazine.com/2022/01/05/race-is-a-spectrum-sex-i...
    - howinteresting 4y ago
      Binary means 0 and 1. It does not mean 0, 1, or 2 1.7% (or even 0.018%) of the time. Of course, the word "binary" is a social construct, and "spectrum" is a social construct as well. However I would expect that in a forum focused on computers, binary generally means 0 or 1 with no other values possible even 0.0000001% of the time. "Some men choose to identify as women." Really? This is not a serious statement that engages with the science behind gender transition.
  - the_doctah 4y ago
    Allow me to introduce you to the X and Y chromosomes.
    - howinteresting 4y ago
      Allow me to introduce you to Klinefelter syndrome and the difference between genotype and phenotype.
      - the_doctah 4y ago
        A "random genetic error" (by definition) is not an argument for sex being a spectrum. >A genetic condition in which a male is born with an extra copy of the X chromosome So still a male, got it.
        howinteresting 4y ago
        It sure is an argument for sex being a spectrum. The word "error" is a social construct. I prefer "variation", which also is a social construct, but doesn't imply a judgment. (Of course, judgments are social constructs.)
thelopa 4y ago
I think they’re being glib, but sex absolutely is a social construct. What exactly constitutes THE properties of the female and male sex is defined by society more than biology. For example, people who have androgen insensitivity syndrome develop perfectly normal looking “female” bodies, but their genetic sex is “male”. People generally still consider those individuals to be “female”. If you want to get down to it, all words are socially defined. They usually attempt to describe or capture reoccurring details about the observable world, but nature (especially biology) has too much variety and weird exceptions for any simple linguistic model to perfectly match the physical world. That’s doubly true for a linguistic model used in everyday life as opposed to scientific discourse. That’s not to say that “sex isn’t real” or some absurd position like that. There is a real phenomenon in biology where genetic and phenotypical variance tends to follow a limited set of patterns. Biologists call those patterns “sex”. But, the idea that “sex” as we use it in normal day-to-day life is a rigidly defined system based on hard biological facts is laughably false. When was the last time you insisted on seeing someone’s genetic karyotype test results? When was the last time you asked someone to drop their pants so you could examine their genitalia and determine their sex? The phrase “sex is a social construct” is technically true in the same way that “chairs are a social construct” is true. The word describes a fuzzy subset of the set of all things, and what we consider in or out of the set is largely based on what we think should belong to it, and that is absolutely influenced by societal expectations. Where do chairs end and tables begin? Where does the female sex end? Once you get to that point, the phrase almost has no meaning. If all word definitions are social constructs, then that’s table stakes and it doesn’t make sense to call out a specific word as having that property. Surely the phrase “is a social construct” must mean something more than “is like any other word”. Indeed, the meaning of that phrase is larger than what it literally says. There is a socially defined meaning that is attached to it. That phrase implies the word in question “is arbitrarily defined (more than most words)” and “is up for interpretation (more than most words)”. If you agree with me this far, then the right way to frame this discussion is “should we pin ‘sex’ as it is used in every day life to specific physical properties or should we allow it to be more porous?”. This isn’t as straightforward as it might seem. If we pin it, for example, to genetic karyotype, then we need to stop using it in contexts where the genetics of the person are unknown and must admit the existence of several additional sexes (e.g. X, XXY) AND recognize it’s no longer useful for describing the phenomenon of what a person looks like or how their body works. If we make it porous, then we will endlessly debate about whether boundary cases fall into one bucket or the other and possibly hurt some feelings along the way. The fun thing is that we get to pick what words mean, and we get to pick what we do with “sex”. Language is, after all, a social construct.
howinteresting 4y ago
All language is a social construct. We recognize patterns in the real world and assign words to them, but patterns in complex systems like human biology have all kinds of exceptions. Social construct doesn't mean fake, though. It's real, and it describes a real thing, but is a simplified model of it. The fight is over which model is better.

slg 4y ago

>It has only been very, very recently that we have gone from... Would you have said the same thing about ridiculing someone for being openly gay in government 30 years ago, being Catholic in government 60 years ago, or being Black in government 80 years ago?

partiallypro 4y ago
No, because those aren't even remotely similar things. It wouldn't be a "hate crime" to call a Catholic a Protestant, or a Gay person a Straight person or a Black person a white person. It would be a hateful to deny them rights or to call for abuse. In this instance the "hate crime" is merely saying someone's biological sex is x, even if they say they are y. However, If I called a non-trans woman a man or a non-trans man a woman, that's not a hate crime. So, the whole idea is fairly inconsistent. I still think it's very much up for debate, unlike the instances you listed. I have trans friends, and while I can't speak for them, I don't believe they think the debate is as settled on some of these issues, especially in regard to "misgendering" being a hate crime. Hell, I've misgendered one of my non-binary friends constantly by accident and we're still friends. I'm not banned and haven't been charged with a hate crime. Would I want someone intentionally misgendering them just to get to them? No, I think that's cruel, and I'd defend my friend; but I don't think that person should automatically lose their account or be arrested (which has happened outside the US.) There's an important distinction there and it's an important debate.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ajross 4y ago
  > In this instance the "hate crime" is merely saying someone's biological sex is x, even if they say they are y. That's mischaracterizing what was said. Here's the actual article: https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year-is-rachel-levine https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bees-man-of-the-year... This is ridicule, quite clearly. I won't get into the "is it or is it not a hate crime" bit, but this isn't "merely" stating anything. The term "biological sex" doesn't even appear in the article. The point the reader is supposed to take from this article is quite clearly not "mere" information about Rachel Levine's gender and/or "biological sex". It's that Rachel Levine's presented gender was very funny to the authors and that we should laugh at her for it. > Would I want someone intentionally misgendering them just to get to them? No, I think that's cruel Seems like you're putting an awful lot of weight on the distinction between "hate" and "cruel" to me. What about here on HN? Do you think it's OK for users here to be "cruel" to others, or should dang ban them? Because HN bans people for being cruel, probably every day. Why is Twitter different?

freemrkt8 4y ago

There is no right to zero consequences for speaking freely. I say give users the moderation power and let aggregate voting dictate content that remains visible. No one wants public control of democracy though. What these guys want is a business friendly soapbox.

partiallypro 4y ago
Where did I claim there was? You can philosophically believe that free speech (and also know that the 1st Amendment does not apply to private companies, but that the "right" to it is a general philosophy outside of government) should exist while holding the position that you can be held accountable for some things. The question is how much a public forum should allow or not, especially one that has advertisers but is also an important forum for our democracy. That's very important and just saying everything under the sun is hate speech is not a good debate starter, especially when it's unevenly applied, and the rules are written by one viewpoint. I think the "downvote" system which does eventually hide comments (until you request them) is a feature that already exists in beta. I think that's better than the "shadow banning" and suspensions in some instances. Obviously, you still can't tolerate some things, such as calls for violence, rioting, etc. Moderation is very difficult, but I err on the side of more openness than locking things down and stifling speech and debate.
- freemrkt8 4y ago

squidbeak 4y ago

Even if none of those things were true, satire and pisstaking shouldn't ever be banned.

andsoitis 4y ago

> It has only been very, very recently that we have gone from "gender is a social construct" to "sex is a social construct." I don’t think I’ve seen anyone say that sex is a social construct. Gender yes. And that gender and sex are orthogonal. And that gender is a spectrum but sex in humans is binary. Maybe I missed the evolution of the conversation but I don’t think I’ve seen any volume of argument that sex is a social construct. I’m open to be convinced.

rayiner 4y ago
Orthogonal means uncorrelated. Sex and gender are in reality highly, though not perfectly, correlated.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  Concur. What’s a better word/phrase?
  - rayiner 4y ago
    I’d say “not coextensive.” Unfortunately no single word that means exactly that.
- zajio1am 4y ago
  I would say 'orthogonal' is used for conceptually independent, not causally independent nor statistically independent (uncorrelated). So i would say that sex and gender are conceptually independent, although in reality statistically highly correlated.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    I think the word you're looking for is "distinct."
partiallypro 4y ago
There are many pieces now that proclaim biological sex (not gender) is a social construct. There are pieces in Forbes, Psychology Today, Professor curriculum, etc that are now saying this. I would say it was fringe if it weren't for the fact that it's been elevated by major publications. When I was younger "gender is a social construct" mostly meant that if you were a man you were allowed to enjoy feminine things and if you were a woman, you could be a tomboy, etc. It also applied to trans individuals. However, that has shifted heavily over the last few years to be something very different and has gone so far as to go fully to the extent that sex (not gender) at birth is up for debate (even outside of Turner Syndrome or Intersex births.)