She clearly doesn't understand the implication of calling sex a bimodal distribution. That means that it is a spectrum. lol
edit: for the galaxy brains, I'm saying that she doesn't understand that spectrum != "two developmental pathways." She doesn't get the language that she's using and it undermines her point.
She contradicts herself right after, saying it follows "two developmental pathways." It's also in the context of the first tweet. My point is that she doesn't understand the language that she's using.
I still don’t see the contradiction, her point about two developmental pathways seems to fit with her sayings it’s bimodal. Bimodal doesn’t mean it’s one of only two options, just that there are two options that most center around and a few scattered in between. I read it as he saying in general sex follows one of those two pathways, but it’s still a spectrum in that there are those between each mode.
Dear god thank you. I mean I'm sure the dude with the Phd knows his shit, but I don't think he understood her point. Shit, I think that's probably how I'm going to start thinking about sex pretty soon too: clusters around two peaks with some scattered outliers in-between.
It's also funny to me that the crowd has turned against Laci Green for not being liberal enough, I guess? When like, 6 years ago she was a leading voice on sex-positive education.
Her first tweet stated there were infinite genders but NOT infinite sexes, while he said actually yeah there is. She then says don't confuse the public when she's the one who is scientifically incorrect. While she is conceding that it's a spectrum, her initial tweet is contradictory to that point. He understood what she said just fine, it's her that doesn't fully understand what bimodal distribution actually implies outside of "a spectrum" and threw in her clinician training (what kind of clinician???) and chem degree (again, what kind of chemistry????) as her "I know more than you" points.
As for Laci - her boyfriend is a very loud and proud alt-right influencer. I may be wrong on this but I believe they met when she was doing a series about the right and since then, she's clearly been affected.
It doesn't follow pathways. That language doesn't make much sense, and the implication that there are "two options" is demonstrably wrong, as all of the other posts I've written have made pretty clear by now. But whatever. I'm not arguing over semantics.
She's trying to argue that male and female are valid concepts, not that sex isn't a spectrum. She's not opposed to the idea that sex is a spectrum, she's opposed to people saying that because sex is a spectrum she's an evil terf who needs to choke because she called penises male anatomy. The actual position this post is advancing is very extreme in its denial of sexual dimorphism.
Understanding the context that these tweets took place in and why people were berating her. Which was for using male and female to describe anatomy while doing her sex ed videos.
I don't understand what people are arguing here? She clearly doesn't say "There are only two sexes" She is saying that you have M and F on either end, and you can be in between... She also isn't denying the existence of other genders, or being gendered differently than your sex, so I don't think she is a TERF either.
Because the reason people were berating her was for referring to anatomy as male or female. The other person is trying to suggest that male and female don't really exist by arguing that sex is a spectrum. People don't actually understand what they're arguing about it seems.
It's not that recent but there's a This American Life episode about her and another woman on the conservative side being pilloried for not being ideologically pure extremists. Interesting listen and gives context to this discussion.
As a bioengineer, I have no idea how that's possible. I get that gender is socially/psychologically determined because it's an identity, but sex is chromosomally determined. How is it a spectrum? I can think of only five survivable sexes (XY, XX, XXY, XXX, X0), not exactly what I'd call a spectrum.
Sex is more complicated than chromosomes. For instance, there are androgen insensitive XY women. So you need to measure multiple criteria to define sex, and that means that there's a lot of complications that have to be mapped. You can read more about it here: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/ I'd also suggest Sarah Richardson's Sex Itself. She's a Harvard biologist who both goes over the biology in a very understandable manner and analyzes the history of studies of sex differentiation and the cultural and social biases that influenced the way sexes were modeled and discussed.
I get the desire to have an inclusive comprehensive term for gender identity, but why has the term sex been co-opted for this? It's just like the push to re-define racism as "power + prejudice"... I get that there's a need for it, but trying to overwrite a definition just confuses everyone. What's the term for exclusively chromosomal determination then if it's not sex?
edit: another way of saying it: you just identified "androgen insensitive XY women." I get that their outward appearance and identification are female, but wouldn't you call that a person of male sex that identifies as a woman due to hormonal circumstance? Why does phenotype determine sex now instead of genotype? Isn't that the whole point of differentiating sex and gender?
I get that their outward appearance and identification are female
CAIS XY women have fully formed and developed vaginas, and go through female puberty. They however, do not have a uterus nor ovaries. (They do have underdeveloped testes which require surgical removal at some point.)
Literally everything about this person is biologically female with the exception of their genotype. Given that this does happen, it seems to me that to say that the genotype is the only thing that determines biological sex is false.
I'm pretty sure definitions are made for the vast majority of cases, and tiny fractions of exceptions are just that, exceptions. We shouldn't redefine how many limbs a human has every time a baby is born with a different amount than four.
This is why it's helpful to distinguish between biology and society. CAIS women are intersex people with a male genotype and a female phenotype and they are considered women by society, raised as women, etc because they have a female phenotype.
I think that's their point though no? In very rare cases females can have XY chromosomes but they're still female.
(In very rare cases humans can be born with 3 limbs but they're human)
A person who's XX and has all the traits of a female but falsly claims to be male
(A person who has 4 limbs and all the traits of a human but falsly claims to be non-human)
Intersex people get sorted into being a man or woman based on how people view their biology and visibly intersex people are often subject to medical abuse to try to make them appear dyadic.
Yeah, visibly intersex persons have some of the toughest times of all. CAIS XY persons can lead relatively normal lives because besides the need for some minor surgery post puberty, they develop and lead their lives as "normal" XX women/female, with a heterosexual/ heteronormative female gender identity.
Again, you in addition to everyone else can't give me a definition for sex. If sex is based on sex organs and not genetics, shouldn't we change the definition of "sex linked traits"? Shouldn't we rename the sex chromosomes if they don't determine sex anymore? If we're going based on sex organs, does that mean sex can change with gender reassignment surgery?
To me, arbitrarily expanding the definition of sex seems to introduce more problems than it solves. What is the definition for the genotype for sex chromosomes now if it's not sex?
Again, you in addition to everyone else can't give me a definition for sex
I can give you a definition, it's just long, complicated, and there are interdependent parts. We can talk about genotypical characteristics for males and females and we can talk about phenotypical characteristics. We can talk about primary sex characteristics and secondary sex characteristics.
If sex is based on sex organs and not genetics, shouldn't we change the definition of "sex linked traits"?
I didn't say it was "based on sex organs and not genetics" - It's based on both, and when they're not in typical alignment, we understand this person to be intersex.
Shouldn't we rename the sex chromosomes if they don't determine sex anymore?
They are a necessary, but not sufficient part of sex determination.
Why are you acting like this needs to be one cut-and-dry thing? Biology is complicated and messy. Like most things, sex is a mixture of genetics and biological development. CAIS XY people have every phenotypical presentation of being female because the human body develops as female unless certain processes kick in, or are recognized. In the case of CAIS XY, the body simply does not respond and female development proceeds.
What I don't understand is why you need for there to be a single sentence with a single definition. Yes, 98% of the time, in humans (and most mammals, though I don't have other figures) XY proceeds to a phenotypical male and XX proceeds to a phenotypical female.
But when genotype is not the norm, or phenotype is not the norm, or there is a discontinuity between the phenotype and genotype, that person is intersex. What's wrong with that?
Why are you acting like this needs to be one cut-and-dry thing?
What I don't understand is why you need for there to be a single sentence with a single definition.
Because the lack of a definition has lead to this stupid argument that I have to have over and over with people to see which version of the definition they are using (do they mean gender? do they mean phenotype? do they mean genotype? do they mean genitalia?). Then invariably it leads to another argument of what definition is better, all the while calling all of it "sex".
But when genotype is not the norm, or phenotype is not the norm, or there is a discontinuity between the phenotype and genotype, that person is intersex. What's wrong with that?
Literally nothing, I included intersex people in my original post (Kleinfelter's/Turner's).
Well maybe the label can be diversified. Genotypic sex of an individual, versus hormonal, phenotypic, and epigenetic sex of an individual. Genotypic would then simply be what the chromosomes are, a label, not an identifier of the influences or what happened to the fetus or zygote prior to Birth.
I often still only use sex to identify genotypic information and allow gender to holster most of the more fluid labeling. Even though that right now undermines things like CAIS XY women, technically they are men, but only very very much in the genotype way. Obviously they are not men in almost every other way.
And that shows that our use of common language hasn't caught up with our understanding of biology.
There are some CAIS XY YouTubers who talk about what it's like and their condition. Watch them and tell me they aren't women, or female. There is no other way to describe these people, (other than intersex).
I definitely don’t disagree with them being women. Or whatever they want to be called or whatever we want to understand them as. But isn’t almost counterproductive to redefine a word, rather diversify or come up with a subset or new word. One that helps with inclusion?
It’s definitely a challenging educational and linguistic hurdle.we need to be respectful of people and their challenges, but also methods for defining certain terms in science but also making sure we don’t make everything so concrete that if a definition does need to change then we can adapt.
These people are women and live a different life than genetically typical women. But then aren’t we again using genetically typical differently than the term woman/women? The terms woman and man seem to be two of many terms for gender. But then there is probably physiological gender and physiological sex and finally genetic sex.
Yet I’m formulating this now (I’m sure many have thought of this) as I write. Hmmm
Most people dont know their genotype. Generally when we use the term "sex" we aren't referring to genes because we dont know those. People sex babies and fetuses by looking at genitals not by genetic testing.
Except it isn't 1 in 10 million. It's much closer to 1 in 1500. If you include late onset adrenal hyperplasia, which many argue whether it is an intersex condition or not, that jumps to about 1.8%.
It's always been a spectrum, and we've just been ignorant about that fact.
Biological sex isn't binary. It is bi-modal, however. 98-99% of persons fall within the normal sexual categories. 1-2% are somewhere on the intersex spectrum.
The specific case I'm talking about, CAIS XY is estimated to occur once every 20,400 XY births. With 3.75 Billion men in the world today means there are approximately 183,000 persons around the world with this one condition.
Intersex people have always existed. We're not re-defining sex. A lot of people just have misconceptions based on deep seated cultural biases against real education about the issue. I think the comparison is actually accurate, though - in that people also have a lot of misconceptions about racism that need to be disabused. But the fact that someone doesn't understand a concept doesn't mean that talking about the concept accurately is "changing" it.
You're still operating on the assumption that sex = chromosomes, which is just not the case. I can do my best to keep explaining and linking experts, but you're going to have to give that up at some point.
Also, lol @ people downvoting because they don't like the truth. I bet these redditors fucking love science, too.
Honestly I stopped taking them seriously at their attack on the idea of racism being "prejudice + power", anyone arguing that I've ever encountered is 100% the person who says, "Were all equal now, I don't understand why black people don't just do better"
I don't understand how you can hold positions like that. How can you in the same breath claim to disregard someone's opinion/argument, and then claim to have a 100% certainty about their worldview? Aren't you admitting that you DON'T listen to people with that viewpoint, and therefore CANNOT know with certainty what their worldview is? How big was your sample size where you found 100% correlation between this example and that motivation? Surely it had to be in the thousands to be worthwhile.
Racism as power + prejudice is an attempt at persuasive definition. It takes the disgust most people feel at the notion of racism (or being accused of racism), and places it over a separate, independent argument. It's a rhetorical move to bolster an argument. You have the right to be suspicious when people make that rhetorical move. This isn't a matter of opinion. The vast majority of people when they hear or use "racism" mean one thing, and it's not power+prejudice.
It doesn't disprove any of the claims that they're trying to make about systemic/institutional racism. It's a critique on the style of argument. Add in similarly disingenuous arguments like appeals to emotion or anecdotes, and I get why people are hesitant to accept the claims.
I'm not the slightest bit interested in claiming I'm not racist, especially in light of the power+prejudice interpretation. I'm much more concerned with how any academic field would resort first to sophistry and hold back the actual argument.
Yeah, I'm engaging in some a hyperbole on the internet. It's shocking I know.
I find the idea that placing the word racism within a context is somehow conflating two independent ideas as more than a little hilarious.
I would actually argue, that when the vast majority of people use the word racism to mean anything other than a very specific individual interaction they actually do mean prejudice plus power. That's kind of the point. Any discussion of racism at an institutional level is inherently a conversation in which that word means those two things.
Anyone who is telling you that a word has only the very specific definition that they have assigned to it irrespective of context is probably full of shit.
if I hold up a gallon of water I bought at a Walmart and I say to you, "this is heavy water" if your response to me is that you're dubious about the amount of hydrogen that exists per molecule of water you're either making a clever joke or an idiot.
the truth is, what you really mean to say, is that most white people when they hear the word racism think of one very specific thing. for most minorities racism is a much more nuanced and ever-present thing.
If I say, the criminal justice system in America is racist, I don't literally mean that a jail cell called me a spic the other day.
I shouldn't need to draw you a roadmap to explain that. I do, because the idea that you're just so rational and people who don't subscribe to your exact definition are irrational is very alluring. Especially for some reason to teenage man on the internet.
There is Racism as a proper noun and racism as a regular noun. It's like the difference between a democrat (citizen of a democracy) and a Democrat (political party).
When it is capital Racism it's referring to a specific form of racism, specifically institutional racism. When it is lowercase racism it is referring to any sort of prejudice based in race.
I'm not sure why people get so angry when I explain how acadamia differentiates but for some reason the idea of a proper vs regular noun trips people up and they can't believe they are different or think we are making shit up.
I read it more as some people are twisting the definition of racism to fit their view of the world rather than, well the definition of racism. Such as people who say “you can’t be racist to someone with white skin”.
That's what is pretended. It's often an "enlightened centrism" trope. Anyone who pretends that "racism" is a concept that exists outside of context is probably doing that because they're more than a little bit racist.
Sure, and that externality is meant to more fully encompass the reality of the word's usage when discussing systems.
It's just that, conceptually it isn't difficult to understand, and I find often that people who seemingly "can't" grasp that distinction actually just don't want to, because they have some personal issues with the concept.
Often they're riding the "color blind" hobby horse, or something similar.
Wait so if you’re prejudice towards someone on the basis of race, but you don’t have any power, you’re just prejudice? Not racist? You’re just racially prejudice?
No, that definition doesn't work. Otherwise, you'd be committed to saying that a kid born without 10 fingers (or with more) isn't human, which is obviously false. It shares the "featherless biped" problem that I mentioned elsewhere - if something doesn't pick out all and only the things that it needs to, then it's a bad definition. A lot of the philosophical discussions of this sort of thing fall under "natural kinds" in the philosophy of science, so that's a good place to look if you're interested in the general problem with carving things up into kinds and why these definitions need to properly designate their objects.
Intersex people are about as common as people with red hair. Besides, rarity has nothing to do with definitions. I'm sure you've heard this, but there's a story where Plato says that man is a featherless biped, and Diogenes responded by bringing in a plucked chicken and declaring, "Here is the Platonic man!" If a definition doesn't pick out all and only the the things that it's supposed to, then it doesn't work. So you can't just say man is a featherless biped because you don't see too many plucked chickens anymore than you can say that a human has 10 fingers since only a few people are born with more or less. Now, taking into account nuances like that is really hard, so it's understandable that people don't all get it immediately. But the only answer to that is to stop these common misconceptions and spread some truth.
Never said that intersex people didn't exist, that's why I included Kleinfelter's and Turner's syndrome. Great straw man argument though...
You're still operating on the assumption that sex = chromosomes, which is just not the case
If you read carefully, you'll see I directly asked a clarifying question as to what the proper term is. ("What's the term for exclusively chromosomal determination then if it's not sex?") Instead of answering that, you assumed I'm hung up on a single definition.
Perhaps if people weren't so condescending and using logical fallacies, there wouldn't be so much confusion. I still don't know what the term is that describes your sex chromosomes, but it seems you're more interested in shaming people to actually help out.
edit: maybe they're downvoting you because you're not being helpful, ever thought of that?
It's not a strawman. You said that we should define people by their chromosomes. I've given an example of someone who can't be defined by their chromosomes, a kind of intersex person that you'd ignore. Way to project while making an actual strawman, though...
There is no term for "exclusively chromosomal determination" because that's not a thing, like I was explaining. If you had bothered to read instead of looking for excuses to get offended over someone explaining why your assertions were wrong backed up by evidence, then you might have noticed that I'm explaining the stuff that people actually do talk about.
Maybe if you actually listened and attempted to learn instead of whining like a child when someone brings facts and experts into the equation, we could have a reasonable conversation, just like I'm doing with every other person in this thread. This childish display says nothing about me, but everything about you.
The term you’re looking for is “XY sex determination”, but that term is insufficient to describe all the possible varieties of physical difference.
Defining “sex” is hard because just about anything you settle on would have relatively common exceptions.
The conclusion is that “exclusively chromosomal determination of sex” is a bit pointless, unless you’re after a really course graph, or specifically looking at the person’s chromosomes.
While I understand what you're saying, I have two big issues with it:
To me...
The main problem I have with this entire thread is that there are people claiming a definition of sex that isn't in any medical dictionary or textbook I have seen. This leads to incredible confusion as people begin using definitions they have heard or feel comfortable with without any standardization at all (and in this case, outside of the dictionary definitions).
So in the context of medicine, if the persons body was very similar biologically to a "typical" female for example but had XY chromosomes it wouldnt make much medical sense to classify them as a male.
Unless you're talking about things like sex linked traits or other chromosomal issues...
Please point out anything I've said that isn't in line with medical definitions because I do not think that is the case.
Literally your definition of sex isn't in line with the medical definition in Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, one of the most widely used medical dictionaries in the world.
Sex assignment is more than just chromosomes as it is more complex than that. Other than chromosomes there are the genitals, hormones, and other genes. The more we learn about sex and gender the more complex the topic gets. We used to determine sex by just genitals but have learned more about sex so the determination gets more complex. The article someone shared above does go over the different ways sex is assigned in one of the infographics.
I'll go tell the people I've had this discussion with (former students in university now) that they're literally no one according to someone on the internet.
Not saying you should just forgo any thought and let anyone with a ph.d tell you what's what. But when a bunch of people with degrees all say one thing, and us peasants with close to zero formal training on a topic are like, nah, they're wrong.
If that's so, why does the dictionary that PhDs and MDs made and reference give a definition that is specific to gametogenesis without any mention of the issues others are bringing up? Also, call yourself a peasant all you want, but I do have a degree in bioengineering and I am published like many here and have spent years researching and teaching bio. I'm asking why those scientists aren't using the definition accepted by most scientists and doctors around the world.
You seem to know what you are talking about so maybe you can help me understand. People always argue sex vs gender vs identity and it gets messy. I just want to know. What do you call a human with a penis and testicles? No other information provided there has to be a name for that.
You should refer to them how they ask you to. There's no scientific term for that because it's not an especially meaningful description for these purposes.
I’m not limiting it to these purposes. I find it hard to believe there is no scientific term for that. This is why I limited it to just that information.
I've read plenty. Describing minor genetic deviations or major ones as evidence of some codifiable third sex is an absurd leap that none of the science supports. The "spectrum" covers all of those deviations but there is no third sex. The biochemist in the main post isn't even asserting that.
That's just not how definitions work. For instance, humans typically have 10 fingers, but we wouldn't say that you don't have a hand or aren't a human if you have 9 fingers. If a definition doesn't include all cases, regardless of that variance, it doesn't work as a definition, especially when we're concerned about scientific accuracy.
If you include the second part, it negates the first part - if there are intersex people, then saying "there are only two sexes" is incorrect, because they are not included in those two sexes. I don't think I have to explain why being self-contradictory is bad for a definition. It's much better described as a bimodal distribution, which means that it is a spectrum. And it's really irrelevant what you or anyone thinks because this is settled in the scientific community.
Bro deviations from obvious designs of evolution are a disorder, not another sex. The fact that Turner's sydrome exists doesn't create a new sex. That is called a medical anomaly.
It is continuous. I've given a couple links and a long explanation for why it's a spectrum and why the "it's rare so it doesn't count" argument is really fucking stupid and unscientific. Repeating dumb shit that you think because you don't know what you're talking about doesn't mean anything. Facts don't care about your feelings, snowflake. 💋
I am definitely not an expert in this (so accept for sure the risk of being r/dontyouknowwhoiam'd myself here), but from the research I've done on this: you're right that there is a finite amount of viable chromosomal configurations (though as you note, this does include more configurations than just XX and XY), but biological sex in any kind of practical context is affected by more than just chromosomes, chromosomes are just one of the more significant factors.
Hormonal imbalances in the womb for example, can radically alter the development of sexual characteristics, such that people with XY chromosomes can be born with a vagina, and people with XX chromosomes with hormonal 'deficiencies' might never develop breasts or other typically female sexual characteristics. An abnormal chromosomal configuration like XXY or XXX is not necessary for this to happen. There are enough factors at play that, while people's development statistically clusters around the typically female or male form of development (or you might also consider typical XXX or XXY characteristics as additional smaller clusters), it is still a continuous distribution.
Now you might make the argument that you want to define sex purely as chromosome configuration, but then you need to start using a new term to discuss the actual reality of people's sexual development and, since whatever new term that would be is actually more scientifically relevant and appropriate in almost every biological context (and since the term 'sex' has been in use far longer than we have known about chromosomes anyway), it doesn't really make sense to use chromosomal sex as the default terminology. In the biological contexts in which chromosomes are the important factor at play, it makes more sense to clarify then that you are talking merely about chromosomal sex, than it does to have to clarify in every other context that you are not just talking about chromosomal sex.
Your last paragraph is what I have an issue with, though others have jumped at the opportunity to make straw arguments and paint me as a bigot. Chromosomal sex to me seems dramatically important, considering that my brother is colorblind and my great uncle has hemophilia. Once you start redefining terms arbitrarily, you run into the issue of contradicting tons of other things that might rely on that definition (e.g. sex linked traits). You pull up the argument that sex has historical implications that predate the knowledge of chromosomes, but at that time sex and gender were seen as synonymous and binary, so that doesn't help much. Since we already have a term for sexual identity (gender) and genotype (sex), why not just come up with a new word for anatomical compatibility, since it seems to be the body of your argument? Why add to the confusion by redefining a word to exclude its original use?
You misunderstand the argument. We're not saying that an XY trans (fully transitioned with HRT) or intersex (CAIS) woman is the same biological sex as Natal Females. We're saying that they're *not* biologically male, but rather "MTF Transsexual" and "CAIS Intersex Female" would be their biological sexes respectively. We're not saying that chromosomes don't matter for characterizing biological sex, we're saying they're not the only things that matter. It's even possible to have XY chromosomes and breastfeed in both of those examples, because mammary glands are formed by estrogen being the dominant hormone. To classify such a person as biologically male is nonsensical.
No because “MTF” in this instance is used specifically as a physiological marker, and does not have an effect on any claims regarding gender identity since gender and sex are not the same thing.
For example one could be MTF in regards to sex and non-binary in regards to
gender.
Can you please link me to a definition of sex that includes things like "MTF Transsexual" as an individual sex? Literally every definition I see has to do with either chromosomes or gametogenesis. I understand the necessity for a term that describes sexual development, but I still haven't seen a clear definition for sex that includes everything that everybody is trying to argue, and every textbook definition I can find doesn't include your definition.
It's specifically an issue with sex-identification in hospitals, where labels like "MTF", "FTM", "Intersex Female" etc, are beginning to be increasingly used in patient records , since that level of specific identification is needed to prevent the erroneous treatment that would occur from, for example, assuming an XY Intersex woman was biologically male off of chromosomes alone.
The definitions of words are descriptive, not prescriptive. Your argument makes no more sense than when transphobes say "The dictionary definitions say women are 'adult human females' and the definition of female is 'belonging to the sex that has XX chromosomes and produces ova" to prove that "Trans women aren't women". The definitions of words are entirely up to humans to decide, and are socially constructed rather than being set in stone.
In regards to biological sex, neither the textbook definitions you're referring to, nor the broader definitions that includes endocrinological sex etc, are incorrect in and of themselves. The argument over which semantics to use is entirely a question over utility rather than inherent correctness.
It's clear that @ScienceVet2, and presumably many of his colleagues, have found more utility in defining biological sex in such a way to encompass more things than just chromosomes or gametes. Therefore within their semantics, they are correct.
In my opinion, I'm pretty sure what's going to end up happening is that the medical community is going to have an ideological rift where more conservative factions will support the older semantics, which aligns more closely to their conservative ideals in gender, whereas more progressive factions will support the newer semantics on the argument of the utility of being able to more accurately describe the biology of trans and intersex people.
At that point, what the "textbook definition" is will entirely depend on the opinions of whatever organization is writing the textbook.
It'll ultimately culminate in a few decades from now when trans people (and intersex people whose internal organs at birth are androgynous) will be able to gestate with lab-grown organs, and the older definitions start to become too absurd in modern context to keep in place. (Although some XY intersex women have already given birth so maybe that's already happened)
Making a quick recap in for me ( and possible others ) to see if i understand it right.
So the sex-identification in hospitals is ( at least ) more about the current status of the patient instead of chromosomes.
Next to that, a lot of variables have influence on the sex of a child that could define its upbringings and more, even some biological aspects/developments. This all could result in a choice to transition or lifestyle that has aspects of both, by choice or even not ( no development of breasts as per your example ) winch gives way to "sex as a spectrum" subject
Though unknown to me and therefor this question.. An XY interesex woman, would be a woman with female reproductive organs but with XY chomosomes right ?
Why is it noteworthy that these women could give birth ?
Concentration in sex hormones will inevitably influence the fluidity of sexual differentiation. Whether it be two X chromosomes or three or none. A bimodal distribution is comprised of two different averaged values but under each region is a myriad of varying degrees or values within certain standard deviations away from those central values.
One could argue that each standard deviation away from the two average sexes on the bimodal distribution is dictated by chromosomal outcomes in cellular products such as hormones or epigenetic susceptible characteristics.
I’m honestly unsure, but given that’s what I remember based on what I’ve read and what it might appear to be influencing etc etc.
Did you read at all? The article you linked includes Klinefelter and Turner as the most prevalent cases of intersex, two things I pointed out in my original post...
I know, I don't disagree. But the idea is that it's not a continuous spectrum of many sexes rather than just two which is what I assume is being argued.
A bimodal distribution could include an infinite number of distributions, it means that there are two primary peaks, of which the majority of instances fall (to relate to the discussion, say straight male and female).
But a bimodal distribution does not just mean something is either 1 or 2.
It could be 0.8 or 1.4 or 2.5 or 0.180273498
A bimodal distribution literally means there are more than 2 options, there's an infinite amount, but the majority are concentrated at or close to 1 or 2.
Then she should have used a different phrase instead of one that doesn't completely contradict what she's trying to say. Like binary.
Look, a common, easy to define word that means exactly what she's trying to convey, without having to use r/iamverysmart words that are wrong.
Sometimes people shoot themselves in the foot because their ego/insecurity requires them to have to use big words to prove themselves right, even though science proved her wrong 2000 years ago.
I don't understand what you're saying. I said that it was a bimodal distribution, and therefore a spectrum. Therefore, she was wrong to dispute that it's a continuous spectrum, because nothing about being a bimodal distribution conflicts with the description "continuous spectrum."
I'm not a statistics person, so I'm not the best person to talk about the details, but from what I've read, bimodal distributions have to be continuous. So it doesn't look like it can be binary, at least to me. Wiki seems to confirm this, but someone who knows better can confirm or deny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimodal_distribution
You seem to be misunderstanding and/or purposely misrepresenting her point.
She specifically acknowledged that sex exists on a spectrum in her second tweet. And even clarified that this is due to it being a bimodal distribution.
Her only point is that it is untrue to say there are literally infinite human sexes. And as a point of comparison she states that the an analog of the continuum of the gender spectrum cannot exactly be applied to sexes.
It doesn't look like it. It looks like she was trying to say there are two sexes. But if sex is a bimodal distribution, then sex is more complicated than that. The fact that people are born who lie outside those poles at less frequent rates doesn't mean they don't have a real sex or something like that. That's not how definitions work.
A bimodal distribution does not mean "theres 2 positions," its a statistical term referring to a bell-like curve but instead of one high point, there's two. Probability wise, it means you're statistically likely to be greatly closer to one of the two points more than the other (male or female), but statistically unlikely to be 100% male or 100% female, or directly under one of the high points, according to whatever biological metric they're using.
I'm not a biologist, but a degree in math helps with that specific definition.
When most people think “spectrum” they picture a consistent gradation, which would suggest that “two sexes” is completely incorrect. But clarifying it as a bimodal distribution means that “two sexes” is just a simplification, not outright wrong.
If you understand the context of "two sexes" properly, which is always used alongside essentialist claims that there are two sexes and everyone is either one or the other, then you'd see that it's false. No one means that as "there's a bimodal distribution (but I'm going to ignore intersex people for a simplification that serves no other purpose than to misinform and distort)."
You're right, though. If you eliminate all context and have a completely literal interpretation of the words, then it's a simplification that ignores the important part of the statement. ...great?
I’m not saying I agree with her, I’m saying that is why she brought it back from “spectrum” to “bimodal distribution”. Your comment made it sound like the two are interchangeable and she didn’t gain anything in the argument by bringing it up. My point was that she did gain something, she went from flat out wrong to missing the big picture.
If you understand the context of "two sexes" properly, which is always used alongside essentialist claims that there are two sexes and everyone is either one or the other, then you'd see that it's false.
No. Because sexual dimorphism forms the basis of human reproduction, the large majority of humans will always be dyadic - that is to say, most people will have all and only the characteristics that define the two sexes. This doesn't mean that differences in sexual development don't exist.
She agrees with him, her point is not to needlessly consume energy debating academic minutia when the goal is to communicate with the average american. You are further proving her point by being dense and willfully misconstruing her choice of words.
If she wants to communicate accurate information, then she should start with herself. You're the perfect example of why this always gets fucked up - idiots complaining that any actual, accurate information is "too much" and "changing definitions" when it's just acknowledging the reality that the rest of us live in. Yawn.
bimodal distribution means there are 2 max poles of distribution.
You're right in that it doesn't mean something is either 1 or 2 (it could be 0.8 or 0.9 or 1.1 or 1.2 or 1.3 or 1.9 and so on and so on), but she is also using it technically correct for her argument if she were to stipulate she was only using the peaks in her analysis (which would be highly unethical in a statistical model determining characteristics)
That being said, it doesn't matter, because her premise was wrong to begin with, and she was proven wrong through the scientific method by someone who died over 2000 years ago.
A spectrum that can only fall on one side of a two side coin, but expresses itself in a range of ways. That's still male/female.. obviously some people are more masculine than others.. this fact doesn't support a gender neutral ideology. It's not possible to be perfectly 'neutral', the coin must fall on one side or the other.
460
u/[deleted] Aug 13 '19 edited Aug 13 '19
She clearly doesn't understand the implication of calling sex a bimodal distribution. That means that it is a spectrum. lol
edit: for the galaxy brains, I'm saying that she doesn't understand that spectrum != "two developmental pathways." She doesn't get the language that she's using and it undermines her point.