Hacker News Reader

Comment by webmaven | Hacker News Reader

Bah. There are a few good points made regarding the logical contradictions between non-binary and a spectrum, but the conclusion is entirely ignorant, erasing the lived experiences of people who are intersexed: hermaphroditic, chimeras, have extra chromosomes, etc.

Even if you concede every point the author makes (which I don't, but I am not up to writing a rebuttal), you can't get away from the fact that a substantial number of people actually do not, biologically, fall neatly into a 'male' or 'female' box.

This TED talk by Alice Dreger 'Is Anatomy Destiny?' gives a decent overview of a few of the biological sex variants that humans exhibit: http://go.ted.com/4qqoBg

View on HN

And a lot of people do not neatly fall into a 'black,' 'hispanic' or 'white' box and yet we see left wing parties and actors defending these labels, while attacking the traditional gender binary. If anything, they should first endeavour to make their system consistent before discussing others.

I think the article plays a little fast and loose to make a point. Not sure, but I'd always believed / assumed that the confusion around this topic was based on confusing terminology around three ideas: physical gender, gender identity, and attraction.

Personally, I have no idea what to do about or with physical gender, which seems to be what you're replying to. I apologize if my reply is off topic.

This article mainly seems to deal with the gender identity and attraction layers (attraction only in so far as the many gender definitions).

My concern with the proliferation of gender identities is roughly in line with the article. Feminism and early movements were inclusive and intended to dispel the idea that men and women were mutually exclusive properties. Instead, I believe, they were intended to show that there was a spectrum between men and women that everyone inhabited. So currently I'm on the same page as the article.

But my concern isn't the logical aspect of non-binary (though that is where the article is strongest) so much as the intention. By listing and itemizing identity you've changed the intent. As a 30 something white straight male I can't possibly understand the stigma, so maybe having your own *gender is preferable, but on the whole it feels divisive and weirdly clinical. That seems self-destructive; instead of making whatever you want to be normative you're trying to prove you're different.

I could probably type pages more, but like you I am not up to writing a rebuttal. At the very least I appreciate the reasonable tone of the article and hope the response to it isn't harsh. This really is one of the most important issues of our time and it feels hard to have an earnest discussion about the pros and cons of how to approach the issue.

In the end I think I agree with the conclusion... We shouldn't be categorizing every possible identity or attraction; we should be making it a more normative part of meeting people casually / romantically to have discussion about who they are and who they're attracted to / into. By throwing up divides we're short changing ourselves.

> you can't get away from the fact that a substantial number of people actually do not, biologically, fall neatly into a 'male' or 'female' box.

It would probably be helpful to cite some studies here, because there's at least one gross physical characteristic the existence of which suggests just such a neat boxing.

That 'gross physical characteristic' as you call it is actually present in both 'male' and 'female' humans, and can present in an ambiguous form: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quigley_scale

There are also human beings that are, due to genetic defect, blue-skinned--that said, hereditary methemoglobinemia is pretty rare (maybe 50 cases on record). Because of such low incidence rate, it would be silly to claim that it was worth considering when describing the human skin color spectrum.

Also, the Quigley scale is useful for describing intersex people--it is designed specifically to model characteristics of a subpopulation whose size might be be negligible. Without numbers or studies, I can claim with the same accuracy that the majority of people have either a functioning penis or vagina (though, in the interest of the anatomically minded, a many of the structures are of course related).

I'm merely suggesting that it'd be helpful in these discussions to have some studies backing up our assertions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com