The concept of "biological sex" is not even a binary, and it's treated differently in different parts of the world. So we haven't settled on definitions of biological sex outside as a species yet.
I expect this to be promptly removed from the front page. I’m happy to see taboo subjects being spoken of again.
Western cultures in the past couple decades have started acknowledging this, but the concept is not foreign to all countries.
And the changes proposed are to include as many people as possible. You might say, people are typically born with two arms, sometimes fewer. It doesn't remove the fact that most people express as 2 armed, while including the people who don't.
People 'typically' have two arms?
Well they 'typically' also have two legs, a sense of smell, sight, hearing, a heart, two lungs, the ability to speak.
What exactly can we expect all 'humans' to have? And how can we refer to them without making any assumptions whatsoever about their state of being so as to be 'inclusive' as you say?
It's a Monty Python sketch of absurdity and will end up with people slapping others in the face with fish.
Aside from probably using 'they' or 'them' in some cases in which we didn't tend to before, language as we use it is perfectly fine in almost all cases. It never will perfectly encompass everyone and that's fine, it doesn't have to.
This question answers itself, no? You can refer to them as 'humans'.
I'm happy to use he, she or they, because it's reasonable and rational but beyond that it's all shenanigans, I have no time for it.
I believe that we can be inclusive of those exceptions and treat them as unique things that are within the definition, rather than placing them outside the definition. I would rather spend the energy to evolve definitions to include people rather than tell people they are marginalia.
It sounds like you disagree.
It is not inclusive to call a woman a “birthing person” it’s actually excluding the women who can’t give birth. Are women who can’t become pregnant men? Of course not.
We have let politeness run away with us. It’s time to kindly, but firmly tell people there are two genders. It’s not a kindness to lie to a person, even if they ask for the lie.
Not out of the group of "women", so "Are women who can’t become pregnant men?" doesn't make sense.
EDIT: and indeed the creepy arguments centering womanhood around periods or pregnancy, which do actually exclude women who can't give birth from womanhood, tend to come from a subset(!) of the people that also are strongly against such language, not the people for it.
Woman who can't give birth are still women. Women who cannot menstruate are still women. We are not removing anyone from the set of women.
What we are saying is that, in addition to women there are also people who do not recognize themselves as women, but who can give birth or menstruate.
So, we could say "women, men, and other gendered people who give birth..." or "birthing women, men, and other gendered people".
But that's a mouthful. All genders are people, so we choose "people who give birth" since it includes women AND people who are not women.
So yes, it's inclusive because it's including women and not women, rather than only women.
What's it called? What's an example of a person of that gender?
What gametes do they have? What chromosomes?
Fact remains, there is no third sex. Intersex is not a third sex and sexual anomalies also do not introduce a third sex.
In mesopotamia, mesoamerica, and the Indus valley there were people of unclear sex who fulfilled genders beyond men and women.
A neologism from pan indigenous culture is Two Spirit.
These concepts have existed for a loooong time, however they were quite rare in western countries. As westerners, we're being exposed to them now, but they are hardly novel on the world stage.
Gender isn't sex.
In fact, it's only appropriate to say that every brain is unique in how it processes the self and the world, and that while for the majority of people it's easy or even innate to identify with certain characteristics, there are minorities for whom this isn't the case.
We need to express inclusive empathy where we can, even if the only reason for doing so is to make sure that when we fall outside societally defined structures, we ourselves can also continue to be respected. Ideally we'd do so because we're trying to be good people, but my point is, even a selfish person should reach the same conclusion.
The new cool thing is to pretend context/intent doesn't exist, that words and expressions should always be looked at in isolation. Even though it's a fundamental part of language and how the brain perception systems work to contextualize and loosely categorize everything based on the current set of information in a particular scenario.
Words/language is messy, highly flexible, and rarely strictly defined. For good reason.
Mostly so people can win internet arguments and feel superior/victimized.
Biological sex is binary. Gender is a social construct that may or may not coincide with biological sex.
Does every cell in every body react to hormones etc. the same way? There are differences between each and every person on the planet in terms of how each cell in their body reacts to things like hormones, neurotransmitters, and other signaling molecules that manifest either subtly or extremely. Anything from a person's height to their temperament to their hunger (literally, or figuratively e.g drive) can vary based on the production of and reception of these transmitters, and every single person's body varies in every facet of the above based on environmental and genetic considerations.
> I have a hard time believing that someone can be in the wrong body, as the brain is a part of the body.
That's an empathy thing.
> That's an empathy thing.
You're welcome to empathize with my inability to believe that someone can be in the wrong body.
"Disorders of sex development, or DSD (previously called intersex), includes a range of conditions that lead to abnormal development of the sex organs and atypical genitalia ..."
https://www.ucsfbenioffchildrens.org/conditions/disorders-of...
That 1% number comes from the Fausto-Sterling survey which incorrectly lumps in Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. Eliminating those diseases yields a rate no higher than 0.018%, 2 orders of magnitude lower as the upper bound[1]. Only a small portion have cells for producing both types of gametes, only about 5% of all intersex people[2][3].
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/
[2] https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001669.htm
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism#:~:text....
>broad hips, poor muscle tone and slower than usual muscle growth, reduced facial and body hair that starts growing later than usual, a small penis and testicles, and enlarged breasts (gynaecomastia)
It's by no means a settled matter what does or doesn't count as 'intersex'. I suspect that few reputable researchers would waste time engaging in such a pointless debate over terminology. Some relevant points in this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5808814/
All that said, one can, if one wishes, cherry pick the smallest available estimate of the number of 'intersex' people and thereby dismiss the issues raised by these people on the grounds that they're small in number. I'm not sure how much scrutiny the logic of that rhetorical move would withstand.
My only point in responding is to add useful scientific/medical context. People can make what they want of that information.
Fundamentally I agree with what you seem to be getting at, taxonomy is hard.
It’s only informative if it’s true. With regard to the second conjunct, people with Klinefelter syndrome and Turner syndrome are typically functionally infertile.
I’m not convinced that ‘a lot of experts’ are even working on defining what counts as ‘interesex’. It would make more sense to listen to intersex people, who as far as I can see, tend to think that a fairly broad definition is useful.
You have to use an extremely expansive definition in order to reach 1%. So expansive that it renders the term meaningless.
I'd rather make sure that the language I use includes them where possible.
Cursory search: https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20190503/study-abo...
Many, many more people have different genetic configurations that can manifest well after birth.
I'll admit I rounded up to one percent from something that was a large fractional percent.
Assuming good intentions based on your other comments, but these things can elicit negative responses.
My intuition, reading through the studies and talking a conservative estimate, is that something like 0.6 to 0.8% is a defensible estimate. I rounded that to 1%. Other scholars pick higher or lower numbers, but it's not 10%, and I firmly believe that it's not 0.1% based on studies, which makes 1% the correct order of magnitude, imo.
Man/Woman does. As do Male/Female. Disorders of Sexual Development are disorders, not new sexes. A woman without breasts or with an extra X chromosome is a much a woman as a man without arms or with an extra toe is still a man.
> are you willing to write off the [people] that doesn't cover
Those are weird made-up scare words. Nobody is writing them off. What does what even mean? We just don't recognize their identity or their identity terminology as being meaningful, in the same way an atheist feels about their religion.
They're just as welcome, or not, as they were without it.
I've noticed that in the debate around 'binary' (on Twitter, I confess), some people claim that no human has ever been observed who didn't produce either sperm or ova (and never both). I'd like to know whether that's true. If it's true, then the GP's claim covers 100% of cases, not 99%.
“Man” and “woman” are names for those nodes in the bimodal distribution of traits, as correlated with sex. Same as “cow” and “bull”, or “hen” and “cock”, or “doe” and “stag”, or “female” and “male”.
I’d rather my language be able to discuss the experience of the 99%+ than become incapable of discussing basic facts (like apes being sexually dimorphic) because reality might offend outliers.
If you start screwing over the 99.9%ile case to slightly improve the remaining 0.1%, you are not approximating an optimal encoding.
Why is it that those making the most 'biological fact' arguments ignore actual biology.
ffs
Few people take the time to study further because there's no need for them to do so. Just like I haven't studied veterinary medicine - it's just something I never needed to understand beyond a common sense level.
The problem arises when people who have been working with simplified models make assertions using those models.
That's just not true. Biological sex is defined by the gametes produced, and I'm not aware of conditions where one person produces both male and female gametes.
And probably do quite a big amount of damage to the spectrum inbetween by doing so. Seems like an excellent argument to not just focus on the binary.
Hell, nearly every atom in the universe is hydrogen and helium, does that make carbon, oxygen, iron, etc statistical outliers we shouldn't account for? Of course not. Our science and language accounts for even marginal percentages, why would it be any different when talking about people?
But do they hold more weight to rename how the 99.9% of the population is referred to?
it’s the latter that frustrates people IMO. I think if people focused on simple acceptance of themselves instead of trying to rewrite the social fabric, it would help.
Also, even though Hydrogen and Helium are by far the most common elements, oxygen is still a different element.