Comment on nooo my genderinos
k4gie@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Do the two tails left of M and right of F mean there are males more male than cis males, and similarly with females?
the peaks do not designate “cis”, you can be cis and fall anywhere on the chart - being cis is about the sex you were arbitrarily assigned at birth.
And when doctors change assignments, it’s really unclear whether you’re cis or not if you transition - e.g. a baby assigned female at birth who is then weeks later assigned male at birth later transitions to be a girl, she was originally assigned female at birth - is she trans or cis?
So what youre saying is, is that because theres like 200 per million babies born without legs. That means we cant classify human beings as a bipedal species?
I mean, if you ask the owner of dog if the dog is a boy or a girl… How does the owner know what to answer? Do they take the dog for an MRI? Do some blood tests? How would they know?
And why would a doctor “assign” one sex, and then change their mind two weeks later? Is this a particularly stupid doctor?
All the shit to worry about in life, and this nonsense is what people choose to focus on.
There are like 1 in 100 people born trans, a similar number born intersex. It’s as common as having green eyes or having red hair.
Regardless, I figure the scientists are probably looking at this with more detail and seriousness than either of us.
well, thats a fucking lie.
That census data came from Brighton, which last time I checked, was the LGBT capital of the UK, if not the world.
Trans people account for between 0.1 and 0.6% of the population, and intersex is even less at 0.0018%.
Stop getting your facts from facebook.
Well, clearly. If you define a male characteristic as something that’s more common in men than in women and vice-versa, then e.g. being tall would be a “male characteristic”.
Height isn’t a binary thing with men being exactly Xcm tall and women exactly Ycm, so there’s people who have more of said male characteristic and people who have less. And you also have women who have more of this characteristic and some men (e.g. there are some women that are taller than some men).
The same can be done for every characteristic that’s associated with a gender. Genitals are on a spectrum (large clitoris vs micropenis), fat distribution is on a spectrum (e.g. there are men with breasts and women without), body hair is on a spectrum, hormone distribution is on a spectrum and so on and so on.
If you take a lot of characteristics at once it becomes clear in most cases whether the person you are dealing with is a man or a woman (though there are some where that’s more difficult or impossible), but if you take just a single characteristic (e.g. height) it’s impossible to say whether the person you are dealing with is definitively a man or a woman.
It means that traditionally understood cis male can still have some female characteristics (no facial hair, higher pitched voice, bad at driving) but some males will have none.
Yeah, I was kidding.
Is not being able to take a light hearted joke a female trait, or just a you thing?
wasn’t aware the sexism was intended as a light-hearted joke, my bad apparently
I don’t think it’s an accepted term anymore, but you reminded me that they used to call the triple X chromosome syndrome by the term Super-Female-Syndrome.
Probably not what the author intended though.
…
I am a horrible person, but the only thing I can think of reading this is a small-circuit wrestling event where all participants have this set of chromosomes, billed as ‘The Triple X Throwdown’, for the title of Supreme Female.
yes.
Yeah but they decay into sometjing indistinguishable from a cis person in like five seconds outside of extremely exotic lab conditions, so it’s more accurate to say they’re possible than “they exist”.
Funny.
If we assume that the distribution is measuring some trait (e.g. “testosterone content,” “femininity,” measured however you will), and it’s bimodal (distribution is dominated by two binary sexes), then there will be people on either side of both peaks.
Yes but beyond a elrelatively close range it does not remain stable outside of very expensive laboratory conditions. We have not yet found a way to achieve, for example, 16x standard hypermasculinity at room temperature without some very exotic blood chemistry i don’t entirely understand, except for the alcohol, and (i used to drink with a ucla researcher who was involved) he had to be restrained to keep him from building an exploding ramp to do what rhey all admitted, would have been an extremely sick jump off of.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Yes, hyperreal genders do exist, but are not stable outside lab conditions.
Mastema@infosec.pub 20 hours ago
I would submit David Bowie as a counter example.
SeptugenarianSenate@leminal.space 16 hours ago
Are we sure he would describe himself as either consistently “stable” throughout his experiences? Alternately, he might also protest to feeling as though his existence and the context around it might be well described as a sort of experimental setting, albeit not contained within a traditional laboratory setting.
Any world famous musician who not only survives their 30s but is relatively alive and kicking for decades later I would consider to pass the first condition, considering the track record for individuals experiencing that volume of fanatic obsession at young ages.
Mastema@infosec.pub 15 hours ago
You know… Maybe I interpreted the question wrong. I think I added the HYPER modifier to “gender”, rather than “real”. In my interpretation his gender sort of rotates in and out of 3d space like a hypercube. Now that I’ve noticed that the modifier was actually on “real”, I’m trying to figure out if that changes my answer. Because, while I may not know exactly what gender Bowie was going for, I know that his instantiation of it was far more REAL than most people manage to achieve.