4 ms·

To be fair, it is quite clearly binary in the vast majority of cases. But of course, biology can be messy, so there are exceptions, not just due to genetics bu

To be fair, it is quite clearly binary in the vast majority of cases. But of course, biology can be messy, so there are exceptions, not just due to genetics but also due to development issues. Apart from that there are also psychological issues, where one's biology might be clearly defined but the person might feel differently, for all sorts of different reasons.

DamonHD 3y ago
No it's not fair. I suspect that you have not found yourself in an out group on the wrong end of other people's prejudices very often. a) "Vast majority" is what we seem to be arguing about here, eg when you tot up all the LGBTIQ+ people, they are not "zero" (as some try to claim) nor "chosing to do it" (ditto) nor sub-human (ditto) nor dangerous perverts (ditto, eg in that Bill). b) And even if only 0.00000001% of people were not absolutely in a convenient binary category or the other, would that be a good reason to treat those few as political point-scoring opportunities, deny they exist, or discriminate against them? I suppose that when large chunks of a population still see out and out racism and sexism as somehow acceptable, for example, picking on other minorities for personal gain doesn't seem so weird. So fighting over the details of definition and number of intersex is rather to miss the point that is most definitely real and very much non-zero, and people in power refuse to act on that information humanely.
- someplaceguy 3y ago
  > a) "Vast majority" is what we seem to be arguing about here, eg when you tot up all the LGBTIQ+ people, they are not "zero" (as some try to claim) nor "chosing to do it" (ditto) nor sub-human (ditto) nor dangerous perverts (ditto, eg in that Bill). So.. you seem to be agreeing with me? > b) And even if only 0.00000001% of people were not absolutely in a convenient binary category or the other, would that be a good reason to treat those few as political point-scoring opportunities, deny they exist, or discriminate against them? Of course not. Did you think I was arguing that? Saying that the vast majority of humans have a clearly defined binary sex doesn't mean that it's OK to discriminate those who do not. But let's call things by their names, shall we? If we are to understand each other, that is. > So fighting over the details of definition and number of intersex is rather to miss the point that is most definitely real and very much non-zero, and people in power refuse to act on that information humanely. If it's non-zero, let's say it's non-zero and leave it at that. Let's not exaggerate numbers just because it's politically convenient. But I agree, even if there was only one intersex person in the entire world, that person should have the same rights as anyone else. It's not OK to discriminate anyone. However, let's speak honestly about these issues, so that we can make forward progress. Unlike what many people seem to think nowadays, it's actually possible to discuss important issues without distorting facts. Besides, it's much more difficult to counterargue someone who is using true facts in their arguments than someone who is distorting facts to fit their narrative, so it's a win-win.
  - DamonHD 3y ago
    Please understand that I was not suggesting that you personally were playing these unpleasant games for personal gain, but many politicians and media outlets are and have been for a while. (I also accept that some of these people actually believe this stuff maybe even having thought about it, but some people will believe anything...) Clarity and consistency and definitions are good, I'm with you. But when there are many people abusing them in bad faith to deflect and wound it is also important to continue seeing the wood and the trees. My friend with half the cells in their body male and half female would like not to be arrested if ever visiting TX and needing to take a pee. At least some of the people pushing this sort of law do not care about facts or treating another human as their peer at all, they have $$$ and votes to make NOW. Thus it is important to put up clear examples such as the one in the story to reduce support for as Bill such as this from people who do care about facts and humans.
    - someplaceguy 3y ago
      > My friend with half the cells in their body male and half female would like not to be arrested if ever visiting TX and needing to take a pee. Why would your friend be arrested for taking a pee? Does your friend not have a birth certificate? Or does your friend's birth certificate not have an assigned sex? In fact, I don't even see how they could arrest someone if they can't prove that someone's assigned sex is different from the bathroom they went to, given that it's not mandatory to carry your birth certificate? I'm not saying I am in favor of this Bill (or anything else), I'm just trying to understand the situation. Although, if I were to express my personal opinion, I think if your philosophy is to have separate male and female bathrooms (which I understand is favored by some women, due to some concerns which might or might not be legitimate), it does seem to make sense to legally assign people to one of the two types of bathroom, so that there is no legal confusion. However, in this case I think you'd also need to be able to legally change someone's assigned bathrooms, due to all the different complex issues that can arise throughout one's development, which could make someone's assigned category the wrong one, practically speaking.

DamonHD 3y ago

No it's not fair. I suspect that you have not found yourself in an out group on the wrong end of other people's prejudices very often. a) "Vast majority" is what we seem to be arguing about here, eg when you tot up all the LGBTIQ+ people, they are not "zero" (as some try to claim) nor "chosing to do it" (ditto) nor sub-human (ditto) nor dangerous perverts (ditto, eg in that Bill). b) And even if only 0.00000001% of people were not absolutely in a convenient binary category or the other, would that be a good reason to treat those few as political point-scoring opportunities, deny they exist, or discriminate against them? I suppose that when large chunks of a population still see out and out racism and sexism as somehow acceptable, for example, picking on other minorities for personal gain doesn't seem so weird. So fighting over the details of definition and number of intersex is rather to miss the point that is most definitely real and very much non-zero, and people in power refuse to act on that information humanely.

someplaceguy 3y ago
> a) "Vast majority" is what we seem to be arguing about here, eg when you tot up all the LGBTIQ+ people, they are not "zero" (as some try to claim) nor "chosing to do it" (ditto) nor sub-human (ditto) nor dangerous perverts (ditto, eg in that Bill). So.. you seem to be agreeing with me? > b) And even if only 0.00000001% of people were not absolutely in a convenient binary category or the other, would that be a good reason to treat those few as political point-scoring opportunities, deny they exist, or discriminate against them? Of course not. Did you think I was arguing that? Saying that the vast majority of humans have a clearly defined binary sex doesn't mean that it's OK to discriminate those who do not. But let's call things by their names, shall we? If we are to understand each other, that is. > So fighting over the details of definition and number of intersex is rather to miss the point that is most definitely real and very much non-zero, and people in power refuse to act on that information humanely. If it's non-zero, let's say it's non-zero and leave it at that. Let's not exaggerate numbers just because it's politically convenient. But I agree, even if there was only one intersex person in the entire world, that person should have the same rights as anyone else. It's not OK to discriminate anyone. However, let's speak honestly about these issues, so that we can make forward progress. Unlike what many people seem to think nowadays, it's actually possible to discuss important issues without distorting facts. Besides, it's much more difficult to counterargue someone who is using true facts in their arguments than someone who is distorting facts to fit their narrative, so it's a win-win.
- DamonHD 3y ago
  Please understand that I was not suggesting that you personally were playing these unpleasant games for personal gain, but many politicians and media outlets are and have been for a while. (I also accept that some of these people actually believe this stuff maybe even having thought about it, but some people will believe anything...) Clarity and consistency and definitions are good, I'm with you. But when there are many people abusing them in bad faith to deflect and wound it is also important to continue seeing the wood and the trees. My friend with half the cells in their body male and half female would like not to be arrested if ever visiting TX and needing to take a pee. At least some of the people pushing this sort of law do not care about facts or treating another human as their peer at all, they have $$$ and votes to make NOW. Thus it is important to put up clear examples such as the one in the story to reduce support for as Bill such as this from people who do care about facts and humans.
  - someplaceguy 3y ago
    > My friend with half the cells in their body male and half female would like not to be arrested if ever visiting TX and needing to take a pee. Why would your friend be arrested for taking a pee? Does your friend not have a birth certificate? Or does your friend's birth certificate not have an assigned sex? In fact, I don't even see how they could arrest someone if they can't prove that someone's assigned sex is different from the bathroom they went to, given that it's not mandatory to carry your birth certificate? I'm not saying I am in favor of this Bill (or anything else), I'm just trying to understand the situation. Although, if I were to express my personal opinion, I think if your philosophy is to have separate male and female bathrooms (which I understand is favored by some women, due to some concerns which might or might not be legitimate), it does seem to make sense to legally assign people to one of the two types of bathroom, so that there is no legal confusion. However, in this case I think you'd also need to be able to legally change someone's assigned bathrooms, due to all the different complex issues that can arise throughout one's development, which could make someone's assigned category the wrong one, practically speaking.