4 ms·

> Should we also call white people unnatural and abnormal, considering that the vast majority of humans aren't white? Sure, why not? Looking at the world popu

by ta8645 3y ago

> Should we also call white people unnatural and abnormal, considering that the vast majority of humans aren't white? Sure, why not? Looking at the world population, skin color is normally darker than a typical white European. Not sure why anyone should feel bad about that. Not sure how many different ways to say this. If there is an overwhelming physical characteristic, that the vast majority of humans exhibit, it's not hurtful to acknowledge it as normal, and deviation from that norm, by definition, as abnormal. People treating each other poorly is a completely separate issue. And you shouldn't treat someone poorly, just because they're not normal in some characteristic. Most of us aren't normal, in one way or another. And it's okay that we're not all the same, and there's no reason to pretend we are.

meheleventyone 3y ago
I think you’re correct in a very narrow sense where it shouldn’t matter that some traits are more prevalent and that can be described as normal. It just flies in the face of what we know about human behaviour across recorded history.
- ta8645 3y ago
  > It just flies in the face of what we know about human behaviour across recorded history. You're right, human behavior is often abhorrent and focused on differences. But trying to solve that problem by pretending that scientific taxonomy is the cause, is counterproductive. People want an easy answer, and it's easier to warp science than change the hearts of men. But it's an insidious "solution" that has untold corrosive effects and impairs our ability to inspect reality with integrity and honesty.
  - meheleventyone 3y ago
    As scientific taxonomy has often been a historic justification and taxonomy really is just a social construct itself (and often terribly inaccurate, see the problem of defining species for example) it's pretty easy to see why it seems like a good place to tackle the issue. I don't think we can pretend that science is some pure place that exists in a vacuum apart from society.
defrost 3y ago
> If there is an overwhelming physical characteristic, that the vast majority of humans exhibit, it's not hurtful to acknowledge it as normal, and deviation from that norm, by definition, as abnormal. In the exact sense and in the exact same proportions as we may say the following: As the vast majority of atoms in the universe are either Hydrogen or Helium, it's not hurtful to acknowledge these as normal, and deviation from that norm, by definition, as abnormal. Combining the actual science and your take on the nomenclature, it now follows that carbon, lead, gold, aluminium, lithium, the bulk of Tom Lehrer's The Elements in fact are all abnormal. Of course that does sound pretty silly.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  Yes, if your (statistical) population is all the elements in the universe that would be the case. If your target population is all the metal deposits or all humans in the world you would come to different conclusions.
  - defrost 3y ago
    That's exactly right - I'm directly comparing the known universal population of humans with the known universal population of elements. Humans are 98% Male or Female with a long tail of variations in chromosones. Elements are 98% Hydrogen or Helium with a long tail of variations in the nucleus and electron shells. The elements have atypical clusterings on planets, humans have atypical clusterings in various cities. It appears to be a sound comparison.
    - nathan_compton 3y ago
      Yes, but this entire discussion skips over the obvious fact that the words "abnormal" and "normal" in typical human conversational contexts have very little to do with statistical ideas and more typically carry moral weight. If the your whole point is that you want to say intersex people are abnormal in the sense that they are drawn from a portion of the distribution with small support, I guess that is fine, but if you use that language in an ordinary context, prepare to be misunderstood.

by ta8645 3y ago

meheleventyone 3y ago

I think you’re correct in a very narrow sense where it shouldn’t matter that some traits are more prevalent and that can be described as normal. It just flies in the face of what we know about human behaviour across recorded history.

ta8645 3y ago
> It just flies in the face of what we know about human behaviour across recorded history. You're right, human behavior is often abhorrent and focused on differences. But trying to solve that problem by pretending that scientific taxonomy is the cause, is counterproductive. People want an easy answer, and it's easier to warp science than change the hearts of men. But it's an insidious "solution" that has untold corrosive effects and impairs our ability to inspect reality with integrity and honesty.
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  As scientific taxonomy has often been a historic justification and taxonomy really is just a social construct itself (and often terribly inaccurate, see the problem of defining species for example) it's pretty easy to see why it seems like a good place to tackle the issue. I don't think we can pretend that science is some pure place that exists in a vacuum apart from society.

defrost 3y ago

> If there is an overwhelming physical characteristic, that the vast majority of humans exhibit, it's not hurtful to acknowledge it as normal, and deviation from that norm, by definition, as abnormal. In the exact sense and in the exact same proportions as we may say the following: As the vast majority of atoms in the universe are either Hydrogen or Helium, it's not hurtful to acknowledge these as normal, and deviation from that norm, by definition, as abnormal. Combining the actual science and your take on the nomenclature, it now follows that carbon, lead, gold, aluminium, lithium, the bulk of Tom Lehrer's The Elements in fact are all abnormal. Of course that does sound pretty silly.

ffgjgf1 3y ago
Yes, if your (statistical) population is all the elements in the universe that would be the case. If your target population is all the metal deposits or all humans in the world you would come to different conclusions.
- defrost 3y ago
  That's exactly right - I'm directly comparing the known universal population of humans with the known universal population of elements. Humans are 98% Male or Female with a long tail of variations in chromosones. Elements are 98% Hydrogen or Helium with a long tail of variations in the nucleus and electron shells. The elements have atypical clusterings on planets, humans have atypical clusterings in various cities. It appears to be a sound comparison.
  - nathan_compton 3y ago
    Yes, but this entire discussion skips over the obvious fact that the words "abnormal" and "normal" in typical human conversational contexts have very little to do with statistical ideas and more typically carry moral weight. If the your whole point is that you want to say intersex people are abnormal in the sense that they are drawn from a portion of the distribution with small support, I guess that is fine, but if you use that language in an ordinary context, prepare to be misunderstood.