4 ms·

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 hum

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.
      - detaro 4y ago
        > it’s actually excluding the women who can’t give birth Not out of the group of "women", so "Are women who can’t become pregnant men?" doesn't make sense. EDIT: and indeed the creepy arguments centering womanhood around periods or pregnancy, which do actually exclude women who can't give birth from womanhood, tend to come from a subset(!) of the people that also are strongly against such language, not the people for it.
      - socialismisok 4y ago
        I think you might be misunderstanding the way language is evolving here. Woman who can't give birth are still women. Women who cannot menstruate are still women. We are not removing anyone from the set of women. What we are saying is that, in addition to women there are also people who do not recognize themselves as women, but who can give birth or menstruate. So, we could say "women, men, and other gendered people who give birth..." or "birthing women, men, and other gendered people". But that's a mouthful. All genders are people, so we choose "people who give birth" since it includes women AND people who are not women. So yes, it's inclusive because it's including women and not women, rather than only women.
        snoozing 4y ago
        If women don’t agree with being a large part of their identity being renamed, then it doesn’t feel inclusive.
- jasmer 4y ago
  The example you've provided actually does not support you argument, just the opposite. People 'typically' have two arms? Well they 'typically' also have two legs, a sense of smell, sight, hearing, a heart, two lungs, the ability to speak. What exactly can we expect all 'humans' to have? And how can we refer to them without making any assumptions whatsoever about their state of being so as to be 'inclusive' as you say? It's a Monty Python sketch of absurdity and will end up with people slapping others in the face with fish. Aside from probably using 'they' or 'them' in some cases in which we didn't tend to before, language as we use it is perfectly fine in almost all cases. It never will perfectly encompass everyone and that's fine, it doesn't have to.
  - foldr 4y ago
    >What exactly can we expect all 'humans' to have? And how can we refer to them without making any assumptions whatsoever about their state of being so as to be 'inclusive' as you say? This question answers itself, no? You can refer to them as 'humans'.
    - jasmer 4y ago
      Actually in practical use, we'd be obliged to use whatever language the individual identified as, which is the new 'subjective' way of being 'objective'. I'm happy to use he, she or they, because it's reasonable and rational but beyond that it's all shenanigans, I have no time for it.
      - foldr 4y ago
        If you're addressing an individual person rather than talking about humans in general, then yes, sure, go with what that person prefers.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- ClassyJacket 4y ago
  What's the third gender? What's it called? What's an example of a person of that gender? What gametes do they have? What chromosomes?
  - fleddr 4y ago
    You will never get an answer. Biological sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression and even gender roles are thrown into a pile to play 5D chess. Fact remains, there is no third sex. Intersex is not a third sex and sexual anomalies also do not introduce a third sex.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    Depends on your culture. The Diné people have four genders (feminine man, masculine man, feminine woman, masculine woman), hijra and fa'afafine are feminine male genders, in Inuit culture a sipiniq is someone who fulfills a man's role with female genitalia. In mesopotamia, mesoamerica, and the Indus valley there were people of unclear sex who fulfilled genders beyond men and women. A neologism from pan indigenous culture is Two Spirit. These concepts have existed for a loooong time, however they were quite rare in western countries. As westerners, we're being exposed to them now, but they are hardly novel on the world stage.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      It's interesting though that all those cultures came up with distinct terms for trans identities. I suspect there'd be a lot less pushback if this was tried with English instead of overloading the meaning of pre-existing terms.
      - socialismisok 4y ago
        Probably true!
    - throwaway675309 4y ago
      These are nice terms but they're heavily rooted in social constructs and don't really answer the OPS question which was tying biological sex to well... biology and in this particular case gametes/chromosomes.
- dmix 4y ago
  Rare exceptions to the rule doesn't make rules useless.
- jimbokun 4y ago
  > Third gender people Gender isn't sex.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    True, and good catch.

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.
    - detaro 4y ago
      > it’s actually excluding the women who can’t give birth Not out of the group of "women", so "Are women who can’t become pregnant men?" doesn't make sense. EDIT: and indeed the creepy arguments centering womanhood around periods or pregnancy, which do actually exclude women who can't give birth from womanhood, tend to come from a subset(!) of the people that also are strongly against such language, not the people for it.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      I think you might be misunderstanding the way language is evolving here. Woman who can't give birth are still women. Women who cannot menstruate are still women. We are not removing anyone from the set of women. What we are saying is that, in addition to women there are also people who do not recognize themselves as women, but who can give birth or menstruate. So, we could say "women, men, and other gendered people who give birth..." or "birthing women, men, and other gendered people". But that's a mouthful. All genders are people, so we choose "people who give birth" since it includes women AND people who are not women. So yes, it's inclusive because it's including women and not women, rather than only women.
      - snoozing 4y ago
        If women don’t agree with being a large part of their identity being renamed, then it doesn’t feel inclusive.
jasmer 4y ago
The example you've provided actually does not support you argument, just the opposite. People 'typically' have two arms? Well they 'typically' also have two legs, a sense of smell, sight, hearing, a heart, two lungs, the ability to speak. What exactly can we expect all 'humans' to have? And how can we refer to them without making any assumptions whatsoever about their state of being so as to be 'inclusive' as you say? It's a Monty Python sketch of absurdity and will end up with people slapping others in the face with fish. Aside from probably using 'they' or 'them' in some cases in which we didn't tend to before, language as we use it is perfectly fine in almost all cases. It never will perfectly encompass everyone and that's fine, it doesn't have to.
- foldr 4y ago
  >What exactly can we expect all 'humans' to have? And how can we refer to them without making any assumptions whatsoever about their state of being so as to be 'inclusive' as you say? This question answers itself, no? You can refer to them as 'humans'.
  - jasmer 4y ago
    Actually in practical use, we'd be obliged to use whatever language the individual identified as, which is the new 'subjective' way of being 'objective'. I'm happy to use he, she or they, because it's reasonable and rational but beyond that it's all shenanigans, I have no time for it.
    - foldr 4y ago
      If you're addressing an individual person rather than talking about humans in general, then yes, sure, go with what that person prefers.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
ClassyJacket 4y ago
What's the third gender? What's it called? What's an example of a person of that gender? What gametes do they have? What chromosomes?
- fleddr 4y ago
  You will never get an answer. Biological sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression and even gender roles are thrown into a pile to play 5D chess. Fact remains, there is no third sex. Intersex is not a third sex and sexual anomalies also do not introduce a third sex.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Depends on your culture. The Diné people have four genders (feminine man, masculine man, feminine woman, masculine woman), hijra and fa'afafine are feminine male genders, in Inuit culture a sipiniq is someone who fulfills a man's role with female genitalia. In mesopotamia, mesoamerica, and the Indus valley there were people of unclear sex who fulfilled genders beyond men and women. A neologism from pan indigenous culture is Two Spirit. These concepts have existed for a loooong time, however they were quite rare in western countries. As westerners, we're being exposed to them now, but they are hardly novel on the world stage.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    It's interesting though that all those cultures came up with distinct terms for trans identities. I suspect there'd be a lot less pushback if this was tried with English instead of overloading the meaning of pre-existing terms.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      Probably true!
  - throwaway675309 4y ago
    These are nice terms but they're heavily rooted in social constructs and don't really answer the OPS question which was tying biological sex to well... biology and in this particular case gametes/chromosomes.
dmix 4y ago
Rare exceptions to the rule doesn't make rules useless.
jimbokun 4y ago
> Third gender people Gender isn't sex.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  True, and good catch.