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

81–90 of 132 posts

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

#81

Post by threatofrain »

Retric wrote: post #75
threatofrain wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would still take issue with the usage of spectrum. A spectrum is a scale with escalating/deescalating and predictable variation. As you go "up" and "down" the spectrum, I don't think you can say how you're supposed to interpret that. In my opinion, we should be supporting or phasing out concepts depending on its usefulness as a predictive instrument. I don't think the "spectrum" lens offers any power over "two majo…

Testosterone is a good example where just because there is a M/F differences does not mean that all M have more Testosterone than all F. So, within the Male designation there is a range of how Male someone is.

You see, "high" and "low" testosterone does make sense on a continuum. It is plausible to think that incremental jumps on this scale could mean incrementally different predictions. I could see how there could be some noisiness and complication, but that doesn't mean the construct lacks competitive utility.

However, I don't think the researchers would accept testosterone as an adequate spectrum to contain human sex. So what spectrum is proposed, then? I have difficulty imagining, because I think having a spectrum of Maleness vs Femaleness would be antithetical to what the researchers want.

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

#82

Post by mreiland »

copsarebastards wrote: post #57
coldtea wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it's a pointless argument to make when your 1% margin of error includes 70 million people. You say that like it's some huge number. 70 million or not, it's still 1%. Numbers get their significance relatively, not in themselves.

> You say that like it's some huge number. 70 million or not, it's still 1%. Numbers get their significance relatively, not in themselves. Relative to what? I can't believe I'm having this conversation. 70 million people is more than the number of people killed in both world wars. 70 million people is more than the population of the UK or Canada. Are you claiming that the world wars caused negligible deaths, or that…

> Relative to what?

Relative to the total. Are you that fucking stupid?

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

#83

Post by panzagl »

threatofrain wrote: post #68
copsarebastards wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You say that like it's some huge number. 70 million or not, it's still 1%. Numbers get their significance relatively, not in themselves. Relative to what? I can't believe I'm having this conversation. 70 million people is more than the number of people killed in both world wars. 70 million people is more than the population of the UK or Canada. Are you claiming that the world wars caused negligible deaths, or that…

Yes, but so what? How do you link this argument back? 70 million is a lot of people in MORAL terms. What about scientifically? We aren't talking about killing 70 million people. We're talking about the strength of constructs in terms of scientific utility. This is also the problem with huge numbers. It's very hard to process and we are intuitively intimidated by the largeness, such as with numbers from the state budg…

People are reading too much into this article- it's more like "1% of the population has this interesting genetic condition that may have impacts under some conditions" not "1% of the population is being discriminated against"

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

#84

Post by ChikkaChiChi »

If this is the case, then the headline and byline are clickbait oversimplifications in their own right.

If there are people in this world who wish to reject the concept of gender association with our biological reproductive systems, is there a need to provide additional classification, rules of governance, services, etc. other than "Denies classification"?

Otherwise, are we not chasing a long tail of specific situations in which everything can be deemed intolerant?

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

#85

Post by copsarebastards »

threatofrain wrote: post #68
copsarebastards wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You say that like it's some huge number. 70 million or not, it's still 1%. Numbers get their significance relatively, not in themselves. Relative to what? I can't believe I'm having this conversation. 70 million people is more than the number of people killed in both world wars. 70 million people is more than the population of the UK or Canada. Are you claiming that the world wars caused negligible deaths, or that…

Yes, but so what? How do you link this argument back? 70 million is a lot of people in MORAL terms. What about scientifically? We aren't talking about killing 70 million people. We're talking about the strength of constructs in terms of scientific utility. This is also the problem with huge numbers. It's very hard to process and we are intuitively intimidated by the largeness, such as with numbers from the state budg…

> Yes, but so what? How do you link this argument back? 70 million is a lot of people in MORAL terms. What about scientifically?

What about scientifically? Scientifically, there's no concept of negligible or not negligible. On what scientific grounds did you decide 1% was negligible?

The negligibility of a percentage is only choosable based on your values and how much you value what exists in that percentage. My argument is that in most contexts, you probably care about 70 million people. If that's not the case, you may be a sociopath. But my guess is that you aren't a sociopath--you're just operating under some temporary delusion that because you've decided to say 1% of people instead of 70 million people, your decision that the group of people in question is negligible is scientific.

> We aren't talking about killing 70 million people. We're talking about the strength of constructs in terms of scientific utility.

If you're claiming that 70 million people have no scientific utility, I'd like to see what utility function you're using.

> This is also the problem with huge numbers. It's very hard to process and we are intuitively intimidated by the largeness, such as with numbers from the state budget. $70 billion? Oh my god. How am I supposed to process that number?

I'm not sure how the fact that large numbers are hard to process means that 70 million people is negligible. Certainly saying 1% instead of 70 million makes it easier to process, but playing to human mental limitations isn't a particularly good source of truth.

> Also note that 1% is a figure arising from the most inclusive definitions.

I'll happily make similar arguments about 7 million people instead of 70 million.

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

#86

Post by copsarebastards »

ajkjk wrote: post #71
copsarebastards wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You say that like it's some huge number. 70 million or not, it's still 1%. Numbers get their significance relatively, not in themselves. Relative to what? I can't believe I'm having this conversation. 70 million people is more than the number of people killed in both world wars. 70 million people is more than the population of the UK or Canada. Are you claiming that the world wars caused negligible deaths, or that…

I can't believe you're having this conversation either. You're correct, obviously; you've thrown out tons of trivially correct examples to make it clear to everyone just how right you are, none of which have anything to do with this. You are of course aware that 1% out of a population has nothing to do with the concept of a 1% error on your taxes or 1% blood alcohol. Alcohol does not affect you 1% of the time if you…

> I can't believe you're having this conversation either. You're correct, obviously; you've thrown out tons of trivially correct examples to make it clear to everyone just how right you are, none of which have anything to do with this. You are of course aware that 1% out of a population has nothing to do with the concept of a 1% error on your taxes or 1% blood alcohol. Alcohol does not affect you 1% of the time if you have a 1% BAC.

So you agree then that whether 1% is negligible is based on context?

> Everyone here knows that if you make the population arbitrarily large, the 1% sample becomes large too. But can you really argue that being able to represent 99% with a binary spectrum isn't a pretty good approximation? What percentage would be good enough for you? Or are you going to say "99.9% isn't good enough because 7 million is a lot of people. that's more than died in X'?

Yes. In case you didn't notice, 7 million people is a lot of people.

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

#87

Post by dragonwriter »

protomyth wrote: post #78

Ok, a practical question: for those of us required to get a value for "sex" into a database, what possible values would be appropriate to have? // and yes, we have to ask as their a whole lot of laws and scholarships that reporting requires the number

IIRC, one database used by a large public-sector healthcare entity that I encountered used male, female, other, and unknown.

Of course, if you have external requirements to capture sex/gender, they probably also dictate the valid options. If you have multiple different external requirements, the options may be different for each and the correct value for the same individual may be different for different purposes. One value may not be sufficient.

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

#88

Post by Zancarius »

copsarebastards wrote: post #57
coldtea wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it's a pointless argument to make when your 1% margin of error includes 70 million people. You say that like it's some huge number. 70 million or not, it's still 1%. Numbers get their significance relatively, not in themselves.

> You say that like it's some huge number. 70 million or not, it's still 1%. Numbers get their significance relatively, not in themselves. Relative to what? I can't believe I'm having this conversation. 70 million people is more than the number of people killed in both world wars. 70 million people is more than the population of the UK or Canada. Are you claiming that the world wars caused negligible deaths, or that…

> 70 million people is more than the number of people killed in both world wars.

I've seen some estimates that suggest 72 million were killed in WWII alone, either from direct involvement or as civilian casualties. Considering the world population was ~2 billion at that time, close to 3.6% of the total world population died as a consequence of the war.

Oftentimes, it's helpful when comparing approximate statistics from different eras that you use the same relative baseline--in this case world population at the time those statistics were estimated rather than now.

Edit: Didn't see esrauch's sibling comment. Give 'em an upvote.

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

#89

Post by panzagl »

zenogais wrote: post #35
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…

Why defend a "highly accurate" approximation that also happens to be oppressive to the people who fall outside of it? So far as I can see learning to incorporate more nuance into our social understanding is the way these oppressive institutions are overcome, and how more diverse groups learn to coexist. Defending approximations like this runs dangerously close to committing the "naturalistic fallacy" of taking the wa…

Did you read the article? How is it oppressive? 1% of people have chromosomal problem that might affect fertility or have other medical impacts. This has nothing to do with an 'oppressed class'.

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

#90

Post by haberman »

bennettfeely wrote: post #46
haberman wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point I'd like to make though is that sometimes we use science to justify intolerance What? How can discovering the natural laws of the universe be a justification for intolerance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

I see that there is a history. But science, by its nature, is descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes how the world is, not how it ought to be.

Pretend for a second that science discovered convincing/rigorous evidence that white people were less intelligent genetically than other races. That isn't justification for intolerance against white people. We get to choose our values as a society, independently of the reality of the world around us. Science is a poor justification for intolerance, no matter what arguments people may attempt to make.

Post reply on HN