I’ll take this as a good faith question, and the short answer is that gender is a lot more complicated than that.
Yes there are two archetypal roles involved in sexual reproduction, but even that isn’t so simple. There isn’t just one feature that defines male or female, but a combination of traits including chromosomes, gametes, anatomy, hormones, etc. In the real world, some folks are born with features that don’t all agree with one or another archetype. Intersex people aren’t common, about 1 in 2,000, but their existence proves that sex isn’t just a binary. There’s diversity to sex that requires a more complicated scheme to account for everybody.
Gender, likewise, doesn’t follow the one-or-the-other model. Most folks are cisgender, but some folks have a gender that doesn’t agree with what people assume their sex is, or no gender at all, or a gender that doesn’t fit into the man/woman spectrum. It gets complicated quickly because gender is where sex and society intersect. Some cultures have different expectations based on gender, and some even have more than two recognized genders. That’s why we say “gender is a social construct”, because we all get to define for ourselves what it means to be a man, woman, or otherwise. And that’s also how gender is constructed, it’s a social project we all engage in collectively whether we realize it or not. Most just pass along the traditional gender roles that were passed to them, but those can change rather rapidly as society changes, like when clean-shaven faces became “manly” in response to WW1 soldiers having to shave so that their gas masks could maintain a good seal.
their existence proves that sex isn’t just a binary.
This argument has always struck me as odd as in virtually every other discussion we would accept that the exception ‘proves the rule’.
Humans have two hands, except when they don’t due to something impacting fetal development.
Humans have two kidneys, except when they don’t due to an error in fetal development or as a result of disease or injury.
There’s diversity to sex that requires a more complicated scheme to account for everybody.
Or just let the exceptions be exceptions with no social stigma rather than refusing to recognise that the vast majority of humans, and mammals, can be accurately identified as one of two distinct sexes.
Sure. Let’s just apply that consistently then. Atoms are binary, the vast majority (with fewer than 1% of atoms being exceptions) can be accurately identified as one of two distinct elements, hydrogen or helium.
I’m not quite certain the point you are making here. Is the implication that because humans typically have two hands, those that do not are not a group that can be described? Or that they can be, but only should be as the product of developmental errors?
We don’t generally, where we know exceptions exist, refuse to acknowledge their existence. Saying sex is a binary is saying there are only males and only females. That’s literally what binary means. Like binary notation either uses 0 or 1. If it was possible for sometimes to have a 2, it wouldn’t be binary anymore. That’s a different thing.
This is especially true for something like sex that is based on a grouping of traits, genes, expressions, etc. which are not universally 0 or 1. Sure, we generally agree on a category when some are different, but there’s some points where it’s not so stark. Hence, the binary fails because there can be overlap and grey.
Nobody is saying we have to stop using male and female to describe sex in most cases, especially in a medical setting. But if you had a child born intersex, and the doctor turned to you and said, “Nah, my gut says male. Nothing will be different,” you’d probably ask for a second opinion.
I think I was fairly clear, it is a binary system that has some rare exceptions.
Saying sex is a binary is saying there are only males and only females.
In healthy examples of mammals where development has occurred normally this is true.
This whole ‘its a spectrum’ argument is like saying humans aren’t bipedal, there’s a spectrum because some people are born without legs! It doesn’t make any sense.
That doesn’t mean that society should refuse to accept, include and support people born without the ability to walk.
Then it’s not a binary system. It’s a system with two extremely dominant members. Those are different things. You can be more binary in specific contexts e.g., gametes and egg vs sperm.
I’d be very cautious about the healthy description in reference to intersex people. I don’t believe you are trying to say anything nefarious, but there’s a reason it shows up in eugenics arguments.
I didn’t say sex was a spectrum, though perhaps someone else you were speaking with did. I wouldn’t use spectrum for sex, since there are multiple differentiating factors with differing measures.
It helps if you read and comprehend the comment chain to understand what is being discussed before you jump in with ‘I didn’t say that’ when I never claimed you did.
I don’t see why it’s so hard for you to actually read the comment chain. It is right there. You can re-read it at any time.
This whole ‘its a spectrum’ argument is like saying humans aren’t bipedal, there’s a spectrum because some people are born without legs! It doesn’t make any sense.
That doesn’t mean that society should refuse to accept, include and support people born without the ability to walk.
Make up your mind, are people who are not bipedal still human?
If they are, then obviously humanity is not exclusively bipedal and attempting to define us as such will cause problems with everyone from non-bipedal infants to the non-bipedal elderly and disabled folks of all ages.
This argument has always struck me as odd as in virtually every other discussion we would accept that the exception ‘proves the rule’.
This is category theory, the existence of exceptions means that the model is incomplete because it cannot categorize everyone. In this case, the exceptions prove that the rule cannot be binary, but must instead be bimodal to allow for the variation seen in the population.
Humans have two hands, except when they don’t due to something impacting fetal development.
Are you defining people without two hands as non-human, or are you admitting that defining humanity as exclusively two-handed will necessarily fail to account for all the exceptions to the rule?
Or just let the exceptions be exceptions with no social stigma rather than refusing to recognise that the vast majority of humans, and mammals, can be accurately identified as one of two distinct sexes.
Again, this is category theory. Exceptions mean you have forgotten to account for someone. Admitting that some people don’t fit neatly into the only two boxes you’ll recognize as legitimate is itself a form of social stigma that you perpetuate with your desire to “let exceptions be exceptions”.
All you have to do is recognize the obverse, that regardless of how vast the majority of allosexual folks and critters might be, it is not the totality.
It feels like underneath all this, it’s actually about people refusing to be marginalized and they want to be accepted as everyone else. But I think instead of trying to change words and ban conversations, maybe it’s better to teach people to accept and even enjoy more variations?
Because right now it’s a bit ridiculous. We are told to ignore obvious differences between people so nobody feels marginalized. That’s likely to make it very difficult to even have a conversation.
It’s like when you can’t describe someone as black or white, or fat or thin, and it just becomes really humorous in the end, as you are struggling to find other words that are identifying the person.
But I think instead of trying to change words and ban conversations, maybe it’s better to teach people to accept and even enjoy more variations?
This is naive.
How are we supposed to teach people to accept variation when they insist that there can be no deviation from the norm?
Because right now it’s a bit ridiculous. We are told to ignore obvious differences between people so nobody feels marginalized.
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here. Just a moment ago you were complaining that the language we use to talk about this topic was a problem, now we’re supposedly telling people not to talk about it? Pick a lane!
Who are you talking about that is insisting there can be no deviation from the norm? And maybe you don’t realize how teaching works… You need someone willing to learn to be able to be able to have a teacher. Banning words and discussions is absolutely the wrong way to go. History has shown this many times.
And my point is very simple. Don’t ban words. Have open discussions. Don’t support censorship of opinions or words. Don’t be afraid of what people are actually thinking of things. Stop trying to control what people should think, and stop trying to teach them what you think is right.
People will not read something online and change their minds. Just like you are currently reading my words here, and you will not agree or change your mind. Neither will I. That’s how it works.
I can’t be your teacher unless you want to be my student.
Who are you talking about that is insisting there can be no deviation from the norm?
Right-wingers, the only people who have ever had a problem with diversity.
Banning words and discussions is absolutely the wrong way to go.
I’m confused about what you mean, because the only people doing that are the “Don’t Say Gay” Florida Republicans.
And my point is very simple. Don’t ban words.
I get the feeling that you’re going to be angry when I point out that the only people banning words are the ones who want to make it illegal to teach kids that people like me exist.
Have open discussions. Don’t support censorship of opinions or words.
Make up your mind, do you want to actually have open discussions or do you think that avoiding censorship of the “opinions and words” of discriminatory groups is more important than the presence of the groups they discriminate against?
Stop trying to control what people should think, and stop trying to teach them what you think is right.
I think it’s fine that everyone gets to say what their gender is, as long as the archetypal roles stay the same - man or female.
Gender can be a word for how people define themselves, as long as we instead use “archetypal roles” to define what our physical body looks like.
I think what is frustrating is when people start to say that we shouldn’t include our physical body type at all in discussions. That’s taking it too far in my opinion. Going to the doctor and not telling what body type you are makes diagnosis impossible in same cases. And for what reason? That part doesn’t make any sense to me. Race, body type, and other things are important to know in many cases.
But otherwise, sure, people can define their gender how they like.
I think it’s fine that everyone gets to say what their gender is, as long as the archetypal roles stay the same - man or female.
But otherwise, sure, people can define their gender how they like.
I’m noticing a contradiction here.
Gender can be a word for how people define themselves, as long as we instead use “archetypal roles” to define what our physical body looks like.
And for those of us who don’t fit those archetypes?
I think what is frustrating is when people start to say that we shouldn’t include our physical body type at all in discussions. That’s taking it too far in my opinion.
Generally, it is considered impolite to talk to strangers about one’s genitals.
Going to the doctor and not telling what body type you are makes diagnosis impossible in same cases.
The medical setting is one of the few contexts where talking about one’s anatomy isn’t considered a faux pas.
And for what reason? That part doesn’t make any sense to me.
Do you want the historical explanation of how puritainism affected our culture?
Race, body type, and other things are important to know in many cases.
They’re relevant a lot less often than you’d think.
I’ll take this as a good faith question, and the short answer is that gender is a lot more complicated than that.
Yes there are two archetypal roles involved in sexual reproduction, but even that isn’t so simple. There isn’t just one feature that defines male or female, but a combination of traits including chromosomes, gametes, anatomy, hormones, etc. In the real world, some folks are born with features that don’t all agree with one or another archetype. Intersex people aren’t common, about 1 in 2,000, but their existence proves that sex isn’t just a binary. There’s diversity to sex that requires a more complicated scheme to account for everybody.
Gender, likewise, doesn’t follow the one-or-the-other model. Most folks are cisgender, but some folks have a gender that doesn’t agree with what people assume their sex is, or no gender at all, or a gender that doesn’t fit into the man/woman spectrum. It gets complicated quickly because gender is where sex and society intersect. Some cultures have different expectations based on gender, and some even have more than two recognized genders. That’s why we say “gender is a social construct”, because we all get to define for ourselves what it means to be a man, woman, or otherwise. And that’s also how gender is constructed, it’s a social project we all engage in collectively whether we realize it or not. Most just pass along the traditional gender roles that were passed to them, but those can change rather rapidly as society changes, like when clean-shaven faces became “manly” in response to WW1 soldiers having to shave so that their gas masks could maintain a good seal.
This argument has always struck me as odd as in virtually every other discussion we would accept that the exception ‘proves the rule’.
Humans have two hands, except when they don’t due to something impacting fetal development.
Humans have two kidneys, except when they don’t due to an error in fetal development or as a result of disease or injury.
Or just let the exceptions be exceptions with no social stigma rather than refusing to recognise that the vast majority of humans, and mammals, can be accurately identified as one of two distinct sexes.
Sure. Let’s just apply that consistently then. Atoms are binary, the vast majority (with fewer than 1% of atoms being exceptions) can be accurately identified as one of two distinct elements, hydrogen or helium.
I’m not quite certain the point you are making here. Is the implication that because humans typically have two hands, those that do not are not a group that can be described? Or that they can be, but only should be as the product of developmental errors?
We don’t generally, where we know exceptions exist, refuse to acknowledge their existence. Saying sex is a binary is saying there are only males and only females. That’s literally what binary means. Like binary notation either uses 0 or 1. If it was possible for sometimes to have a 2, it wouldn’t be binary anymore. That’s a different thing.
This is especially true for something like sex that is based on a grouping of traits, genes, expressions, etc. which are not universally 0 or 1. Sure, we generally agree on a category when some are different, but there’s some points where it’s not so stark. Hence, the binary fails because there can be overlap and grey.
Nobody is saying we have to stop using male and female to describe sex in most cases, especially in a medical setting. But if you had a child born intersex, and the doctor turned to you and said, “Nah, my gut says male. Nothing will be different,” you’d probably ask for a second opinion.
I think I was fairly clear, it is a binary system that has some rare exceptions.
In healthy examples of mammals where development has occurred normally this is true.
This whole ‘its a spectrum’ argument is like saying humans aren’t bipedal, there’s a spectrum because some people are born without legs! It doesn’t make any sense.
That doesn’t mean that society should refuse to accept, include and support people born without the ability to walk.
Then it’s not a binary system. It’s a system with two extremely dominant members. Those are different things. You can be more binary in specific contexts e.g., gametes and egg vs sperm.
I’d be very cautious about the healthy description in reference to intersex people. I don’t believe you are trying to say anything nefarious, but there’s a reason it shows up in eugenics arguments.
I didn’t say sex was a spectrum, though perhaps someone else you were speaking with did. I wouldn’t use spectrum for sex, since there are multiple differentiating factors with differing measures.
It helps if you read and comprehend the comment chain to understand what is being discussed before you jump in with ‘I didn’t say that’ when I never claimed you did.
I don’t see why it’s so hard for you to actually read the comment chain. It is right there. You can re-read it at any time.
You are describing a “Bimodal Distribution”, where most but not all fall into one of two categories.
If it were a binary system, there would be no exceptions.
Intersex mammals aren’t “unhealthy”, they’re simply different.
Make up your mind, are people who are not bipedal still human?
If they are, then obviously humanity is not exclusively bipedal and attempting to define us as such will cause problems with everyone from non-bipedal infants to the non-bipedal elderly and disabled folks of all ages.
This is category theory, the existence of exceptions means that the model is incomplete because it cannot categorize everyone. In this case, the exceptions prove that the rule cannot be binary, but must instead be bimodal to allow for the variation seen in the population.
Are you defining people without two hands as non-human, or are you admitting that defining humanity as exclusively two-handed will necessarily fail to account for all the exceptions to the rule?
Again, this is category theory. Exceptions mean you have forgotten to account for someone. Admitting that some people don’t fit neatly into the only two boxes you’ll recognize as legitimate is itself a form of social stigma that you perpetuate with your desire to “let exceptions be exceptions”.
All you have to do is recognize the obverse, that regardless of how vast the majority of allosexual folks and critters might be, it is not the totality.
It feels like underneath all this, it’s actually about people refusing to be marginalized and they want to be accepted as everyone else. But I think instead of trying to change words and ban conversations, maybe it’s better to teach people to accept and even enjoy more variations?
Because right now it’s a bit ridiculous. We are told to ignore obvious differences between people so nobody feels marginalized. That’s likely to make it very difficult to even have a conversation.
It’s like when you can’t describe someone as black or white, or fat or thin, and it just becomes really humorous in the end, as you are struggling to find other words that are identifying the person.
This is naive.
How are we supposed to teach people to accept variation when they insist that there can be no deviation from the norm?
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here. Just a moment ago you were complaining that the language we use to talk about this topic was a problem, now we’re supposedly telling people not to talk about it? Pick a lane!
Who are you talking about that is insisting there can be no deviation from the norm? And maybe you don’t realize how teaching works… You need someone willing to learn to be able to be able to have a teacher. Banning words and discussions is absolutely the wrong way to go. History has shown this many times.
And my point is very simple. Don’t ban words. Have open discussions. Don’t support censorship of opinions or words. Don’t be afraid of what people are actually thinking of things. Stop trying to control what people should think, and stop trying to teach them what you think is right.
People will not read something online and change their minds. Just like you are currently reading my words here, and you will not agree or change your mind. Neither will I. That’s how it works.
I can’t be your teacher unless you want to be my student.
Right-wingers, the only people who have ever had a problem with diversity.
I’m confused about what you mean, because the only people doing that are the “Don’t Say Gay” Florida Republicans.
I get the feeling that you’re going to be angry when I point out that the only people banning words are the ones who want to make it illegal to teach kids that people like me exist.
Make up your mind, do you want to actually have open discussions or do you think that avoiding censorship of the “opinions and words” of discriminatory groups is more important than the presence of the groups they discriminate against?
…
What do you think “teaching” is?
Hey @[email protected], did you forget about me?
I think it’s fine that everyone gets to say what their gender is, as long as the archetypal roles stay the same - man or female.
Gender can be a word for how people define themselves, as long as we instead use “archetypal roles” to define what our physical body looks like.
I think what is frustrating is when people start to say that we shouldn’t include our physical body type at all in discussions. That’s taking it too far in my opinion. Going to the doctor and not telling what body type you are makes diagnosis impossible in same cases. And for what reason? That part doesn’t make any sense to me. Race, body type, and other things are important to know in many cases.
But otherwise, sure, people can define their gender how they like.
I’m noticing a contradiction here.
And for those of us who don’t fit those archetypes?
Generally, it is considered impolite to talk to strangers about one’s genitals.
The medical setting is one of the few contexts where talking about one’s anatomy isn’t considered a faux pas.
Do you want the historical explanation of how puritainism affected our culture?
They’re relevant a lot less often than you’d think.