Board 8 > First baby born in Canada without assigned gender.

(+) Yeah! (+)

KanzarisKelshen posted...

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?

all of this sounds like "yeah it's a social construction but it usually works" and I pretty much agree with that.

i don't think it belongs on birth certificates but doctors don't read those anyway
---

all of this sounds like "yeah it's a social construction but it usually works" and I pretty much agree with that.

i don't think it belongs on birth certificates but doctors don't read those anyway

...No. Do you not understand the difference between 'social construction' and 'rules system'? Society has nothing to do with it. You're confusing effect and cause. The cause of it being adopted by society is that it produces an useful result (said useful result is 'we can understand our world better through this system, perform effective scientific research, and waste less time arguing on pointless minutia'). The effect is society says 'sure let's go with that, it works', because it demonstrably organizes the world in a way that makes interacting with it easier. The reason we discern between two sexes isn't 'because' as you seem to think it is. It's because of efficiency. What I'm interested in is an argument in favor of having more sexes (with no changes in the human condition) being more efficient than the current system in use. Do you have one?
---

KanzarisKelshen posted...

The reason we discern between two sexes isn't 'because' as you seem to think it is. It's because of efficiency.

I don't care the reason, I care the actor. And the actor is people. It's a man-made system.


KanzarisKelshen posted...

What I'm interested in is an argument in favor of having more sexes (with no changes in the human condition) being more efficient than the current system in use. Do you have one?

I don't even care about this at all so I guess not? If you hum a few bars I can fake it.
---

Kenri posted...

KanzarisKelshen posted...

The reason we discern between two sexes isn't 'because' as you seem to think it is. It's because of efficiency.

I don't care the reason, I care the actor. And the actor is people. It's a man-made system.


KanzarisKelshen posted...

What I'm interested in is an argument in favor of having more sexes (with no changes in the human condition) being more efficient than the current system in use. Do you have one?

I don't even care about this at all so I guess not? If you hum a few bars I can fake it.

Then you shouldn't argue in favor of a worthless change. >_>

Basically your idea of 'let's do away with the current system because there's lesser variations we could use instead' is...useless. It doesn't actually provide an advantage. You should care about the reason because unless you can provide one, nothing you want done will actually happen. People aren't stupid, and neither are societies. What is not useful is discarded, what is useful remains. If you can't prove it isn't so, you may as well not even bother arguing in favor of the change because all you got are pointless tummyfeels.
---

i'm not arguing whatever the fuck you're talking about but keep on knockin' those strawmen down, buddy!
---

Kenri posted...

i'm not arguing whatever the fuck you're talking about but keep on knockin' those strawmen down, buddy!

Your words:

Yep. In kinda different ways though. Obviously sexual characteristics exist, but the way we classify them and the implications we draw from that classification are social constructions.

If the exception is more common than the disease you're checking for, it seems like the rule might be less than useful.

Bold is mine because this is important. You say the rule (rule system) 'might be less than useful'. I'm saying 'prove it'. You've said you can't. So basically, what I am saying as a follow-up is you should recant your statement until you have an argument worth entertaining, because you look like a fool arguing in favor of something you don't even understand. >_>
---

KanzarisKelshen posted...

Bold is mine because this is important. You say the rule (rule system) 'might be less than useful'. I'm saying 'prove it'. You've said you can't. So basically, what I am saying as a follow-up is you should recant your statement until you have an argument worth entertaining, because you look like a fool arguing in favor of something you don't even understand. >_>

Yeah it's not that useful when applied to a specific person. If you're a doctor for instance, instead of asking "Are you female?" (more likely it would be "Are you a woman?" or just assuming without asking at all but lol) you can just ask "Do you have a vagina?" (or whatever other body part you're concerned about). It gives you more information and is less confusing for an admittedly small number of patients.

I'm not saying "overturn the whole system! add 400 billion sexes!" You'll have to read some Hirschfeld to get that.
---

Kenri posted...

KanzarisKelshen posted...

Bold is mine because this is important. You say the rule (rule system) 'might be less than useful'. I'm saying 'prove it'. You've said you can't. So basically, what I am saying as a follow-up is you should recant your statement until you have an argument worth entertaining, because you look like a fool arguing in favor of something you don't even understand. >_>

Yeah it's not that useful when applied to a specific person. If you're a doctor for instance, instead of asking "Are you female?" (more likely it would be "Are you a woman?" or just assuming without asking at all but lol) you can just ask "Do you have a vagina?" (or whatever other body part you're concerned about). It gives you more information and is less confusing for an admittedly small number of patients.

I'm not saying "overturn the whole system! add 400 billion sexes!" You'll have to read some Hirschfeld to get that.

So basically, what you're saying is that the 'sex' line that says 'male/female' in a medical report should be replaced with 'Genitals: Vagina/Penis'? I personally think that's not great, but not for social reasons. Moreso because it can actually be deceiving in the case of trans people who've undergone sex change operations. AFAIK, vulnerability to certain diseases, illnesses and such isn't really dependent on your sexual organs but rather certain peculiarities of your genome and body chemistry (which are largely unchangeable, though this is an area where I need to do some research so I'm not exactly speaking authoritatively here). So like, it wouldn't be very useful medically speaking.

(It should be noted I'm all in favor of replacing the gender binary for something else that's more fitting to the current social climate, because that one is proving less useful with the passage of time. I just think the medical classification needs to be as clear as possible and leave no room for errors of interpretation, and this change might create some.)
---

KanzarisKelshen posted...

So basically, what you're saying is that the 'sex' line that says 'male/female' in a medical report should be replaced with 'Genitals: Vagina/Penis'?

No? I think it's not useful to have on a form at all unless you detail every (relevant) sexual characteristic, and if you do that you might as well do it for stuff like both kidneys too.

Like it's exactly the kind of issues you bring up that already exist under the current system! That's why I say it's not very useful for individuals!
---

No? I think it's not useful to have on a form at all unless you detail every (relevant) sexual characteristic, and if you do that you might as well do it for stuff like both kidneys too.

Like it's exactly the kind of issues you bring up that already exist under the current system! That's why I say it's not very useful for individuals!

Disregarding that I'm p sure kidney status is actually checked for and known...the point is that it's not generally used for an individual's specific benefit, but for the doctors'. If someone is male you can rule certain diseases when they present a given set of symptoms, regardless of what they look like. It saves time and effort so more people can be treated over time because less time is spent on 'brute force' testing. The patient doesn't get a say there, the doctors do because they're trying to optimize the time they spend on each patient to be exactly as much as they need to heal properly and no more than that. Coming at it from the patients' viewpoint is taking the wrong perspective, I feel. It's like complaining that blood type is listed on a form. It's a medical fact that matters a bunch and not having to run tests to confirm it helps a lot.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Like, foolmo could have left off the last sentence and I would have been like, "Ah, yeah, that's a fair point." I might have completely rethought my point of view. But instead, we have to constantly spout insults. I've always thought that foolmo and I were cordial, but maybe I should be disabused of the notion that one can be allowed to learn and grow on this board.

My god people are so incredibly sensitive and coddled on the internet now, what happened?

You really avoided thinking about my point because I was slightly mean about it? THAT is worth limiting your intellectual growth?
---

Bump
---

KanzarisKelshen posted...

Coming at it from the patients' viewpoint is taking the wrong perspective, I feel.

Well that's the perspective you're always going to get information from, so it's worth considering.

Like come on, you're saying:

KanzarisKelshen posted...

I just think the medical classification needs to be as clear as possible and leave no room for errors of interpretation

But also that if a form says F that gives you a bunch of relevant information that is clear as possible and leaves no room for errors of interpretation? Tell me -- what does an F on a form tell you 100% of the time?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

scarletspeed7 posted...

Like, foolmo could have left off the last sentence and I would have been like, "Ah, yeah, that's a fair point." I might have completely rethought my point of view. But instead, we have to constantly spout insults. I've always thought that foolmo and I were cordial, but maybe I should be disabused of the notion that one can be allowed to learn and grow on this board.

My god people are so incredibly sensitive and coddled on the internet now, what happened?

You really avoided thinking about my point because I was slightly mean about it? THAT is worth limiting your intellectual growth?

How about this - do you call people you interact with in the real world stupid? And, no, I considered your argument until you were rude. Because it really takes someone of a lesser intellect to fail at the most basic human civility, and that is you, apparently. Even now, you can't just admit you were rude.

I like how basic expectations of civility are the equivalent of coddling. Well, I guess virtually everyone I've ever met coddles me then. I'm not a super-intelligent person or anything, but at least the thousands of people I've interacted with over my lifespan in person have had the decency to call me stupid behind my back instead of to my face.
---

Kenri posted...

KanzarisKelshen posted...
The reason we discern between two sexes isn't 'because' as you seem to think it is. It's because of efficiency.

I don't care the reason, I care the actor. And the actor is people. It's a man-made system.

What do you mean by "nature doesn't care?" Because that doesn't seem true to me. Sex confers certain biological characteristics, so what is that if it's not nature "caring?" If it really didn't matter, there'd be no need for things like HRT.

I understand the chromosome complaint because it frustrates me every time I see it, too. It's a lot more complicated than that and people are trying to oversimplify the science to fuel their agenda. But, here's the thing, these sex chromosome disorders like XXY, X0, or XYY, also have unique biological consequences. They are not an argument against biological sex being real, they are an argument against the binary. The reason we continue to use the binary is because as far as we can tell, these disorders affect 5% or less of the population, and that's being extremely generous. So it's way more useful to specifically classify things when they occur.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

What do you mean by "nature doesn't care?" Because that doesn't seem true to me. Sex confers certain biological characteristics, so what is that if it's not nature "caring?"

Lots of things beyond sex confer certain biological characteristics too. But it's humans who decide that certain things relate to sex, others don't, and then generalize and classify based on that.

Like I know this is kind of abstract but it's not THAT complicated of a thing, so maybe I'm explaining it wrong? To use a more extreme example: we have the whole classification system for how endangered animals are instead of trying to track exact numbers of everything. So there's least concern/vulnerable/endangered/extinct (and a couple others but I'm simplifying). And that's all well and good but humans picked those categories, the threshholds to them, and assigned animals to each based on our observations. Capital-N Nature did not descend from the heavens and say "lo and pandas shall be considered endangered".

And as with sex, actually things are a little more complicated, because things can snowball from least concern to extinct fairly easily, or something that's classified as extinct might show up in a Chinese fish market or something.


HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I understand the chromosome complaint because it frustrates me every time I see it, too. It's a lot more complicated than that and people are trying to oversimplify the science to fuel their agenda. But, here's the thing, these sex chromosome disorders like XXY, X0, or XYY, also have unique biological consequences. They are not an argument against biological sex being real, they are an argument against the binary. The reason we continue to use the binary is because as far as we can tell, these disorders affect 5% or less of the population, and that's being extremely generous. So it's way more useful to specifically classify things when they occur.

I think I pretty much agree with this -- but usually chromosomes aren't the ONLY thing used to define sex, so if the binary breaks down because of e.g. XYY chromosomes, it should break down for lots of other possibilities too. And then we get into the (probably fairly useless) "there are 400 billion sexes" school of thought.
---

There's a difference between "manmade classification" and "completely arbitrary classification" which I think is where your disconnect is. Just because nature didn't 'create' the word doesn't mean it's not useful or describing something that tends to occur in nature. Humans decide that certain things relate to sex because the correlation of those certain things to the sex is too high to just be written off as coincidence without being called a clown.

Like you can say endangered/extinct are terms made by man and not nature, which is true, but it also doesn't mean they're completely arbitrary and randomly chosen. Nature didn't say "hey you need to call this extinct cause I really like that word" but it's also not the case that we just classify flies as extinct and expect them to disappear overnight cause we put that label on em. The label has a pretty well defined meaning-- just because a panda doesn't personally identify as endangered doesn't mean he's experiencing a population shift overnight.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

How about this - do you call people you interact with in the real world stupid?

Sometimes

scarletspeed7 posted...

I like how basic expectations of civility are the equivalent of coddling

The problem is you NEED civility to consider an argument. Why? It doesn't help you. If you're wrong you're still wrong and if you're right you're still right.
---

I'll never understand why people get upset over things that don't effect their lives one bit, and doesn't result in significant tangible harm to another living being.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

I'll never understand why people get upset over things that don't effect their lives one bit.

It's AFFECT YOU STUPID ASSWIPE
---

Keep fighting the good fight woodman
---

Kenri posted...

Lots of things beyond sex confer certain biological characteristics too. But it's humans who decide that certain things relate to sex, others don't, and then generalize and classify based on that.

This isn't true, because sexual reproduction exists in nature. What we're doing is looking at physical traits that are related to that and making an educated guess. It's not always right, but it's not arbitrary, either, and it works much more often than a simple majority of the time. I don't really follow your endangered animals comparison because this seems based on something more tangible to me.

Kenri posted...

I think I pretty much agree with this -- but usually chromosomes aren't the ONLY thing used to define sex, so if the binary breaks down because of e.g. XYY chromosomes, it should break down for lots of other possibilities too. And then we get into the (probably fairly useless) "there are 400 billion sexes" school of thought.

This is moving the goalposts a little, but when people start talking about chromosomes, what they really mean is that they think sex is genetic (or worst case, confuse sex and gender and think gender is genetic). XY/XX chromosomes are just the biggest, most obvious example of that. In reality, it can be many things such as presence/absence of SRY, defects in genes that it controls that are in non-sex chromosomes (eg SOX9), or possibly even stuff at the metagenomic and regulatory level that isn't strictly recorded in DNA. There's probably other factors, but I'm no expert. The point is, all of these things are biological and very rare. You can believe that too many exceptions disprove the rule if you really want, but I think that's wildly impractical. We still use the binary because it's useful and works extremely often, and even helps us to define the abnormalities!
---

foolm0r0n posted...

The problem is you NEED civility to consider an argument. Why? It doesn't help you. If you're wrong you're still wrong and if you're right you're still right.

I would consider the argument up until the point you are rude. Then I go and do something else because I am disinterested in continuing a dialogue with a person who can't handle common decency. I would rather spend time railing against that person's extensive history of poor behavior and then go do something else with my time at work.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

This isn't true, because sexual reproduction exists in nature. What we're doing is looking at physical traits that are related to that and making an educated guess. It's not always right, but it's not arbitrary, either, and it works much more often than a simple majority of the time. I don't really follow your endangered animals comparison because this seems based on something more tangible to me.

Sexual reproduction exists in nature and is detached from sex as we usually define it. But really, I'm not even sure what we're disagreeing over at this point if you're admitting that it's about "we (humans) making an educated guess".

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

We still use the binary because it's useful and works extremely often, and even helps us to define the abnormalities!

The idea of the abnormal is also a social construction based on what society has decided is normal :x

(That isn't really relevant I'm just snarking because I don't have anything to add here anymore.)

Lopen posted...

There's a difference between "manmade classification" and "completely arbitrary classification" which I think is where your disconnect is. Just because nature didn't 'create' the word doesn't mean it's not useful or describing something that tends to occur in nature. Humans decide that certain things relate to sex because the correlation of those certain things to the sex is too high to just be written off as coincidence without being called a clown.

Like you can say endangered/extinct are terms made by man and not nature, which is true, but it also doesn't mean they're completely arbitrary and randomly chosen. Nature didn't say "hey you need to call this extinct cause I really like that word" but it's also not the case that we just classify flies as extinct and expect them to disappear overnight cause we put that label on em. The label has a pretty well defined meaning-- just because a panda doesn't personally identify as endangered doesn't mean he's experiencing a population shift overnight.

Not talking about the word itself, I'm talking about the whole system being created by society, maintained by human decisions, subject to revision by humans, etc. It definitely seems like you agree with this based on how you're talking about it, so...
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

I would consider the argument up until the point you are rude. Then I go and do something else because I am disinterested in continuing a dialogue with a person who can't handle common decency. I would rather spend time railing against that person's extensive history of poor behavior and then go do something else with my time at work.

Works for me
---

Kenri posted...

Sexual reproduction exists in nature and is detached from sex as we usually define it. But really, I'm not even sure what we're disagreeing over at this point if you're admitting that it's about "we (humans) making an educated guess".

First point sure, but it's still got "rules" specific to species and there's a way it's expected to work.

Second point, I responded because you made a post about how biological sex is a social construct and a useless classification, which it isn't.

Yeah, everyone's biology is completely unique. But how stupid would it be if you went to the doctor because it hurts when you pee and they just went "sorry but since everyone's different I guess I don't know what's wrong!"
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Second point, I responded because you made a post about how biological sex is a social construct and a useless classification, which it isn't.

You seem to only disagree with the latter!


HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Yeah, everyone's biology is completely unique. But how stupid would it be if you went to the doctor because it hurts when you pee and they just went "sorry but since everyone's different I guess I don't know what's wrong!"

I mean, this happens all the time anyway? I can't imagine it would be any worse if they had better, but less concise, information.
---

Kenri posted...

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...
Second point, I responded because you made a post about how biological sex is a social construct and a useless classification, which it isn't.

You seem to only disagree with the latter!

I don't understand how you got that from my posts. If you are saying "sex is a social construct" you are saying "there are no biological factors to sex." That's 100% wrong.

There's room to believe that the binary distinction is a social construct AND that the biology matters, but the way you are phrasing your statements, you are denying the biology. That's unhelpful.
---

Biological factors and characteristics exist. Sex as a system of classifying them is a social construct. I've been consistent about this the whole time, so...
---

Kenri posted...

Not talking about the word itself, I'm talking about the whole system being created by society, maintained by human decisions, subject to revision by humans, etc. It definitely seems like you agree with this based on how you're talking about it, so...

Don't really agree, no.

I'm saying the decisions and revisions by humans aren't just arbitrary and are based on patterns that exist in nature, so if you're making a point it really can only be about the word itself, because everything else about the categorization is in fact from nature, not from man.

Like it's not that humans decided that things are related to sex like you're claiming. Nature did that. We only observed the patterns and labeled them. The label being manmade doesn't mean the pattern is.

Like if it really makes you feel better, you can think of the traits influenced by sex as like, probability based, than true black and white. But just because you can't be 100% sure that certain traits existing means someone is a female, that isn't to say "this person is biologically female" has no value as far as information goes.

To put it in a really straightforward way, let's assign say, colorblindness, to the value of rolling 1 on a die. Now, if I'm male, I'm rolling a 12 sided die. If I'm female, I'm rolling a 200 sided die. Both my 12 sided die and my 200 sided die can roll 1, but it doesn't mean that determining which die type we're using has no value whatsoever.
---

Kenri posted...

Biological factors and characteristics exist. Sex as a system of classifying them is a social construct. I've been consistent about this the whole time, so...

Then everything is a social construct, so you calling it a social construct is pointless because your definition is too broad.
---

Like I understand a little where you are coming from, but using the term "social construct" referring to scientific concepts does harm both to the science and actual social constructs.

Gender is a social construct. Race is a social construct. Language is a social construct. Observations about the world aren't social constructs just because they use language, the only tool people have to communicate with each other.

What you are doing is the equivalent of saying "Trees are a social construct," me explaining general characteristics of trees and how you can tell them from bushes even if there are exceptions, and you saying "Yes, but because YOU are the one who made the distinction between trees and bushes, trees are a social construct."
---

trees are absolutely a social construct
---

Using the word "tree" is definitely a social construct.

But that doesn't change what trees are???
---

spoken like someone who's never been to a different society

get out of your bubble and experience differently constructed trees
---

If this person can put "undefined" on the birth certificate I'd like my child to have "tree" as their listed gender. True pioneer.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Then everything is a social construct

we've reached critical foucault
abort abort


HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

What you are doing is the equivalent of saying "Trees are a social construct," me explaining general characteristics of trees and how you can tell them from bushes even if there are exceptions, and you saying "Yes, but because YOU are the one who made the distinction between trees and bushes, trees are a social construct."

Sort of, yeah. I already used the species example. I don't know anything about trees but I know our conceptions of, like, fish and birds are pretty arbitrary (fish don't really exist as a group; birds are basically just reptiles). Wouldn't surprise me if the distinction between trees and shrubs was equally arbitrary. But I wouldn't call "trees" a social construct, I'd call our system of taxonomy a social construct (and already have in this very topic).


Lopen posted...

I'm saying the decisions and revisions by humans aren't just arbitrary and are based on patterns that exist in nature, so if you're making a point it really can only be about the word itself, because everything else about the categorization is in fact from nature, not from man.

In what way? What part of nature said "a micropenis is a penis but a clitoris is something different"? Or did humans decide that?
---

Are you sure you're not talking about the words themselves? It really sounds like you are.
---

Lopen posted...

Are you sure you're not talking about the words themselves? It really sounds like you are.

Did nature say "A is a B but C isn't a B" or did humans?

there, is it divorced from the words themselves enough yet?
---

In what way? What part of nature said "a micropenis is a penis but a c***oris is something different"? Or did humans decide that?

the part where micropenises still function like penises?

micropenises are a social construct
---

Kenri posted...

Lopen posted...

Are you sure you're not talking about the words themselves? It really sounds like you are.

Did nature say "A is a B but C isn't a B" or did humans?

there, is it divorced from the words themselves enough yet?

Isn't the ability to cognitively quantify in order to make future models for prediction what drives science to advance and social mores to be adjusted? Society itself is not natural if mathematics is not natural.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

the part where micropenises still function like penises?

that's uh kind of questionable i think but then i'm not an expert on micropenises

man there's probably a joke to be made there but i can't think of one that isn't a self-burn
---

This argument went from potentially something interesting to it kinda feeling like Kenri just wants to call stuff "social constructs" to be edgy or something.
---

edge is a social construct
---

Like, I'm sorry, but I lost it at "Birds are just reptiles, maaaaan! It's society keeping them apart!"
---

The Edge is a social construct
---

You think you know me as a social construct.
---

https://images.gr-assets.com/hostedimages/1403243536ra/10063648.gif
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Like, I'm sorry, but I lost it at "Birds are just reptiles, maaaaan! It's society keeping them apart!"

i think most people are catching up on this one actually

lots of people are still surprised when you tell 'em fish is kind of an arbitrary category though
---

People are not catching up on that, no.

More people accept that they share some similarities, but I don't think much of any people are saying they are "basically the same" (and they'd be wrong to do so, at that)
---