LogFAQs > #878546494

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Because male with XYZ female characteristics or female with ABC male characteristics is much more accurate and can provide much more helpful information.

Except it doesn't.

The woman I refer to is, for most purposes, female. The best shorthand would be calling her a woman with male chromosomes, as that more accurately describes her biology and the health issues she is most likely to face. The most accurate, if slightly more complex descriptor would be calling her intersex, then listing out her specific traits.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It also closes the door on apache-esque genders as you still only have male or female sex to reference off, not a spectrum (or simply grey area) to feed the stupidity.

Why do you consider that stupid? The "other" label is both convenient and accurate. Whether or not you want to admit to a spectrum of sexes, one exists. Spend any amount of time around intersex people and it will be pretty self-evident. In addition to the woman I've been describing, I've seen an individual (who simply identified as "intersex", not male or female) who had D-cup breasts and a ZZ-top beard. I met another who looked like a very effeminate man (and who apparently had "mostly" female genitals) - he identified as male, but had effectively never gone through puberty.

There's a lot of different "stuff" out there. For simplicity's sake, labelling it as "other", "intersex", or "sexually indeterminate" is fine. But adjl put it best: it's "a spectrum with two discrete approximations and a bunch of fringe cases that can be lumped together under "other" for most people's purposes."

Kyuubi4269 posted...

however in the rare case sex matters, she is male and this is evidenced by her infertility

Pretty bold claim to make, considering you have no idea what caused her infertility (for the record, it wasn't her chromosomes; her gonads failed to develop into testes or ovaries, and she had them removed).

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You're arbitrarily chosing the point of conception as the absolute start of deterministic systems. Under unaltered circumstances, an umdamaged egg would meet an undamaged sperm, however something lead to an outlier probability in the womb.

You've almost reached the "assuming spherical cows in a vacuum" level of theory-crafting here. This is a nice philosophical discussion, but you're reaching so far beyond the realm of reality that your point no longer has any practical application to the real world.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

By your logic we should abandon all reason because we might find a more accurate response at some time.

More that I reject your assertion that fact is "absolute" and, therefore, unchallengable. "Facts" can be refined, or outright discarded based on new information. Happens all the time.

And, again, when we get into definition we're no longer talking about "fact". We're talking about how we organize facts, which is entirely subjective.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

As is chromosomes are very reliable, we can trace issues that have intercepted the chromosomes effects and confirm that a definitive other fucked up the original intent and we can cleanly label them disorders. This system is consistent, it's much more reliable than chosing 5 different causes and pointing windly in the rough area they intersect, particularly since it lumps clear illnesses with an otherwise healthy body and muddies judgement.

So call it chromosomal sex. Doctors do. It seems to work pretty well for them.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!