Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sex redefined: the idea of two sexes is simplistic

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 132 posts

Re: Sex redefined: the idea of two sexes is simplistic

#11

Post by Kalium »

Aloisius wrote: post #10
simon_ wrote: post #8

"Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of [atypical sex]." If the "simplistic" male/female binary explains >99% of observations, there does not seem to be a strong case for describing biological sex as a "spectrum"... I am 10,000% behind tolerance and acceptance for people of all genders and sexes and orientations, and it's very useful to understand how much biological complexity and…

> If the "simplistic" male/female binary explains >99% of observations, there does not seem to be a strong case for describing biological sex as a "spectrum"... 1% of the world population is nearly 70 million people. That is not a small population. One would hope that we might be more flexible in our descriptions considering how large of a population that is.

Does that make a highly accurate approximation into a less accurate one?

At what point is it acceptable to say that something is an approximation, and should not expected to be precise and accurate in perfect detail?

Re: Sex redefined: the idea of two sexes is simplistic

#12

Post by lexcorvus »

The observation that a characteristic exists on a spectrum, and the observation that the vast majority of individuals fall on one of two extremes of that spectrum, are not mutually exclusive.

For the overwhelming majority of organisms, including Homo sapiens, all proposed indicators of sex (anatomy, hormones, cells, chromosomes) give the same answer. Reading the final two paragraphs of the paper, it's obvious that attempts to muddy this naturally clear water are being made for political, not scientific reasons.

Re: Sex redefined: the idea of two sexes is simplistic

#14

Post by innguest »

lexcorvus wrote: post #12

The observation that a characteristic exists on a spectrum, and the observation that the vast majority of individuals fall on one of two extremes of that spectrum, are not mutually exclusive. For the overwhelming majority of organisms, including Homo sapiens , all proposed indicators of sex (anatomy, hormones, cells, chromosomes) give the same answer. Reading the final two paragraphs of the paper, it's obvious that a…

Bingo. This is just another way to divide people and create pointless discussion about a non-issue so we can praise the "tolerant" and chastise those who see it for the agitprop it is.

FTFA: > So if the law requires that a person is [sic] male or female, should that sex be assigned by anatomy, hormones, cells or chromosomes, and what should be done if they clash?

Easy, have laws not discriminate by gender. Isn't that the point? No need to discuss biology on and on to help some agenda.

Re: Sex redefined: the idea of two sexes is simplistic

#15

Post by breadbox »

simon_ wrote: post #8

"Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of [atypical sex]." If the "simplistic" male/female binary explains >99% of observations, there does not seem to be a strong case for describing biological sex as a "spectrum"... I am 10,000% behind tolerance and acceptance for people of all genders and sexes and orientations, and it's very useful to understand how much biological complexity and…

Surely 1% of the population is enough that we should e.g. have a way to legally recognize them, instead of forcing everyone to fit themselves into one of the two options.

Re: Sex redefined: the idea of two sexes is simplistic

#16

Post by Symmetry »

Aloisius wrote: post #10
simon_ wrote: post #8

"Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of [atypical sex]." If the "simplistic" male/female binary explains >99% of observations, there does not seem to be a strong case for describing biological sex as a "spectrum"... I am 10,000% behind tolerance and acceptance for people of all genders and sexes and orientations, and it's very useful to understand how much biological complexity and…

> If the "simplistic" male/female binary explains >99% of observations, there does not seem to be a strong case for describing biological sex as a "spectrum"... 1% of the world population is nearly 70 million people. That is not a small population. One would hope that we might be more flexible in our descriptions considering how large of a population that is.

It's closish to 99.9% so 7 million. Which is a big enough population that we should consider how we draft our laws and policies but not nearly so large that "male" and "female" cease to be useful concepts for our everyday lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Population_figures

Re: Sex redefined: the idea of two sexes is simplistic

#17

Post by Aloisius »

Kalium wrote: post #11
Aloisius wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the "simplistic" male/female binary explains >99% of observations, there does not seem to be a strong case for describing biological sex as a "spectrum"... 1% of the world population is nearly 70 million people. That is not a small population. One would hope that we might be more flexible in our descriptions considering how large of a population that is.

Does that make a highly accurate approximation into a less accurate one? At what point is it acceptable to say that something is an approximation, and should not expected to be precise and accurate in perfect detail?

> Does that make a highly accurate approximation into a less accurate one?

What we have right now is not an approximation, but a binary measurement. Turning sex into an approximation would be considered a significant step forward considering science tells us it is not binary.

Re: Sex redefined: the idea of two sexes is simplistic

#18

Post by ahelwer »

simon_ wrote: post #8

"Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of [atypical sex]." If the "simplistic" male/female binary explains >99% of observations, there does not seem to be a strong case for describing biological sex as a "spectrum"... I am 10,000% behind tolerance and acceptance for people of all genders and sexes and orientations, and it's very useful to understand how much biological complexity and…

I'm not sure what you're saying. If your model does not accurately reflect observations, your model is wrong. That's not to say it isn't useful - we still teach Newtonian mechanics, after all - but you wouldn't use it in any serious discussion of the topic.

Re: Sex redefined: the idea of two sexes is simplistic

#19

Post by barrkel »

simon_ wrote: post #8

"Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of [atypical sex]." If the "simplistic" male/female binary explains >99% of observations, there does not seem to be a strong case for describing biological sex as a "spectrum"... I am 10,000% behind tolerance and acceptance for people of all genders and sexes and orientations, and it's very useful to understand how much biological complexity and…

CO2 is 0.04% of atmospheric air by volume. Would it be a highly accurate approximation to say that air has no CO2? Could we then say that it is not possible to have problems with too much CO2 in the atmosphere, since our highly accurate approximation says there isn't any?

The article stands well on its merits. It's not political. It's talking about specific, measurable things with specific measurable effects, and 1% of a large number is still a large number.

Re: Sex redefined: the idea of two sexes is simplistic

#20

Post by TuringTest »

Symmetry wrote: post #16
Aloisius wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the "simplistic" male/female binary explains >99% of observations, there does not seem to be a strong case for describing biological sex as a "spectrum"... 1% of the world population is nearly 70 million people. That is not a small population. One would hope that we might be more flexible in our descriptions considering how large of a population that is.

It's closish to 99.9% so 7 million. Which is a big enough population that we should consider how we draft our laws and policies but not nearly so large that "male" and "female" cease to be useful concepts for our everyday lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Population_figures

> not nearly so large that "male" and "female" cease to be useful concepts for our everyday lives.

Who says those are not useful? The point is to not make therm exclusive by forcing everybody to be identified by one of them when it's not a good fit.

Post reply on HN