5 ms·

Biology is crystal clear on this. There are 2 sexes, one with small mobile gametes and the other with large, immobile ones. It's binary.

socialismisok 4y ago
That covers approximately 99% of cases. But are you willing to write off the 1% of people that doesn't cover? I'd rather make sure that the language I use includes them where possible.
- ReptileMan 4y ago
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    80 million people is not a rounding error.
    - ReptileMan 4y ago
      When we are talking 8 billion it is exactly that
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      Where do you get the 80M number from? It seems like you may be off several orders of magnitude.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  > I'd rather make sure that the language I use includes them where possible. Man/Woman does. As do Male/Female. Disorders of Sexual Development are disorders, not new sexes. A woman without breasts or with an extra X chromosome is a much a woman as a man without arms or with an extra toe is still a man. > are you willing to write off the [people] that doesn't cover Those are weird made-up scare words. Nobody is writing them off. What does what even mean? We just don't recognize their identity or their identity terminology as being meaningful, in the same way an atheist feels about their religion. They're just as welcome, or not, as they were without it.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  Yes — discussing a bimodal distribution as a bimodal distribution is useful, even in the presence of outliers and data points bridging the two peaks. “Man” and “woman” are names for those nodes in the bimodal distribution of traits, as correlated with sex. Same as “cow” and “bull”, or “hen” and “cock”, or “doe” and “stag”, or “female” and “male”. I’d rather my language be able to discuss the experience of the 99%+ than become incapable of discussing basic facts (like apes being sexually dimorphic) because reality might offend outliers.
- rejectfinite 4y ago
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    99% of the universe is hydrogen or helium. I very much believe 1% is super important in the grand scheme of things. You are saying "80 million people is nothing". I disagree, I think 80 million people is a lot of people.
    - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
      > I think 80 million people is a lot of people ... and thus, unasked by intersex people and without a clear theory of how this would help, you would destroy the concept of sex-based-rights which keep four billion people and the world's children safe?
    - mindslight 4y ago
      > 99% of the universe is hydrogen or helium. And the field where that prominence matters, astrophysics, refers to anything that isn't hydrogen or helium as a "metal". Definitions are fluid. Insisting that everyone tediously say "people who may possibly become pregnant" rather than the simple "women" (with the more precise existentially quantified, more and less inclusive intent being clear from context) is itself extremely intolerant.
  - houstonn 4y ago
    0.018% https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      Or 1.7%, linked from that paper. I don't think there's a consensus number, I picked something in the middle and approximated to a whole integer.
- adamsbriscoe 4y ago
  Not sure what you're referring to but it's not 1 percent.. it's not even 0.01 percent. Cursory search: https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20190503/study-about-1-in-1000-babies-born-intersex https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20190503/study-abo...
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    That link says 0.13%, first off, and it only includes people who have visible genital differences. Many, many more people have different genetic configurations that can manifest well after birth. I'll admit I rounded up to one percent from something that was a large fractional percent.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - snoozing 4y ago
      0.13% -> 1% doesn’t feel like rounding (it’s actually nearly a 10x change). 0.13 is not a large fraction. Assuming good intentions based on your other comments, but these things can elicit negative responses.
      - socialismisok 4y ago
        Note that .13% was not what I rounded up. That .13% is a subset of people who are gender minorities (eg trans or non-binary) and there are several academic estimates that put the number higher than 1%. My intuition, reading through the studies and talking a conservative estimate, is that something like 0.6 to 0.8% is a defensible estimate. I rounded that to 1%. Other scholars pick higher or lower numbers, but it's not 10%, and I firmly believe that it's not 0.1% based on studies, which makes 1% the correct order of magnitude, imo.
        snoozing 4y ago
        Fair enough.
- knaekhoved 4y ago
  Language ought to "cleave reality at the joints" - i.e. approximate an information-theoretically optimal encoding. If you start screwing over the 99.9%ile case to slightly improve the remaining 0.1%, you are not approximating an optimal encoding.
  - detaro 4y ago
    How does referring to someone as "pregnant person" instead of "pregnant woman" "screw them over"?
    - rejectfinite 4y ago
      Read the article. Its a lot of other things baked into that.
- eddic 4y ago
  Clarifying question: are you saying that 1% of humans don't produce either "small mobile gametes or large, immobile ones"? In that case what do they produce? I've noticed that in the debate around 'binary' (on Twitter, I confess), some people claim that no human has ever been observed who didn't produce either sperm or ova (and never both). I'd like to know whether that's true. If it's true, then the GP's claim covers 100% of cases, not 99%.
striking 4y ago
So people with DSD / intersex people simply no longer exist now? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- houstonn 4y ago
  That argument is a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of biological sex, which is connected to the distinct type of gametes (sex cells) that an organism produces. As a broad concept, males are the sex that produce small gametes (sperm) and females produce large gametes (ova). There are no intermediate gametes, which is why there is no spectrum of sex. Biological sex in humans is a binary system.
  - eganist 4y ago
    Regardless, it misses the distinction between biological sex v. a mind's gender identity, and solely by the sheer quantity of neurons and possible interconnects, it's impossible to say that every person's brain strictly aligns with one of two modes of operation. (if anyone who specializes in gender studies knows more on this topic and believes I'm summarizing this—or even stating the problem—incorrectly, please step in; this isn't my specialty) In fact, it's only appropriate to say that every brain is unique in how it processes the self and the world, and that while for the majority of people it's easy or even innate to identify with certain characteristics, there are minorities for whom this isn't the case. We need to express inclusive empathy where we can, even if the only reason for doing so is to make sure that when we fall outside societally defined structures, we ourselves can also continue to be respected. Ideally we'd do so because we're trying to be good people, but my point is, even a selfish person should reach the same conclusion.
    - layer8 4y ago
      We should also acknowledge that language more often than not works in approximations and generalizations, and usually everyone still understands what is meant. There needs to be some flexibility on both sides.

socialismisok 4y ago

That covers approximately 99% of cases. But are you willing to write off the 1% of people that doesn't cover? I'd rather make sure that the language I use includes them where possible.

ReptileMan 4y ago
- socialismisok 4y ago
  80 million people is not a rounding error.
  - ReptileMan 4y ago
    When we are talking 8 billion it is exactly that
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    Where do you get the 80M number from? It seems like you may be off several orders of magnitude.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
> I'd rather make sure that the language I use includes them where possible. Man/Woman does. As do Male/Female. Disorders of Sexual Development are disorders, not new sexes. A woman without breasts or with an extra X chromosome is a much a woman as a man without arms or with an extra toe is still a man. > are you willing to write off the [people] that doesn't cover Those are weird made-up scare words. Nobody is writing them off. What does what even mean? We just don't recognize their identity or their identity terminology as being meaningful, in the same way an atheist feels about their religion. They're just as welcome, or not, as they were without it.
zmgsabst 4y ago
Yes — discussing a bimodal distribution as a bimodal distribution is useful, even in the presence of outliers and data points bridging the two peaks. “Man” and “woman” are names for those nodes in the bimodal distribution of traits, as correlated with sex. Same as “cow” and “bull”, or “hen” and “cock”, or “doe” and “stag”, or “female” and “male”. I’d rather my language be able to discuss the experience of the 99%+ than become incapable of discussing basic facts (like apes being sexually dimorphic) because reality might offend outliers.
rejectfinite 4y ago
- socialismisok 4y ago
  99% of the universe is hydrogen or helium. I very much believe 1% is super important in the grand scheme of things. You are saying "80 million people is nothing". I disagree, I think 80 million people is a lot of people.
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    > I think 80 million people is a lot of people ... and thus, unasked by intersex people and without a clear theory of how this would help, you would destroy the concept of sex-based-rights which keep four billion people and the world's children safe?
  - mindslight 4y ago
    > 99% of the universe is hydrogen or helium. And the field where that prominence matters, astrophysics, refers to anything that isn't hydrogen or helium as a "metal". Definitions are fluid. Insisting that everyone tediously say "people who may possibly become pregnant" rather than the simple "women" (with the more precise existentially quantified, more and less inclusive intent being clear from context) is itself extremely intolerant.
- houstonn 4y ago
  0.018% https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    Or 1.7%, linked from that paper. I don't think there's a consensus number, I picked something in the middle and approximated to a whole integer.
adamsbriscoe 4y ago
Not sure what you're referring to but it's not 1 percent.. it's not even 0.01 percent. Cursory search: https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20190503/study-about-1-in-1000-babies-born-intersex https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20190503/study-abo...
- socialismisok 4y ago
  That link says 0.13%, first off, and it only includes people who have visible genital differences. Many, many more people have different genetic configurations that can manifest well after birth. I'll admit I rounded up to one percent from something that was a large fractional percent.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - snoozing 4y ago
    0.13% -> 1% doesn’t feel like rounding (it’s actually nearly a 10x change). 0.13 is not a large fraction. Assuming good intentions based on your other comments, but these things can elicit negative responses.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      Note that .13% was not what I rounded up. That .13% is a subset of people who are gender minorities (eg trans or non-binary) and there are several academic estimates that put the number higher than 1%. My intuition, reading through the studies and talking a conservative estimate, is that something like 0.6 to 0.8% is a defensible estimate. I rounded that to 1%. Other scholars pick higher or lower numbers, but it's not 10%, and I firmly believe that it's not 0.1% based on studies, which makes 1% the correct order of magnitude, imo.
      - snoozing 4y ago
        Fair enough.
knaekhoved 4y ago
Language ought to "cleave reality at the joints" - i.e. approximate an information-theoretically optimal encoding. If you start screwing over the 99.9%ile case to slightly improve the remaining 0.1%, you are not approximating an optimal encoding.
- detaro 4y ago
  How does referring to someone as "pregnant person" instead of "pregnant woman" "screw them over"?
  - rejectfinite 4y ago
    Read the article. Its a lot of other things baked into that.
eddic 4y ago
Clarifying question: are you saying that 1% of humans don't produce either "small mobile gametes or large, immobile ones"? In that case what do they produce? I've noticed that in the debate around 'binary' (on Twitter, I confess), some people claim that no human has ever been observed who didn't produce either sperm or ova (and never both). I'd like to know whether that's true. If it's true, then the GP's claim covers 100% of cases, not 99%.

striking 4y ago

So people with DSD / intersex people simply no longer exist now? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
houstonn 4y ago
That argument is a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of biological sex, which is connected to the distinct type of gametes (sex cells) that an organism produces. As a broad concept, males are the sex that produce small gametes (sperm) and females produce large gametes (ova). There are no intermediate gametes, which is why there is no spectrum of sex. Biological sex in humans is a binary system.
- eganist 4y ago
  Regardless, it misses the distinction between biological sex v. a mind's gender identity, and solely by the sheer quantity of neurons and possible interconnects, it's impossible to say that every person's brain strictly aligns with one of two modes of operation. (if anyone who specializes in gender studies knows more on this topic and believes I'm summarizing this—or even stating the problem—incorrectly, please step in; this isn't my specialty) In fact, it's only appropriate to say that every brain is unique in how it processes the self and the world, and that while for the majority of people it's easy or even innate to identify with certain characteristics, there are minorities for whom this isn't the case. We need to express inclusive empathy where we can, even if the only reason for doing so is to make sure that when we fall outside societally defined structures, we ourselves can also continue to be respected. Ideally we'd do so because we're trying to be good people, but my point is, even a selfish person should reach the same conclusion.
  - layer8 4y ago
    We should also acknowledge that language more often than not works in approximations and generalizations, and usually everyone still understands what is meant. There needs to be some flexibility on both sides.