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

101–110 of 132 posts

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

#101

Post by Jtsummers »

haberman wrote: post #90
bennettfeely wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

People have used what they believe to be true from either actual scientific evidence or a particularly bizarre/inept interpretation of scientific evidence to justify their actions. Science is descriptive, but people turn it into a prescription for how to do or deal with X. Whatever X may be. People read the scientific report saying that a glass of red wine has some heart health benefits and they start drinking (or justifying the drinking they already did). That's at least a benign (assuming they don't go overboard on the drinking) example. At points in history, and those points are described in the linked article, people believed numerous things about the various "races". They based this on scientific or pseudo-scientific findings of the time, that often fit their pre-conceived notions. They used this to justify their prescribed solutions. Whether it was slavery, subjugation or genocide.

It is a poor justification for intolerance, and that's part of what the original poster was pointing out. But just because it's a poor justification doesn't mean it hasn't been done. People (as a collective) are not inherently rational or logical. They're easily led by the nose by charismatic speakers and those skilled in rhetoric. They want to believe they're special or that someone else is to blame and when someone presents something that helps them believe that they lap it up. It's happened throughout history, and it'll continue through the future. The best we can hope for is that our understanding of the universe and nature casts light on more things so those that would abuse it have fewer shadows to hide in.

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

#102

Post by threatofrain »

panzagl wrote: post #83
threatofrain wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Yes, I think people are playing border politics without realizing it. They want to be more inclusive, but this is about construct validity and adding something new to the table, not talking about how 70 million people dying is tremendous.

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

#103

Post by maratd »

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 a lot of people.

So one person isn't a lot of people ... are you saying one person is negligible? That one person's life doesn't matter?

Two can play this game.

1% is 1%. Every life is important, but 1% is still 1%. And 1% is not a lot. Whether it's people, apples, or pencils doesn't matter. It's a ratio.

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

#104

Post by haberman »

Jtsummers wrote: post #101
haberman wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

People have used what they believe to be true from either actual scientific evidence or a particularly bizarre/inept interpretation of scientific evidence to justify their actions. Science is descriptive, but people turn it into a prescription for how to do or deal with X. Whatever X may be. People read the scientific report saying that a glass of red wine has some heart health benefits and they start drinking (or ju…

> The best we can hope for is that our understanding of the universe and nature casts light on more things so those that would abuse it have fewer shadows to hide in.

I suppose. But the question still stands: what if there was rigorous evidence that one race was genetically more intelligent than another? We need to have an understanding that such data would in no way be justification for oppression or mistreatment. We get to choose our own values. That needs to be the message, IMO.

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

#105

Post by copsarebastards »

threatofrain wrote: post #95
copsarebastards wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 argu…

Actually, there is a way to decide if something is scientifically better. All you have to show is that your construct is competitive within the ecosystem of constructs. You can weakly improve upon an existing model by adding tons of domain-specific complications, which is what should've happened. But instead of saying that there are two predominant sexes, along with many abnormal and discrete bins, they propose a "co…

> Actually, there is a way to decide if something is scientifically better.

Not in a general sense, there isn't. "Better" can only be scientifically defined in terms of a utility function, a goal. If you're trying to conduct, copper is better than rubber, if you're trying to insulate, rubber is better than copper. If you're trying to provide adequate healthcare and social protection to people, then a lower margin of error would be better.

> All you have to show is that your construct is competitive within the ecosystem of constructs.

Competitive based on what utility function?

> But there's no new theory here. How do I predict complications based on what factors? What's the new model? The "spectrum"? A spectrum is a scale with escalating and deescalating values as you travel up and down, where jumps in the spectrum are connected to jumps in prediction. As for abnormal and discrete bins, well, the scientific community already has that. What's new to the table? A reformation of language so that we avoid the word "abnormal"? But where's the improved model?

I think an admission that the current model is inadequate goes a long way towards motivating the discovery of better models.

> Also note that you propose that there's no way to think about scientific or construct "betterness". Yes there is. You can measure by complexity, prediction, explanation, or generalizability.

Okay, so you've named a bunch of utility functions. Now do you really want to apply those to this situation? How do we apply these to the question of whether 1% is a negligible margin of error. Let's optimize for those:

1. Lower complexity: "everyone is a man" seemed to work back in the day. 2. Higher complexity: let's subdivide male and female. There are certainly other genetic traits besides X and Y chromosomes that we could include in our definition of sex. (Hint: It's silly to optimize for higher complexity, but why? I propose that the answer is based on your values.)

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

#106

Post by copsarebastards »

notahacker wrote: post #98
copsarebastards wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, 1% don't select other; They get offended that you don't have Facebook's 72-pronoun list, and even if you do, that doesn't cover their particular favorite. Keep in mind that social media generally exemplifies the dregs of humanity. The people who make a fuss about "Other" on the internet are not representative of the everyone in that 1%. I'm pretty sure you don't have enough information to make the statemen…

Given a free and unlimited choice, I'd happily bet the vast majority of this 1% would happily and wholeheartedly select either "male" or "female". Moreover they'd probably be quite offended if you suggested they didn't belong in those categories, even if the wonders of medical science revealed they had certain abnormalities they might not even have been aware of or otherwise might have attempted to surgically "correc…

> Given a free and unlimited choice, I'd happily bet the vast majority of this 1% would happily and wholeheartedly select either "male" or "female".

True, but sex has medical and social implications that go beyond people's preferred terminology. You've brought up some of these concerns yourself.

> Frankly, arguments against the gender binary are much better rooted in cultural phenomenon like South East Asian Katoeeys and Samoan Fa'afafine who openly define themselves as a third gender rather than medical abnormalities which for the most part people prefer to overlook or even medically "correct" to align themselves with a binary gender identity they feel mentally comfortable with.

I'm not sure what makes you think that nobody in Western countries defines themselves as a third gender.

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

#107

Post by copsarebastards »

maratd wrote: post #103
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…

> 70 million people is a lot of people. So one person isn't a lot of people ... are you saying one person is negligible? That one person's life doesn't matter? Two can play this game. 1% is 1%. Every life is important, but 1% is still 1%. And 1% is not a lot. Whether it's people, apples, or pencils doesn't matter. It's a ratio.

> So one person isn't a lot of people ... are you saying one person is negligible? That one person's life doesn't matter?

Can we make laws, do medical research, etc. that will effectively help 1 person? I don't think so. If I see one person by the side of the road with a flat tire, I'll help that 1 person, but in the context of policy and research, 1 person usually doesn't matter because policy and research can't usually create a meaningful impact.

We can, however, make laws and do medical research that has an impact on 70 million people. I present as evidence for this the fact that life has gotten better (according to a variety of shared values which we could agree upon--fewer suicides, less violence) in the last few decades for people of atypical sexes.

> 1% is 1%. Every life is important, but 1% is still 1%. And 1% is not a lot. Whether it's people, apples, or pencils doesn't matter. It's a ratio.

No, context matters. If you don't think 1% is a lot in any context, maybe let's get you up to a 1% blood alcohol and see how you feel (hint: you won't feel).

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

#108

Post by Kalium »

copsarebastards wrote: post #96
Kalium wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. Then what is an acceptable level of error in approximation when dealing with people? 7 million, at a scale of billions? 7? 1?

I think an acceptable level of error in approximation in legal and scientific terms would be one where the error is not likely to affect people negatively according to shared values (a shared value might be: people shouldn't get beaten to death or commit suicide--both problems among atypically sexed people). That number is difficult to come up with: it would have to look at impact analysis to see whether programs can…

In other words, your answer to the question is to say it's a problem when an approximation is confused for the reality and policy formed accordingly.

Is that a correct assessment of your position?

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

#109

Post by Kalium »

TuringTest wrote: post #62
Kalium wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? Wha…

> What's the acceptable level of error in approximations? I'm fairly sure the lifes of those affected negatively by the error are outside the "acceptable level". We're talking about humans here, not mathematical rounding errors.

It seems your objection is not to approximations or the error inherent in them, but to what happens when people forget approximations are not reality. Is that correct?

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

#110

Post by zenogais »

panzagl wrote: post #89
zenogais wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

This is a reply to another post on here, that I think mistakenly got slotted at the root level.
Post reply on HN