3 ms·

On the issue of context I already replied to ben_w. As for the country level: sorry, I cannot agree with the very basis of your statement. Your comment presuppo

On the issue of context I already replied to ben_w. As for the country level: sorry, I cannot agree with the very basis of your statement. Your comment presupposes that sex is some sort of a narrow thing which is so hard to apply to humanity that millions are falling through. There are poststructuralist/postmodernist theories which claim that any dichotomy creates oppressions, and that's why there's a political movement which tries to strawman biological sex by pretending that every individual feature is somehow in contradiction with it. Or that shared features cancel binarity. That's where your millions that "doesn't match" come from. They do match actually. Sex is a consequence of genes expression which literally builds each of Homo Sapiens and affects us in big and small ways. That's true even for majority of pathological cases such as hermaphroditism. That's why for the whole history of mankind we've been using our good ol' binary sex as a category of particular importance for fun and profit. There are probably singular situations cases where application sex category may create confusion but in absolutely absolute majority it reflects important reality of nature. As a result we base plenty of our political, societal, and legal logic on it, and so far all attempts to deny it by political decree created way more confusion than any possible misapplication of sex.

tpm 1y ago
> Your comment presupposes that sex is some sort of a narrow thing which is so hard to apply to humanity that millions are falling through. "... The Humsafar Trust estimates there are between 5 and 6 million hijras in India." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_recognition_of_non-binary_gender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_recognition_of_non-binar...
- broken-kebab 1y ago
  Hijra is a culture-specific social role, isn't it? And I used word 'sex'
  - tpm 1y ago
    Yes, and the language, as well as the state are both culture-specific things too. So once the topic is "what is the value of the 'sex' field in Indian passport for a member of the hijra community", the answer might be 'E'. That is the sex as seen by the Indian state. The US state might see that in a different way. They now apparently decided to cancel everyone who's not 'm' or 'f', but that does not make it true. And you probably had a different 'sex' in mind. But I'm not going to answer that, because not only I truly don't care, but also it's a great example how even one simple word has different meanings. Reality is complex.
    - broken-kebab 1y ago
      I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to disprove. My claim is that sex i.e. biological distinction is valuable enough bit of information to not to be ignored in IDs. If what you want to tell is that everything is relative to the culture, and there's no neutral biology, I wouldn't agree, but would notice that it makes all the outrage here even less logical.
viraptor 1y ago
> Sex is a consequence of genes expression Ok, we're getting somewhere. Which genes? Specifically. And does it mean you're proposing genetic testing before putting the sex on a document? What do you do about chimeras carrying different generics in different parts of the body? What about people with organs transplanted from other people? Which part of the body do we check? What does it mean for artificial changes in DNA, like crispr - would that qualify as changing sex? What about just blocking the specific gene expression?
- broken-kebab 1y ago
  I guess we came to the stage where you want to tell me "it's not only SRY", then enlighten me about AIS, and Klinefelter, right? You can re-read the branch and make sure I made no claim that there's a particular gene which is the discriminant, the talk is about genes expression. Which is a very important distinction. FWIW we could knew nothing about DNA, chromosomes, and genes, and still be clearly able to distinguish between man and woman. Because whatever the cause the result is remarkably binary! It's so basic that infants of 4-5 month old already can reliably tell it apart - before culture would affect us. On the contrary, it takes years of social pressure and indoctrination to start playing Emma Watson, and pretend being unable to see it. This clarification should answer all your questions, but here them anyway: 1. No, in the absolute majority of cases you don't need to have gene test cause it's apparent enough. At the newborn stage we mostly look at genitals, then the farther it goes though the less it's needed. There are ideological wars waged about genitals, but in reality it predicts the development with amazing reliability. However, In extremely rare cases medical/legal disputes may force someone to make them though. 2. Chimeric people are men and women. Cause it's expression not presence of genes which builds us. 3. People with transplants are developed as men, and women. 4. As already said with infants we look at genitals. With farther development sex differences become easily perceptible even with fully clothed humans. Even in Arctic climate! (Trust me I've been there) 5. I never heard of fully developed human organism to undergo a re-development with CRISPR or otherwise. I'm open for the new facts though if you have any. 6. Blocking gene(s) expression matters for sure, that's how we get AIS.

tpm 1y ago

> Your comment presupposes that sex is some sort of a narrow thing which is so hard to apply to humanity that millions are falling through. "... The Humsafar Trust estimates there are between 5 and 6 million hijras in India." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_recognition_of_non-binary_gender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_recognition_of_non-binar...

broken-kebab 1y ago
Hijra is a culture-specific social role, isn't it? And I used word 'sex'
- tpm 1y ago
  Yes, and the language, as well as the state are both culture-specific things too. So once the topic is "what is the value of the 'sex' field in Indian passport for a member of the hijra community", the answer might be 'E'. That is the sex as seen by the Indian state. The US state might see that in a different way. They now apparently decided to cancel everyone who's not 'm' or 'f', but that does not make it true. And you probably had a different 'sex' in mind. But I'm not going to answer that, because not only I truly don't care, but also it's a great example how even one simple word has different meanings. Reality is complex.
  - broken-kebab 1y ago
    I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to disprove. My claim is that sex i.e. biological distinction is valuable enough bit of information to not to be ignored in IDs. If what you want to tell is that everything is relative to the culture, and there's no neutral biology, I wouldn't agree, but would notice that it makes all the outrage here even less logical.

viraptor 1y ago

> Sex is a consequence of genes expression Ok, we're getting somewhere. Which genes? Specifically. And does it mean you're proposing genetic testing before putting the sex on a document? What do you do about chimeras carrying different generics in different parts of the body? What about people with organs transplanted from other people? Which part of the body do we check? What does it mean for artificial changes in DNA, like crispr - would that qualify as changing sex? What about just blocking the specific gene expression?

broken-kebab 1y ago
I guess we came to the stage where you want to tell me "it's not only SRY", then enlighten me about AIS, and Klinefelter, right? You can re-read the branch and make sure I made no claim that there's a particular gene which is the discriminant, the talk is about genes expression. Which is a very important distinction. FWIW we could knew nothing about DNA, chromosomes, and genes, and still be clearly able to distinguish between man and woman. Because whatever the cause the result is remarkably binary! It's so basic that infants of 4-5 month old already can reliably tell it apart - before culture would affect us. On the contrary, it takes years of social pressure and indoctrination to start playing Emma Watson, and pretend being unable to see it. This clarification should answer all your questions, but here them anyway: 1. No, in the absolute majority of cases you don't need to have gene test cause it's apparent enough. At the newborn stage we mostly look at genitals, then the farther it goes though the less it's needed. There are ideological wars waged about genitals, but in reality it predicts the development with amazing reliability. However, In extremely rare cases medical/legal disputes may force someone to make them though. 2. Chimeric people are men and women. Cause it's expression not presence of genes which builds us. 3. People with transplants are developed as men, and women. 4. As already said with infants we look at genitals. With farther development sex differences become easily perceptible even with fully clothed humans. Even in Arctic climate! (Trust me I've been there) 5. I never heard of fully developed human organism to undergo a re-development with CRISPR or otherwise. I'm open for the new facts though if you have any. 6. Blocking gene(s) expression matters for sure, that's how we get AIS.