I Came Out as Intersex in Front of the Texas Legislature
politico.com
politico.com
And of course this 2% 'I' is not including most of the other LGBT... folks, but some (who've never worked on a beef farm, or done any actual genetics in a lab, etc) continue to insist that everything is a cut-n-dried binary. Never let facts get in the way...
> Even though many women with Turner syndrome have undeveloped ovaries and are infertile, their vagina and womb develop normally. This means they're able to have a normal sex life following treatment with female hormones.
But of course, biology can be messy, so there are exceptions, not just due to genetics but also due to development issues.
Apart from that there are also psychological issues, where one's biology might be clearly defined but the person might feel differently, for all sorts of different reasons.
a) "Vast majority" is what we seem to be arguing about here, eg when you tot up all the LGBTIQ+ people, they are not "zero" (as some try to claim) nor "chosing to do it" (ditto) nor sub-human (ditto) nor dangerous perverts (ditto, eg in that Bill).
b) And even if only 0.00000001% of people were not absolutely in a convenient binary category or the other, would that be a good reason to treat those few as political point-scoring opportunities, deny they exist, or discriminate against them?
I suppose that when large chunks of a population still see out and out racism and sexism as somehow acceptable, for example, picking on other minorities for personal gain doesn't seem so weird.
So fighting over the details of definition and number of intersex is rather to miss the point that is most definitely real and very much non-zero, and people in power refuse to act on that information humanely.
So.. you seem to be agreeing with me?
> b) And even if only 0.00000001% of people were not absolutely in a convenient binary category or the other, would that be a good reason to treat those few as political point-scoring opportunities, deny they exist, or discriminate against them?
Of course not. Did you think I was arguing that?
Saying that the vast majority of humans have a clearly defined binary sex doesn't mean that it's OK to discriminate those who do not.
But let's call things by their names, shall we? If we are to understand each other, that is.
> So fighting over the details of definition and number of intersex is rather to miss the point that is most definitely real and very much non-zero, and people in power refuse to act on that information humanely.
If it's non-zero, let's say it's non-zero and leave it at that. Let's not exaggerate numbers just because it's politically convenient.
But I agree, even if there was only one intersex person in the entire world, that person should have the same rights as anyone else. It's not OK to discriminate anyone.
However, let's speak honestly about these issues, so that we can make forward progress. Unlike what many people seem to think nowadays, it's actually possible to discuss important issues without distorting facts.
Besides, it's much more difficult to counterargue someone who is using true facts in their arguments than someone who is distorting facts to fit their narrative, so it's a win-win.
(I also accept that some of these people actually believe this stuff maybe even having thought about it, but some people will believe anything...)
Clarity and consistency and definitions are good, I'm with you. But when there are many people abusing them in bad faith to deflect and wound it is also important to continue seeing the wood and the trees.
My friend with half the cells in their body male and half female would like not to be arrested if ever visiting TX and needing to take a pee. At least some of the people pushing this sort of law do not care about facts or treating another human as their peer at all, they have $$$ and votes to make NOW.
Thus it is important to put up clear examples such as the one in the story to reduce support for as Bill such as this from people who do care about facts and humans.
Why would your friend be arrested for taking a pee?
Does your friend not have a birth certificate? Or does your friend's birth certificate not have an assigned sex?
In fact, I don't even see how they could arrest someone if they can't prove that someone's assigned sex is different from the bathroom they went to, given that it's not mandatory to carry your birth certificate?
I'm not saying I am in favor of this Bill (or anything else), I'm just trying to understand the situation.
Although, if I were to express my personal opinion, I think if your philosophy is to have separate male and female bathrooms (which I understand is favored by some women, due to some concerns which might or might not be legitimate), it does seem to make sense to legally assign people to one of the two types of bathroom, so that there is no legal confusion. However, in this case I think you'd also need to be able to legally change someone's assigned bathrooms, due to all the different complex issues that can arise throughout one's development, which could make someone's assigned category the wrong one, practically speaking.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/16324-interse...
Ambiguous genitalia isn’t the only possibility.
I know you didn't say, "Well because they're so much less of them we don't have to protect their rights." But why say that numbers too big? What's the point? Are you trying to discredit the speaker?
Whether or not that is your intent it does seem to be.
Propaganda isn't to convince the critical it is to give the morally corrupt an excuse not to think.
For the record, I'm not interested in reading whether someone selected a 'yellow dress' or 'purpley pink flowers' or who picked someone up when. I'd be more interested in reading about actual intersex issues.
I am in favor of protecting the rights of everyone, but I don't even know what 'rights' you are talking about.
The intersex prevalence depends on how you define "intersex", with some definitions (those who argue "if the term intersex is to retain any meaning") making the prevalence at 0.018%, which is 2 orders of magnitude less than 2%.
Whether that invalidates her argument or not I don't know, because again, I don't know what her argument is. I was just replying to the parent poster who was surprised by a figure which I was arguing was exaggerated.
That is all relevant. The immense gravity of her decision to become openly, publicly intersex, and the hours of apprehension and coaching required to go through with it, is a significant aspect.
If the dress was pink, would the situation be different? If the flowers were green, would that matter?
It's all irrelevant details, like 95% of the article probably is, from what I've skimmed. I'm willing to bet her argument could be summarized in less than 5% of the length of this article.
And I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to waste my time reading these sorts of articles, as I have many, many other things which are more important to me.
Which is a shame, because again, I'd be willing to read and learn about her issues if it was written in a more succinct, straight-to-the point style (which can still be long, but not filled with irrelevant details).
I can understand that there are people who like to read these articles, but I'm not one of them. I'm here in Hacker News to read articles to learn about interesting issues and discuss them with interesting people, as efficiently as possible. I'm not here to spend hours reading novels about random people...
The details are called human interest, and there were some interesting unstaged coincidences in there.
Not much was more important to her.
If you had written it, I'd probably be a lot more willing to read it, as you seem to write in the more direct style I was mentioning, unlike in these articles that are written in a style that reads more like a novel.
Now all that's left is for someone to summarize the rest of the article.
Chatgpt - or just read it yourself
Most people know pretty little about most things. You could view this as meaning that those things aren't really intersex, or you could view this as meaning that human sexual development is just another topic that most people know pretty little about.
So that, you know, people can understand each other and interact with each other successfully.
Sure, there might be cases that could be considered ambiguous, but it's still useful to have a definition that is as clear as possible.
If by 'intersex' or even LGBT* you include anything that is slightly outside the 'norm', whatever 'norm' you decide it must be at any given point, just because it's more convenient for you, then the terms lose their meanings.
If you'd apply the same reasoning to everything, then everything would become artificially fabricated 'What is a woman?' "dilemmas", which makes forward progress impossible.
Why would intersex people be legally excluded from taking a pee in a public toilet?
Don't their birth certificates have an assigned sex?
(Not that people carry around their birth certificates... but still, we're talking about a legal doctrine, not necessarily practical issues).
This isn't theoretical. Assignment surgery to try to get the best overall result is not going to happen at birth. It may take place many years later. It may take more than one go. That 'at birth' thing is arbitrary if for example you are a mix of male and female cells, or as in the story, genetically one thing but partly physically another. Especially if it takes some time to work out what the facts are for a given person.
What does one's genitalia have to do with breaking this new rule? I thought this new rule was about assigning people to the two categories of bathrooms based on their birth certificate, not their genitalia? (Not that I agree with it, because I'm assuming you can't change the birth certificate, but still).
So I would think that the new law is actually making things much more clear for the situation you just mentioned, rather than more ambiguous and problematic (due to the existing laws and customs you are speaking of, which can be more subjective and therefore lead to the problems you mention).
If there were any issues (e.g. if someone called the police), the person in that situation could just show a picture of the birth certificate on their phone, which would clarify any possible confusion and would avoid getting into trouble, wouldn't it?
In my view, leaving things the way they are, or making things more subjective only serves to add to the confusion and/or add problems, rather than making things more clear (especially when we're talking about the law).
That said, if you are going to have separate bathrooms (and therefore categorize people), I don't think the birth certificate is the right way to do it, if it can't be changed post-birth.
If a woman is screaming that there's a man in their toilets, attempting to argue with them about your birth certificate isn't going to get you anywhere good, nor let you take a pee, so in practice you can't do it.
(Someone I know well, British working in France, when Britain was in the EU, was told by local police that she shouldn't be working even though by treaty law she absolutely was in the right. When she protested the police said "Try arguing that from inside the cell I'll put you in." She left that job and in fact moved to another EU country after that.)
Being put in an invidious no-win position for someone's political gain is bad. There seems to be a lot of it about at the moment.
In fact, if the police are as bad as you say they are, then not making things legally simple and clear is even worse for these situations!
If the law clearly says: "assigned sex in the birth certificate" == "assigned bathroom", then it's much easier to argue to the police that you're using the right bathroom (although again, I wouldn't use the birth certificate as it probably can't be changed).
If you don't have a clear and simple law like that one, and your sex is somewhat ambiguous, good luck trying to convince the police that you're using the right bathroom!
In fact, the example you used is a good one: the police probably didn't believe your acquaintance precisely because such treaty laws are so long and complex, with lots of edge cases that are outside the norm (and therefore unlikely for your standard police officer to be aware of).
But if this whole issue is because women are frightened of predatory men in that circumstance then this issue is with predatory men not with (other) people that happen to be LBGTIQ+. The intersection is likely vanishingly small.
Politically easier to grandstand and bash an out group (and conflate them with predatory bad actors for lolz) than deal with bad behaviour properly?
The issue, I would guess, is not necessarily with predatory men that are also LBGTIQ+ (which would be vanishingly small as you say), but perhaps with predatory men that would claim to be LBGTIQ+, which these predatory men would have an incentive to do. This could be a much larger segment of the population, relatively speaking. That said, this is not the point I was arguing, as I don't have a clearly defined opinion about this.
What I don't understand is why people think that leaving things as subjective as they are (and therefore more prone to prejudices) is better than having simple and clear definitions and legal rules that can be adapted to each person's personal circumstances (again, assuming that you do want to have separate bathrooms).
Especially given what you said in another comment:
> That 'at birth' thing is arbitrary if for example you are a mix of male and female cells, or as in the story, genetically one thing but partly physically another. Especially if it takes some time to work out what the facts are for a given person.
Exactly. Since it would be difficult to work out what the facts are, it would be better to have a legally binding document that clearly says "you are allowed to go to these bathrooms". Then you would no longer have to "work out" these issues every time someone makes a fuss.
Although, I will repeat again that you'd need to allow this document to change after birth, as that would be required in some cases.
The point may be to try to avoid women (or anyone) being harassed in toilets: that is reasonable. But that has nothing to do with what happens to be on someone's birth certificate, especially someone already in a tricky circumstance through genetics or whatever.
However, you seem to be arguing that it's better to leave things as they are, in which there are no clearly defined rules, and whether there is "acceptance of difference and nuance" is a wild guess, depending on who you run into.
So in the worst case, every single time that someone makes up a fuss, you might be arrested and/or have to go in front of a judge. Every. Single. Time. Because you'd have no document that would clearly say "it's always OK for you to go to these bathrooms". I really don't see how that is better...
You and I agree that there would be sensible things that could be done, eg making it clear that someone is able to use a toilet appropriate to their currently agreed/certified gender where appropriate without argument. (Some idiots would still make life unpleasant for them on occasions.) And indeed countries with gender recognition rules HAVE made things better for the people who need it, but this Bill was not any of that, it seems.
And in many cases these days toilets are simply safely ungendered, which often means shorter waits for women too.
One of the UK daily papers that makes the most clickbait cash out of this topic has (or had) entirely ungendered toilets at their London offices AFAIK. It's outrageous hypocrisy.
Are they including people with an asymptomatic condition in the 1.7%? It's not quite clear but if they are that's very strange. Even counting people who have some medical condition related to sex hormones but remain unambiguously male or unambiguously female as "intersex" is arguably misleading for the general public.
In any case, those "late onset" people are not intersex "babies"!
> Being intersex can present in about 40 different ways.