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

121–130 of 132 posts

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

#121

Post by coldtea »

copsarebastards wrote: post #74
esrauch wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 70 million people is more than the number of people killed in both world wars Not that I necessarily disagree with your sentiment, but the world population was lower when those wars happened, so the the same number of people dying was far more than 1% at the time. Looks like WW2 alone was 3-4% of the global population. The world wars were also important for reasons other than number of deaths anyway.

That's a fair point on the change in population since WW2. However, I think that the atypically-sexed population is important for reasons other than numbers, too.

Sure, but that's a totally different argument.

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

#122

Post by coldtea »

copsarebastards wrote: post #86
ajkjk wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

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

Yeah, or as I put it: "Numbers get their significance relatively, not in themselves".

Whereas you repeatedly stated how 70 million people is a huge number in itself.

E.g. If I told you there are 70 million people that have blue eyes, is that "a huge number?" No, it's actually a small number. One would expect blue-eyed people to be in the 100s of millions or billions.

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

#123

Post by coldtea »

copsarebastards wrote: post #107
maratd wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 usu…

>We can, however, make laws and do medical research that has an impact on 70 million people.

Which is nothing this thread of discussion was about.

Nobody said not to study or legally hep those people.

Just that 1% is not enough to describe the total of cases as a "spectrum".

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

#124

Post by barrkel »

jcromartie wrote: post #99
barrkel wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%…

Molecules in air do not exist on a spectrum from Nitrogen to Oxygen.

And cells don't exist on a spectrum between male (XY) and female (XX) - leaving aside cells with abnormal numbers of chromosomes.

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

#125

Post by mreiland »

copsarebastards wrote: post #91
mreiland wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Relative to what? Relative to the total. Are you that fucking stupid?

> > Relative to what? > Relative to the total. Are you that fucking stupid? Since we're answering rhetorical questions here, no, I'm not stupid. My point is that the choice to compare the number to the total population is entirely arbitrary. That's why I compared it to the numbers of people killed in the world wars, and the populations of major countries. Why is your arbitrary choice of comparison somehow more valid…

In other words, you're fucking stupid.

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

#126

Post by copsarebastards »

coldtea wrote: post #120
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…

> Relative to what? I can't believe I'm having this conversation. Relative to the total population. Whether it's Canada, the US, France, or the Whole World you're taking into account, it's still 1% of it. > You can't just say 1% is a negligible amount without context. Probably you missed TFA and the whole conversation thread you're answering to? The context was if only 1% of the population doing them is enough to cal…

> Probably you missed TFA and the whole conversation thread you're answering to?

TFA and whole conversation are exactly the context which makes it ridiculous to claim that 1% is an acceptable margin of error.

> Of course. 1% blood alcohol gets its significance not in what it is ("1% oh, so much") but RELATIVE to the amount that's OK for a human to stand.

> 1% error in missile calculations gets its significance RELATIVE to the target area it has to hit and the acceptable margin of error.

Agreed. 1% error in judging the gender of people is significant relative to medical and social policy targets. On what grounds are you claiming that 70 million people are ignorable in medical and social policy?

Ironically, the only argument from you I've seen so far against sex being considered a spectrum is basically, "1%, oh, not so much". You said: "You say that like it's some huge number. 70 million or not, it's still 1%."

And ultimately, this is in research before we are even talking about medical and social policy. I'm not sure why we should just discard that 1% of data at all--there's no reason to artificially create error in reasoning that isn't imposed by data collection methods.

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

#127

Post by copsarebastards »

coldtea wrote: post #121
copsarebastards wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a fair point on the change in population since WW2. However, I think that the atypically-sexed population is important for reasons other than numbers, too.

Sure, but that's a totally different argument.

It's the argument esrauch was making.

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

#128

Post by copsarebastards »

coldtea wrote: post #122
copsarebastards wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 yo…

> So you agree then that whether 1% is negligible is based on context? Yeah, or as I put it: "Numbers get their significance relatively, not in themselves". Whereas you repeatedly stated how 70 million people is a huge number in itself. E.g. If I told you there are 70 million people that have blue eyes, is that "a huge number?" No, it's actually a small number. One would expect blue-eyed people to be in the 100s of m…

> Whereas you repeatedly stated how 70 million people is a huge number in itself.

I haven't claimed that at all. I've said over and over that context indicates whether it's important.

> Whereas you repeatedly stated how 70 million people is a huge number in itself.

No, I've said 70 million people is a lot in terms of medical and social policy. It would be very possible, for example, for 1% of people to account for 10% of medical expenses--an amount you would probably care about at tax time. I think that's a number that matters to almost anyone's political goals.

In contrast, you've been repeatedly stating how 1% is not a large number. Based on what?

> E.g. If I told you there are 70 million people that have blue eyes, is that "a huge number?" No, it's actually a small number. One would expect blue-eyed people to be in the 100s of millions or billions.

Science doesn't give a shit about your expectations. "Expectations" are entirely irrelevant to whether a number is big or little. A number is big or little depending on what effects it causes and what effects you're trying to achieve.

You're accusing me of arguing that 70 million is inherently a large number, but you're arguing that 70 million is inherently a small number, completely arbitrarily. I'm not even saying 70 million people is a big or small number inherently, I'm saying that 70 million people is a huge number when the properties of that group have medical and social implications. 70 million blue-eyed people isn't a small or large number, it's an irrelevant number, because whether or not someone's eyes are blue has almost no implication that I care about. If you understand why it's not a big or small number, but an irrelevant number, you'll understand my point.

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

#129

Post by copsarebastards »

coldtea wrote: post #123
copsarebastards wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 usu…

> We can, however, make laws and do medical research that has an impact on 70 million people. Which is nothing this thread of discussion was about. Nobody said not to study or legally hep those people. Just that 1% is not enough to describe the total of cases as a "spectrum".

> Which is nothing this thread of discussion was about.

> Nobody said not to study or legally hep those people.

> Just that 1% is not enough to describe the total of cases as a "spectrum".

Assuming that your medical and social policies are at all data-driven, failure to include people in your data is a guaranteed way to ensure that they are not studied or legally helped.

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

#130

Post by copsarebastards »

mreiland wrote: post #125
copsarebastards wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > Relative to what? > Relative to the total. Are you that fucking stupid? Since we're answering rhetorical questions here, no, I'm not stupid. My point is that the choice to compare the number to the total population is entirely arbitrary. That's why I compared it to the numbers of people killed in the world wars, and the populations of major countries. Why is your arbitrary choice of comparison somehow more valid…

In other words, you're fucking stupid.

Cool story bro.
Post reply on HN