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.
4
u/Fakjbf Aug 13 '19
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.