LogFAQs > #882357641

A lot. The way we classify sex is a super simplified way of doing it that doesn't capture nature's complexity. We, as humans, created this two-sex model and said "this is the genitalia of this sex, these are the chromosomes of this sex, etc". That model doesn't exist in nature; it was created by humans to reflect, however simplistically, what we saw. But because it's a human-created thing, not every possibility really fits into it. It's sort of like the species model. What is a species? Who knows, really. We've got a model that sort of works and then occasionally an animal will break the rules, or we'll realize that a thing we thought was a separate species isn't, or whatever. The idea of "species" as a way of classification is a human invention, even though you could say that obviously different species do exist. "Sex" as a method of classification is a human invention. Nature doesn't sort stuff that way.

This argument is unbelievably silly. Yes, you can argue every single classification system (time, mathematics, sex, whatever) is a human invention and thus arbitrary. But this doesn't mean it's not useful. We don't have eleven billion sexes because such precise distinction misses the point of a classification system, which is to sort by similarity, as opposed to exactitude. Fundamentally, classifying human beings by sex is effective, because we can create discern (correct) patterns off this classification system - for example, that certain diseases afflict members of one sex more severely than the other, more commonly, or not at all. Trying to differentiate sexes further into many more categories until we actually find a statistically significant deviation (for example, a third sex that is three feet smaller than the average human female on average, possesses reproductive capabilities through contact, considerably tougher skin, whatever you want to go with) is entirely useless because classification systems help create rules you can use to simplify and automate procedures. A rule system constructed entirely out of exceptions is both the height of pedantry and singularly useless.

Or, to reduce the above monster of a paragraph to a single, pointed question: Medically speaking, dividing human beings into two sexes has provided us with efficient diagnosis methods. What benefit does separating into more specific categories provide over the two-category system? Because rule systems exist because they work, and if not they get replaced. Why would binary sexual classification merit replacement at this point in time?
---

Shine on, you crazy diamond.