Hacker News Reader

Comment by ubernostrum | Hacker News Reader

First off, it's likely that "sex" is much harder to define than you'd think. Human genitals all develop from the same proto-bits, creating more of a spectrum of configurations than a stark "clearly this one" or "clearly that one" binary. And chromosomes are not super useful either; just taking stats for two conditions off the top of my head, there are probably at least 1.75 million people walking around who are genitally "male" but chromosomally "female" -- the difficulty of detection (you have to literally look at someone's DNA) masks a lot of that stuff, and probably it's even more common than we currently estimate.

Second, "sex" in legal terms (for identity documents, etc.) is rarely necessarily tied to genitals or chromosomes, and more often is tied to a set of expectations about how the designated person will appear or behave. So even though the legal system uses "sex", what they're really describing is "gender".

View on HN

> "sex" in legal terms (for identity documents, etc.) is rarely necessarily tied to genitals or chromosomes, and more often is tied to a set of expectations about how the designated person will appear or behave.

When you put it that way, it really becomes unclear to me why it should be there at all. If we're not describing what type of biological creature a person is, and simply how they can be expected to behave, it seems like we might as well write down if the person is ill-tempered or meek, and if he or she likes to dance the waltz or the tango.

If we're not describing what type of biological creature a person is

Can you think of a reason why every single document about a person needs to note "what type of biological creature" they are? I'll give you a hint: there aren't a lot of good reasons for it :)

That wasn't what I was arguing.

Regardless of whether or not we're documening sex, why document gender if it is only "a set of expectations about how the designated person will appear or behave"?

We care a lot about how we expect other people to behave - in many cases, completely appropriately.

>Second, "sex" in legal terms (for identity documents, etc.) is rarely necessarily tied to genitals or chromosomes, and more often is tied to a set of expectations about how the designated person will appear or behave. So even though the legal system uses "sex", what they're really describing is "gender".

Really? I would say genitals as a heuristic for your legal status is probably extremely accurate.

Are you denying that humans are sexually dimorphic?

I would say genitals as a heuristic for your legal status is probably extremely accurate.

So, what sort of legal things do you think require possession of a particular type of genitals? To paraphrase the memes about gendered toys, there's nothing I'm aware of in the legal system that's operated directly by a penis or a vagina.

And really when you get into it you'll find that the things people want this information for tend to be things that aren't all that great to do (read: discriminating against people on the basis of sex, or trying to use a discrepancy between reported "sex" and identified "gender" to discriminate or deny access/rights to things).

Humans are sexually multimorphic, although a two-component principal component analysis takes care of most of the variance.

The thing about "heuristics" in this case is that it's a fifty-cent word for "generalizations" and generalizations are almost universally insufficient. Especially when it comes to a legal system.

What regarding the "generalization" of sexual dimorphism causes legal issues, in your estimation?

The Olympics actually gave up on sex testing once (not sure if they started again or not) because it turns out trying to lump people into two categories is an exercise nonsensical exclusion. Also both historically and currently there have been various category beyond "two" that have had legal distinctions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender

And of course we've got shit going on right now in the USA like http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-north-carolina-bathrooms... where that sexual dimorphism (thanks in some cases to modern science and in some cases to the the non-binary nature of human genetics) where that "di"-morphism (morphism meaning shape or appearance) directly contradicts the theoretical intent of some law or another.

An exercise in nonsensical exclusion? Men taking testosterone blockers still have more testosterone than women at the third standard deviation. There are skeletal differences in men that create an advantage in a number of high-impact sports.

"Third gender" is bullshit precisely because it tries to create a preexisting dichotomy that doesn't exist. I'm not a masculine caricature. My wife is not a feminine caricature. The people you meet day to day aren't walking gendered cliches.

You wanted examples where genitals where an insufficient distinction for the legal system? You're free to argue about why they were insufficient or whether they should be/have-been sufficient but there they are.

Mmm. I moved the goalposts in my second reply to 'where sexual dimorphism is insufficient'. Sorry if that created confusion.

I still maintain that genitalia are a very good heuristic for determining someone's sex.

It fails to account for edge cases, and much like software engineering, in law edge cases are 90% of the work.

Which edge cases? Providing a specific example would be enlightening, because as I see it the denial of sexual dimorphism typically co-opts the lives and lived experiences of intersex people or people with AIS to further the goal of a completely distinct group.

There have been legal issues regarding intersex people being mutilated at birth, but that "edge case" has been sorted out.

Pre-operational transsexual people and transgendered people who decide against surgery but live as a gender different from their birth one anyway are two edge cases where genitalia are a poor indicator of what their legal status should be. As for intersex people, how does the blurring (aka "denial") of sexual dimorphism diminish progress towards recognition and improving quality of life for them? If co-option does not detract from their lives and their struggles, what is the problem with co-option? Equality is not a zero-sum game, except maybe for those who discriminate.

I fail to see how when for all intents and purposes when they are men who adopt the social construct of femininity how their legal status is in any way poorly indicated. Intersex people are still sexually dimorphic. Genitalia is one of a number of ways that someone's sex is determined. Viewing them as the sole way is a mistake, sure there are things like AIS, but even in the case of intersex people, their genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics typically develop in a normal fashion.

Co-option does typically detract from their struggles. By using intersex people as a tool to push a political agenda you detract from the serious issues that surround their legal and medical troubles.

You can't pretend that the actions you take while pursuing a political agenda don't have positive or negative consequences. When equality in the case that you're advocating for comes at the cost of the groups you're purporting to help, or the groups that you use as part of your political narrative, then something is probably wrong.

I'm still waiting to hear what part of the legal system requires specific genitalia to operate, since that's the only reason I can think of for needing legal documentation to care about what genitals someone has.

"Viewing them as the sole way is a mistake"

! ! So you completely agree with us.

Why rely on a heuristic, when you can do better?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com