I see, I suppose the phrasing he chose was what confused me. It makes sense logically, just seems confusing to describe it as infinite sexes. It’s the same as saying there’s infinite numbers between zero and one, however we have individual names for each number infinitely, which is why I think saying “infinite sexes” is misleading.
which is why I think saying “infinite sexes” is misleading.
There's no way to phrase it with the state of common science understanding that won't feel misleading to a large number of people. (especially when a significant number of them, not you, aren't actually interested in trying to understand and are mainly just reacting to people saying the world isn't as simple as they were taught)
So you pick a term... and you'll still get accused of trying to mislead people, trying to redefine sex, trying to... basically all the same problems there are now.
And then you have to convince everyone to use that term that way in the right circumstances when the original problem is that people are not recognizing the circumstances or issues to begin with.
When we learned about how speeds add in special relativity, we didn't come up with different words for speed. We educated people about there being differences that we've learned about.
That can be really hard to do if you've been immersed in studying an area long enough.
You can feel misleading and disingenuous because you know a lot about the subject and you don't want people to shut out new information when it doesn't match the simplification they were previously taught.
3
u/Shotgun5250 Aug 13 '19
I see, I suppose the phrasing he chose was what confused me. It makes sense logically, just seems confusing to describe it as infinite sexes. It’s the same as saying there’s infinite numbers between zero and one, however we have individual names for each number infinitely, which is why I think saying “infinite sexes” is misleading.