3 ms·

> All people fit into sex categories because all people have a definite sex I mean, no? Not really? There's a whole history of people who do not have a definit

by fao_ 2y ago

> All people fit into sex categories because all people have a definite sex I mean, no? Not really? There's a whole history of people who do not have a definite sex, and even then, there are lots of people who appear to have a definite sex but their body is varied massively from the "baseline". Such people are actually more numerous than red-headed people or albinism, within society. All of this is pretty trivial in terms of talking points and very well supported within the encompassing scientific literature, which is why I don't actually feel the need to cite myself here — any introduction to biological psychology, or the general subject of sex/gender, from a biological or sociological view, will very easily get you up to speed on this.

naasking 2y ago
> I mean, no? Not really? There's a whole history of people who do not have a definite sex Phenotypical sex characteristics do not define sex, and developmental disorders tied to one's sex do not somehow refute one's sex. This talk of "appearances" is exactly the kind of confusion I've been trying to argue against. Biology has a more rigourous definition for sex to avoid exactly these confusions. I do acknowledge that even some biologists have fallen into this trap lately, to our detriment.
- fao_ 2y ago
  > Biology has a more rigourous definition for sex to avoid exactly these confusions. You're right — here's a semi-old crash course on the whole topic from someone who is actually studied and practiced in the fields of biology and endocrinology: https://imgur.com/a/sciencevet2-on-science-of-gender-qmIiULb https://imgur.com/a/sciencevet2-on-science-of-gender-qmIiULb The tl;dr of it is "the bimodal sex distribution model is really bad at a lot of the things we use it for, including predicting results to prescribed medication, or questions about who can give birth". There's some links to actual papers included in the gallery, if you want to follow this up further. > I do acknowledge that even some biologists have fallen into this trap lately, to our detriment. From 'knowing people in the field of biology', I can say rather clearly that it's less "some biologists are mistaken/foolish" and more "the majority of biologists who are up to date have decided to revise their beliefs about sex in line with current research".

by fao_ 2y ago

naasking 2y ago

> I mean, no? Not really? There's a whole history of people who do not have a definite sex Phenotypical sex characteristics do not define sex, and developmental disorders tied to one's sex do not somehow refute one's sex. This talk of "appearances" is exactly the kind of confusion I've been trying to argue against. Biology has a more rigourous definition for sex to avoid exactly these confusions. I do acknowledge that even some biologists have fallen into this trap lately, to our detriment.

fao_ 2y ago
> Biology has a more rigourous definition for sex to avoid exactly these confusions. You're right — here's a semi-old crash course on the whole topic from someone who is actually studied and practiced in the fields of biology and endocrinology: https://imgur.com/a/sciencevet2-on-science-of-gender-qmIiULb https://imgur.com/a/sciencevet2-on-science-of-gender-qmIiULb The tl;dr of it is "the bimodal sex distribution model is really bad at a lot of the things we use it for, including predicting results to prescribed medication, or questions about who can give birth". There's some links to actual papers included in the gallery, if you want to follow this up further. > I do acknowledge that even some biologists have fallen into this trap lately, to our detriment. From 'knowing people in the field of biology', I can say rather clearly that it's less "some biologists are mistaken/foolish" and more "the majority of biologists who are up to date have decided to revise their beliefs about sex in line with current research".