▲ | crypteur 4 days ago | |||||||
Nothing in nature can ever be described with 100% accuracy by any model. But that doesn't mean models are useless. So imagine why we would use the binary sex model instead of three or a spectrum or what have you. | ||||||||
▲ | nathan_compton 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
Simple models are useful, but they shouldn't determine who is allowed to live a normal, productive, life without some very compelling justification. Like the "binary sex model" is handy, but nothing about it makes it obvious that we should definitely and always lock gender (another non-binary model often simplified usefully into a binary) directly to biological sex. | ||||||||
▲ | TheCoelacanth 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
There are only two elements in the universe: hydrogen and helium. The binary element model is 98% accurate. | ||||||||
▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
[deleted] | ||||||||
▲ | BriggyDwiggs42 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
Is a bimodal distribution, or a somewhat reductive “typical male, typical female, intersex” model, so difficult to understand that we can’t use it? I don’t think people are stupid. | ||||||||
▲ | ck2 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
Random but nature related: some birds have four sexes | ||||||||
|