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

21–30 of 132 posts

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

#21

Post by sbergot »

ahelwer wrote: post #18
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.

You wouldn't use Newtonian mechanics in any serious discussion? This is a strange claim.

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

#22

Post by Crito »

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.

For comparison: Approximately 1.3% of black males are born with polydactylism.

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

#23

Post by Kalium »

Aloisius wrote: post #17
Kalium wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As simon_ and Symmetry point out, that binary is in fact a pretty accurate approximation. So it seems we have both a binary measurement and an approximation in one. Perhaps we should consider that something can be both a binary measurement and a reasonably accurate approximation of a spectrum.

Regardless, my earlier question stands. At what point is it acceptable for an approximation to not be accurate in detail? What's the acceptable level of error in approximations?

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

#24

Post by moomin »

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…

Not really. There's 600 people in my office. The chance that all 600 match your approximation is about 0.2%.

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

#25

Post by Aloisius »

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

The article is referencing "DND" or Disorders of Sex Development. This is a far larger group than what "intersex" covers.

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

#26

Post by xxxyy »

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…

Also there is the fact that not all forms of atypical sexual development are really relevant to daily life.

For example it did not surprise me that the woman described in the beginning had no idea about her chimerism - after all her sexual organs were straight female (proved by the fact that she got pregnant, three times), so her blood was probably circulating lots of estrogen instead of lots of testosterone. Sure, her color vision was maybe working at the reduced, male level, but really - it is not that important.

On another note it is worth remembering that in vitro fertilization increases the risks of mosaicism and chimerism.

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

#27

Post by copsarebastards »

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…

1% of the world's 7 billion people[1] is 70 million people. That's a little less than the population of Congo, a little more than the population of France. [2]

I'll admit that what you're willing to call a "highly accurate approximation" is pretty arbitrary. There are some systems where I would call an approximation with a 1% margin of error a highly accurate approximation. But it's a pointless argument to make when your 1% margin of error includes 70 million people. I think we can all agree that issues which affect 70 million people are not negligible.

[1] http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...

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

#28

Post by nickff »

Aloisius wrote: post #17
Kalium wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The 'two-sexes approximation' is boolean, not binary. Boolean involves two possible values; binary involves an infinite number of possible values, represented in base-2.[1][2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary

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

#29

Post by pornel »

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?

Yes, we should, because getting it wrong can ruin lives and even cause deaths.
Post reply on HN