Hacker News Reader

> Wikipedia is often okay for science articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman (4th paragraph)

> Trans women have a gender identity that does not align with their male sex assignment at birth, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology.

Even if you don't believe that trans women are women, it seems inarguably correct that they identify as women in spite of having been identified as male when they were born. You could complain about the vocabulary, I guess, but there's no set of vocabulary that won't upset someone.

I have definitely seen some bad science promoted for trans rights. But I don't really think "science" tells us what a women is, that's a social issue.

It's clearly a scientific issue, but also a social issue. There is a scientific definition of what a woman is, and there is a social definition (which is very close to the scientific definition, but which does depend a bit on culture and which can change over time). A lot of the debate comes from people talking past one another, without acknowledging that they're using the same word to discuss different topics.

One of wikipedias biggest issues is its inability to cope with words that have different but overlapping meanings.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com