4 ms·

That figure is probably quite exaggerated, which is not surprising because such high figures tend to come from those who tend to gain the most from those claims

That figure is probably quite exaggerated, which is not surprising because such high figures tend to come from those who tend to gain the most from those claims. It likely includes many issues which most people probably wouldn't think of as being 'intersex'.

aerojoe23 3y ago
Even if it is doubled or quadrupled, does it matter? If just 0.05% of the us pop is intersex I think her argument is completely valid. I know you didn't say, "Well because they're so much less of them we don't have to protect their rights." But why say that numbers too big? What's the point? Are you trying to discredit the speaker? Whether or not that is your intent it does seem to be. Propaganda isn't to convince the critical it is to give the morally corrupt an excuse not to think.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  I'd agree. Though I find the 2% figure surprising (I'd previously thought it was around 0.2%) it doesn't change the facts that human biology is complex and we shouldn't be trying to shoehorn people into specific roles. There's many cultures that have a far more nuanced view of genders than western societies, so the more recent expansion of thinking beyond "male or female" is us simply catching up.
- someplaceguy 3y ago
  Well, I don't even know what her argument is because I can't even find it by skimming this huge article. Perhaps if the article went straight to the point, her argument wouldn't be lost in all the noise. For the record, I'm not interested in reading whether someone selected a 'yellow dress' or 'purpley pink flowers' or who picked someone up when. I'd be more interested in reading about actual intersex issues. I am in favor of protecting the rights of everyone, but I don't even know what 'rights' you are talking about. The intersex prevalence depends on how you define "intersex", with some definitions (those who argue "if the term intersex is to retain any meaning") making the prevalence at 0.018%, which is 2 orders of magnitude less than 2%. Whether that invalidates her argument or not I don't know, because again, I don't know what her argument is. I was just replying to the parent poster who was surprised by a figure which I was arguing was exaggerated.
  - oftenwrong 3y ago
    >For the record, I'm not interested in reading whether someone selected a 'yellow dress' or 'purpley pink flowers' or who picked someone up when. I'd be more interested in reading about actual intersex issues. That is all relevant. The immense gravity of her decision to become openly, publicly intersex, and the hours of apprehension and coaching required to go through with it, is a significant aspect.
    - someplaceguy 3y ago
      What is having someone pick a yellow dress or selecting purpley pink flowers have to do with the gravity of a situation? If the dress was pink, would the situation be different? If the flowers were green, would that matter? It's all irrelevant details, like 95% of the article probably is, from what I've skimmed. I'm willing to bet her argument could be summarized in less than 5% of the length of this article. And I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to waste my time reading these sorts of articles, as I have many, many other things which are more important to me. Which is a shame, because again, I'd be willing to read and learn about her issues if it was written in a more succinct, straight-to-the point style (which can still be long, but not filled with irrelevant details). I can understand that there are people who like to read these articles, but I'm not one of them. I'm here in Hacker News to read articles to learn about interesting issues and discuss them with interesting people, as efficiently as possible. I'm not here to spend hours reading novels about random people...
      - DamonHD 3y ago
        Her point was to dress pretty and feminine and shock those who would casually assume that would mean something about genes and phenotype (and consider making a pass at her) into possibly realising that their presumptions are just that, and wrong. The details are called human interest, and there were some interesting unstaged coincidences in there. Not much was more important to her.
        someplaceguy 3y ago
delecti 3y ago
> It likely includes many issues which most people probably wouldn't think of as being 'intersex'. Most people know pretty little about most things. You could view this as meaning that those things aren't really intersex, or you could view this as meaning that human sexual development is just another topic that most people know pretty little about.
- someplaceguy 3y ago
  Indeed, but it's also useful for terms to have useful meanings, i.e. meanings which are as simple and objective as possible and not meanings that anyone can willingly bend whenever it's convenient. So that, you know, people can understand each other and interact with each other successfully. Sure, there might be cases that could be considered ambiguous, but it's still useful to have a definition that is as clear as possible. If by 'intersex' or even LGBT* you include anything that is slightly outside the 'norm', whatever 'norm' you decide it must be at any given point, just because it's more convenient for you, then the terms lose their meanings. If you'd apply the same reasoning to everything, then everything would become artificially fabricated 'What is a woman?' "dilemmas", which makes forward progress impossible.
  - DamonHD 3y ago
    The point here is that anyone that doesn't fit into the Bill's presumed binary was going to be hurt, and that binary doesn't exist. The 'I' element was only part, but a very clear reason why the Bill was wrong-headed and unreasonable and ignoring facts - the current culture war around the presumed binary is not based on fact. The LGBTQI+ category is far from empty, and some of that is physically impossible to refute, with genes not matching phenotype, and thus in this case excluding intersex people from taking a pee in any public toilet in TX, legally, IIUC.
    - someplaceguy 3y ago
      > The LGBTQI+ category is far from empty, and some of that is physically impossible to refute, with genes not matching phenotype, and thus in this case excluding intersex people from taking a pee in any public toilet in TX, legally, IIUC. Why would intersex people be legally excluded from taking a pee in a public toilet? Don't their birth certificates have an assigned sex? (Not that people carry around their birth certificates... but still, we're talking about a legal doctrine, not necessarily practical issues).

aerojoe23 3y ago

Even if it is doubled or quadrupled, does it matter? If just 0.05% of the us pop is intersex I think her argument is completely valid. I know you didn't say, "Well because they're so much less of them we don't have to protect their rights." But why say that numbers too big? What's the point? Are you trying to discredit the speaker? Whether or not that is your intent it does seem to be. Propaganda isn't to convince the critical it is to give the morally corrupt an excuse not to think.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
I'd agree. Though I find the 2% figure surprising (I'd previously thought it was around 0.2%) it doesn't change the facts that human biology is complex and we shouldn't be trying to shoehorn people into specific roles. There's many cultures that have a far more nuanced view of genders than western societies, so the more recent expansion of thinking beyond "male or female" is us simply catching up.
someplaceguy 3y ago
Well, I don't even know what her argument is because I can't even find it by skimming this huge article. Perhaps if the article went straight to the point, her argument wouldn't be lost in all the noise. For the record, I'm not interested in reading whether someone selected a 'yellow dress' or 'purpley pink flowers' or who picked someone up when. I'd be more interested in reading about actual intersex issues. I am in favor of protecting the rights of everyone, but I don't even know what 'rights' you are talking about. The intersex prevalence depends on how you define "intersex", with some definitions (those who argue "if the term intersex is to retain any meaning") making the prevalence at 0.018%, which is 2 orders of magnitude less than 2%. Whether that invalidates her argument or not I don't know, because again, I don't know what her argument is. I was just replying to the parent poster who was surprised by a figure which I was arguing was exaggerated.
- oftenwrong 3y ago
  >For the record, I'm not interested in reading whether someone selected a 'yellow dress' or 'purpley pink flowers' or who picked someone up when. I'd be more interested in reading about actual intersex issues. That is all relevant. The immense gravity of her decision to become openly, publicly intersex, and the hours of apprehension and coaching required to go through with it, is a significant aspect.
  - someplaceguy 3y ago
    What is having someone pick a yellow dress or selecting purpley pink flowers have to do with the gravity of a situation? If the dress was pink, would the situation be different? If the flowers were green, would that matter? It's all irrelevant details, like 95% of the article probably is, from what I've skimmed. I'm willing to bet her argument could be summarized in less than 5% of the length of this article. And I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to waste my time reading these sorts of articles, as I have many, many other things which are more important to me. Which is a shame, because again, I'd be willing to read and learn about her issues if it was written in a more succinct, straight-to-the point style (which can still be long, but not filled with irrelevant details). I can understand that there are people who like to read these articles, but I'm not one of them. I'm here in Hacker News to read articles to learn about interesting issues and discuss them with interesting people, as efficiently as possible. I'm not here to spend hours reading novels about random people...
    - DamonHD 3y ago
      Her point was to dress pretty and feminine and shock those who would casually assume that would mean something about genes and phenotype (and consider making a pass at her) into possibly realising that their presumptions are just that, and wrong. The details are called human interest, and there were some interesting unstaged coincidences in there. Not much was more important to her.
      - someplaceguy 3y ago

delecti 3y ago

> It likely includes many issues which most people probably wouldn't think of as being 'intersex'. Most people know pretty little about most things. You could view this as meaning that those things aren't really intersex, or you could view this as meaning that human sexual development is just another topic that most people know pretty little about.

someplaceguy 3y ago
Indeed, but it's also useful for terms to have useful meanings, i.e. meanings which are as simple and objective as possible and not meanings that anyone can willingly bend whenever it's convenient. So that, you know, people can understand each other and interact with each other successfully. Sure, there might be cases that could be considered ambiguous, but it's still useful to have a definition that is as clear as possible. If by 'intersex' or even LGBT* you include anything that is slightly outside the 'norm', whatever 'norm' you decide it must be at any given point, just because it's more convenient for you, then the terms lose their meanings. If you'd apply the same reasoning to everything, then everything would become artificially fabricated 'What is a woman?' "dilemmas", which makes forward progress impossible.
- DamonHD 3y ago
  The point here is that anyone that doesn't fit into the Bill's presumed binary was going to be hurt, and that binary doesn't exist. The 'I' element was only part, but a very clear reason why the Bill was wrong-headed and unreasonable and ignoring facts - the current culture war around the presumed binary is not based on fact. The LGBTQI+ category is far from empty, and some of that is physically impossible to refute, with genes not matching phenotype, and thus in this case excluding intersex people from taking a pee in any public toilet in TX, legally, IIUC.
  - someplaceguy 3y ago
    > The LGBTQI+ category is far from empty, and some of that is physically impossible to refute, with genes not matching phenotype, and thus in this case excluding intersex people from taking a pee in any public toilet in TX, legally, IIUC. Why would intersex people be legally excluded from taking a pee in a public toilet? Don't their birth certificates have an assigned sex? (Not that people carry around their birth certificates... but still, we're talking about a legal doctrine, not necessarily practical issues).