Comment

Grail@multiverse.soulism.net ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

Sure, the chromosomes and gametes exist, and are supported by biology… but how and why are we using those to define sex? Pinning down a precise definition of sex is incredibly difficult for biologists, the best definitions we have are a vague cloud of all of these vaguely related things. The only common thread is that all of these things differ between different humans, and have some (often tangiential) relation to fucking.

For any rigorous definition we come up with, that actually produces a distinct number of sexes, we can throw some curveballs at it that require the writing of exceptions and special clauses and caveats. We end up oversimplifying dozens of different variables into these broad categories that then lead to worse outcomes for the people who deviate from the dogmatic oversimplifications. And if we actually count each intersex condition and permutation and stage of transsexual transition as its own sex, then we end up with thousands of different sexes, and next to no predictive utility! It’s a nightmare!

My philosophy is: If you can’t create a model that is accurate, fair, and useful… maybe you’re trying to create the wrong kind of model. Go back to the drawing board and reevaluate your foundational assumptions. Come back with a different core idea.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Th4tGuyII@fedia.io ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
That's a very long way of saying the same thing as @Nalivai did.

And while I don't think you're wrong on the binary model of sex being disinclusive of intersex people and those with sex-related chromosomal disorders - that is not the same thing as saying biological sex is a lie.

Pinning down a precise definition of sex is incredibly difficult for biologists, the best definitions we have are a vague cloud of all of these vaguely related things.

Sex is the physiological result of sex chromosome differentiation.
By conventional standards that's "XY is male, XX is female".
Now we both know that model doesn't cover everybody, but saying we have no definition because you disagree with the definition given is just ignorant.

For any rigorous definition we come up with, that actually produces a distinct number of sexes, we can throw some curveballs at it that require the writing of exceptions and special clauses and caveats. We end up oversimplifying dozens of different variables into these broad categories that then lead to worse outcomes for the people who deviate from the dogmatic oversimplifications. And if we actually count each intersex condition and permutation and stage of transsexual transition as its own sex, then we end up with thousands of different sexes, and next to no predictive utility! It's a nightmare!

Saying that you end up with no predictive utility because a model only covers +99% of cases is also ignorant.

Every model that ever exists will always have caveats and exceptions. Simplification of anything comes with inaccuracies that end up needing to be addressed...

My philosophy is: If you can't create a model that is accurate, fair, and useful... maybe you're trying to create the wrong kind of model. Go back to the drawing board and reevaluate your foundational assumptions. Come back with a different core idea.

... And your take on this sounds an awful lot like the old GOP proposition of "if its not 100% perfect its not worth doing".

A model that covers +99% of cases, but requires caveats and special attention towards intersex and trans people is better than no model at all.

Especially when it comes to very really physiological differences that can get you killed with inadequate medical attention.

What we have ended up doing with the idea of biological sex would be absurd in any other scientific field. Imagine if chemists said "There are two elements: Hydrogen and helium. Together they make up 99% of all atoms, and everything else is a defect." That's what we're doing with sex.

That's a poor argument - as from an objective perspective, that's entirely true.

If you randomly took an atom from the universe right now, an overwhelmingly high majority of the time it'd be hydrogen or helium.

Basically all of chemistry covers the exceptions to that rule.

I do understand what you're trying to say, and I do agree fundamentally that a purely binary model is disinclusive of the people that don't fit - and that is shitty - but throwing out the entire idea of biological sex instead of suggesting that we need to be teaching a more spectral model of sex (like we've started doing with gender) I respectfully disagree with.

source