| ▲ | dubiousdabbler 4 days ago |
| It's really offensive to tell people with DSDs they aren't their sex. Sex is binary. People with DSDs are female or male, except for extremely rare cases. |
|
| ▲ | mftrhu 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| You can't say "$TRAIT is binary" when you follow that up with "$TRAIT can only be true, false, or sometimes something else". That's not a binary trait by definition. |
|
| ▲ | ck2 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Some people who are DSD consider themselves binary. Some people who are DSD take great pride in being non-binary. People who are DSD have been documented for CENTURIES https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex_people_in_history But that's my whole point, "sex" a spectrum and it's one of the big lies perpetuated by people who insist everything was known and set in stone, when their bible was invented, despite never having microscopes or telescopes or even eyeglasses |
| |
| ▲ | dennis_jeeves2 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >But that's my whole point, "sex" a spectrum and it's one of the big lies perpetuated by people who insist everything was known Yes I know it's a spectrum, and all 'intelligent' people I know this (the spectrum is unevenly distributed with 2 peaks). Of all the things in the world that people understand or misunderstand, why, to you, is this particular subject even an issue? | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "when their bible was invented" I can tell you that in Czechia and former East Germany, two most atheist places in the Western world, the concept of sex as a spectrum isn't especially popular either. People can be somewhat socially conservative without believing in the bible. | |
| ▲ | remarkEon 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You do not need microscopes, telescopes, or even eyeglasses to determine sex differences. The existence of chromosomal abnormalities does not mean we need to change the meaning of words. | | |
| ▲ | froh 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | and you can tell with the naked eye that an intersex baby is intersex, and neither "properly" male or female. except when the baby looks very female but is genetically male due to androgen insensitivity syndrome. then you need that microscope again... kindergarten level logic fails at physiological sex ambiguity. and it fails even more so at gender identity issues. | | |
| ▲ | remarkEon 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Not following your point, unless it's merely to say that parsing observable reality isn't good enough to determine the precise levels of hormones flowing through someone's body, which, fine. That's certainly true. However ... physiological characteristics are in fact dictated to a large extent by hormones, and as a result one can realistically make a good inference about e.g. who has more testosterone. | | |
| ▲ | froh 3 days ago | parent [-] | | my point is: biological sex follows a bimodal distribution with some in-between data points that are not trivially assignable to one or the other pole, called "intersex" humans. they are a biological, medical reality, and they themselves ask to leave children alone and allow them to decide when and if at all they want medical interventions. | | |
| ▲ | remarkEon 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Even calling it bimodal obscures the truth, though. When people read "bimodal" they think of the two-humped-camel plot, when reality is like two 60-story skyscrapers a mile apart with an apartment building or two in between. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | sapphicsnail 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | People routinely can't tell I'm trans. The differences are a lot more subtle than people realize. |
| |
| ▲ | worik 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | froh 4 days ago | parent [-] | | did you read the link? there are humans with ambiguous genitals (fka "intersex"), there are women with androgen insensitivity, genitally xy, born as perfect little girls, vulva and all, but alas, testicles. bummer no. sex, biological sex, is not binary. | | |
| ▲ | worik 4 days ago | parent [-] | | No I know that not every single human fits. That does nor stop it being a binary, or that binary being a major fault line This is a natural biological system, not a logical system. Cases that do not fit do not disprove the rule | | |
| ▲ | froh 2 days ago | parent [-] | | the strict binary is a world view, not science. scientifically, biological sex in humans follows a bimodal distribution with few but not zero data points between the two modes. and these are not just one single third data point but a number of them. forcibly assigning those to one of the two modes is unscientific and based of a binary world view. which is why some nations allow to put "diverse" as sex at birth, or do away with that at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | BriggyDwiggs42 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >it’s really offensive to tell people with DSDs they aren’t their sex. Not really true. Some people maybe. >Sex is binary Sex is complicated. Traits cluster bimodally, but it would be reductive, scientifically inaccurate, to say it’s a simple binary. >People with DSDs are female or male That depends on how female and male are categorized. The line between in the trait cluster and outside of the trait cluster is arbitrary. So it depends where you draw that line. |
|
| ▲ | megaloblasto 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The point is sex is a spectrum, we don't have to put everyone in little boxes then get upset when things aren't so clearly defined. |
| |
| ▲ | ChocolateGod 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Expressed sexual characteristics are a spectrum when there are mutations in the genes involved in the binary system of sex. | | |
| ▲ | froh 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | not sure what you mean, but there are disturbances in the development of sex, indeed. do you agree to that medical fact? | |
| ▲ | megaloblasto 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What? Sex is a spectrum, this is a fact. There are people born with testicles and rudimentary ovaries. There are people born with breasts and long penis-like clitorides. I encourage you to try and not categorize everything into neat little boxes. |
| |
| ▲ | mattmanser 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Saying it's a spectrum implies to most people there's some sort of Gaussian distribution and there's not. There's not like 20% of humans with mammary glands and a scrotum, right? Or 10% with no reproductive organs. Or 15% with both sets. The obvious flip side of 1 in 1500 is that 1499 out of 1500 are binary. So there's not really a spectrum as most people would understand that word. | | |
| ▲ | froh 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The word you're looking for is "bimodal distribution". The spectrum of sex characteristics is a bimodal distribution with two peaks. and the vast majority of all humans fall close to one of the two peaks peaks. however, they indeed exist medically classified circumstances for bodily sexual expression that is not on one of the peaks but somewhere in between. and the percentage of those not close to the peaks is heavily contested and varies between 1 in 15000 ( putting extremely high bars on "uh wen can't tell") to 17 in 1000 (counting for example a larger clit as a penis-y ambiguous thing) bimodal distribution with distinct peaks and a low but non-zero density between the peaks. | |
| ▲ | megaloblasto 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | To add to the other reply, nearly 100% of people classified as men at birth do have mammary glands and can lactate if they take certain medication. Some men can lactate without medication. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | seethedeaduu 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Indeed, and same goes for trans people. |
