5 ms·

The concept of "biological sex" is not even a binary, and it's treated differently in different parts of the world. So we haven't settled on definitions of biol

• cbeach 4y ago
• houstonn 4y ago
  Biology is crystal clear on this. There are 2 sexes, one with small mobile gametes and the other with large, immobile ones. It's binary.
  • socialismisok 4y ago
    That covers approximately 99% of cases. But are you willing to write off the 1% of people that doesn't cover? I'd rather make sure that the language I use includes them where possible.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
      > I'd rather make sure that the language I use includes them where possible. Man/Woman does. As do Male/Female. Disorders of Sexual Development are disorders, not new sexes. A woman without breasts or with an extra X chromosome is a much a woman as a man without arms or with an extra toe is still a man. > are you willing to write off the [people] that doesn't cover Those are weird made-up scare words. Nobody is writing them off. What does what even mean? We just don't recognize their identity or their identity terminology as being meaningful, in the same way an atheist feels about their religion. They're just as welcome, or not, as they were without it.
    • ReptileMan 4y ago
      • socialismisok 4y ago
        80 million people is not a rounding error.
        • ReptileMan 4y ago
          When we are talking 8 billion it is exactly that
        • rootusrootus 4y ago
          Where do you get the 80M number from? It seems like you may be off several orders of magnitude.
    • zmgsabst 4y ago
      Yes — discussing a bimodal distribution as a bimodal distribution is useful, even in the presence of outliers and data points bridging the two peaks. “Man” and “woman” are names for those nodes in the bimodal distribution of traits, as correlated with sex. Same as “cow” and “bull”, or “hen” and “cock”, or “doe” and “stag”, or “female” and “male”. I’d rather my language be able to discuss the experience of the 99%+ than become incapable of discussing basic facts (like apes being sexually dimorphic) because reality might offend outliers.
    • rejectfinite 4y ago
      • socialismisok 4y ago
        99% of the universe is hydrogen or helium. I very much believe 1% is super important in the grand scheme of things. You are saying "80 million people is nothing". I disagree, I think 80 million people is a lot of people.
        • LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
          > I think 80 million people is a lot of people ... and thus, unasked by intersex people and without a clear theory of how this would help, you would destroy the concept of sex-based-rights which keep four billion people and the world's children safe?
        • mindslight 4y ago
          > 99% of the universe is hydrogen or helium. And the field where that prominence matters, astrophysics, refers to anything that isn't hydrogen or helium as a "metal". Definitions are fluid. Insisting that everyone tediously say "people who may possibly become pregnant" rather than the simple "women" (with the more precise existentially quantified, more and less inclusive intent being clear from context) is itself extremely intolerant.
      • houstonn 4y ago
        0.018% https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/
        • socialismisok 4y ago
          Or 1.7%, linked from that paper. I don't think there's a consensus number, I picked something in the middle and approximated to a whole integer.
    • adamsbriscoe 4y ago
      Not sure what you're referring to but it's not 1 percent.. it's not even 0.01 percent. Cursory search: https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20190503/study-about-1-in-1000-babies-born-intersex https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20190503/study-abo...
      • socialismisok 4y ago
        That link says 0.13%, first off, and it only includes people who have visible genital differences. Many, many more people have different genetic configurations that can manifest well after birth. I'll admit I rounded up to one percent from something that was a large fractional percent.
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
        • snoozing 4y ago
          0.13% -> 1% doesn’t feel like rounding (it’s actually nearly a 10x change). 0.13 is not a large fraction. Assuming good intentions based on your other comments, but these things can elicit negative responses.
          • socialismisok 4y ago
            Note that .13% was not what I rounded up. That .13% is a subset of people who are gender minorities (eg trans or non-binary) and there are several academic estimates that put the number higher than 1%. My intuition, reading through the studies and talking a conservative estimate, is that something like 0.6 to 0.8% is a defensible estimate. I rounded that to 1%. Other scholars pick higher or lower numbers, but it's not 10%, and I firmly believe that it's not 0.1% based on studies, which makes 1% the correct order of magnitude, imo.
            • snoozing 4y ago
              Fair enough.
    • knaekhoved 4y ago
      Language ought to "cleave reality at the joints" - i.e. approximate an information-theoretically optimal encoding. If you start screwing over the 99.9%ile case to slightly improve the remaining 0.1%, you are not approximating an optimal encoding.
      • detaro 4y ago
        How does referring to someone as "pregnant person" instead of "pregnant woman" "screw them over"?
        • rejectfinite 4y ago
          Read the article. Its a lot of other things baked into that.
    • eddic 4y ago
      Clarifying question: are you saying that 1% of humans don't produce either "small mobile gametes or large, immobile ones"? In that case what do they produce? I've noticed that in the debate around 'binary' (on Twitter, I confess), some people claim that no human has ever been observed who didn't produce either sperm or ova (and never both). I'd like to know whether that's true. If it's true, then the GP's claim covers 100% of cases, not 99%.
  • striking 4y ago
    So people with DSD / intersex people simply no longer exist now? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • houstonn 4y ago
      That argument is a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of biological sex, which is connected to the distinct type of gametes (sex cells) that an organism produces. As a broad concept, males are the sex that produce small gametes (sperm) and females produce large gametes (ova). There are no intermediate gametes, which is why there is no spectrum of sex. Biological sex in humans is a binary system.
      • eganist 4y ago
        Regardless, it misses the distinction between biological sex v. a mind's gender identity, and solely by the sheer quantity of neurons and possible interconnects, it's impossible to say that every person's brain strictly aligns with one of two modes of operation. (if anyone who specializes in gender studies knows more on this topic and believes I'm summarizing this—or even stating the problem—incorrectly, please step in; this isn't my specialty) In fact, it's only appropriate to say that every brain is unique in how it processes the self and the world, and that while for the majority of people it's easy or even innate to identify with certain characteristics, there are minorities for whom this isn't the case. We need to express inclusive empathy where we can, even if the only reason for doing so is to make sure that when we fall outside societally defined structures, we ourselves can also continue to be respected. Ideally we'd do so because we're trying to be good people, but my point is, even a selfish person should reach the same conclusion.
        • layer8 4y ago
          We should also acknowledge that language more often than not works in approximations and generalizations, and usually everyone still understands what is meant. There needs to be some flexibility on both sides.
• rolobio 4y ago
  There is absolutely a consensus (well, there was until about 5 years ago). People point at exceptions to prove the rule is entirely false. How many arms do humans have? Two. “Well my uncle was born without arms! So clearly humans have an unknown amount of arms”. Men and women are real, there are a couple of exceptions, but not as many as people imagine. I expect this to be promptly removed from the front page. I’m happy to see taboo subjects being spoken of again.
  • socialismisok 4y ago
    Third gender people and intersex people have existed as long as humans have. Western cultures in the past couple decades have started acknowledging this, but the concept is not foreign to all countries. And the changes proposed are to include as many people as possible. You might say, people are typically born with two arms, sometimes fewer. It doesn't remove the fact that most people express as 2 armed, while including the people who don't.
    • rolobio 4y ago
      No one is denying exceptions exist. Humans have two arms. Anything else is an exception to the rule, but the rule still applies.
      • socialismisok 4y ago
        Atoms are binary in your model, every atom is hydrogen or helium, or an exception? I believe that we can be inclusive of those exceptions and treat them as unique things that are within the definition, rather than placing them outside the definition. I would rather spend the energy to evolve definitions to include people rather than tell people they are marginalia. It sounds like you disagree.
        • rolobio 4y ago
          I don’t understand what atoms have to do with gender. It is not inclusive to call a woman a “birthing person” it’s actually excluding the women who can’t give birth. Are women who can’t become pregnant men? Of course not. We have let politeness run away with us. It’s time to kindly, but firmly tell people there are two genders. It’s not a kindness to lie to a person, even if they ask for the lie.
• gedy 4y ago
  We call people "black" and "white", when there is statistically almost an even spectrum between skin colors, genes, etc. Your examples in between are really statistical outliers, numbers-wise.
  • socialismisok 4y ago
    They are people. Even in small numbers, they are important. Hell, nearly every atom in the universe is hydrogen and helium, does that make carbon, oxygen, iron, etc statistical outliers we shouldn't account for? Of course not. Our science and language accounts for even marginal percentages, why would it be any different when talking about people?
    • ClassyJacket 4y ago
    • snoozing 4y ago
      Of course they are important. But do they hold more weight to rename how the 99.9% of the population is referred to? it’s the latter that frustrates people IMO. I think if people focused on simple acceptance of themselves instead of trying to rewrite the social fabric, it would help. Also, even though Hydrogen and Helium are by far the most common elements, oxygen is still a different element.
  • detaro 4y ago
    > We call people "black" and "white", And probably do quite a big amount of damage to the spectrum inbetween by doing so. Seems like an excellent argument to not just focus on the binary.
• knaekhoved 4y ago
  • eddic 4y ago
    Are you intersex? if not, aren't you doing the same thing?
    • knaekhoved 4y ago
      A family member is. And no, I'm not.
  • rootusrootus 4y ago
    Ha, I bet a fair number of transsexuals are tired of transsexuals using them as a political tool.
• dillondoyle 4y ago
  Thank you. I've made this comment three times now on the this thread. Why is it that those making the most 'biological fact' arguments ignore actual biology. ffs
  • socialismisok 4y ago
    Most people only ever learn high school level biology, where that "fact" is taught. That's not bad, it's just an incomplete picture. Few people take the time to study further because there's no need for them to do so. Just like I haven't studied veterinary medicine - it's just something I never needed to understand beyond a common sense level. The problem arises when people who have been working with simplified models make assertions using those models.
• jimbokun 4y ago
  > The concept of "biological sex" is not even a binary That's just not true. Biological sex is defined by the gametes produced, and I'm not aware of conditions where one person produces both male and female gametes.