Quote (ReturnFormer @ Oct 29 2019 10:49pm)

they exist, just like transgenders exist. however, just like transgenders, theyre a small minority, and not a proof of anything. MOST cultures have defined sexuality as two genders. (although many also recognize hermaphrodites, but recognize that thats not the norm.) its the natural, biological, sensible way to define things.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 29 2019 11:54pm)

In other words you believe that to have the truest reading of Winnie the Pooh you should always imagine him having a floppy penis hanging out.

Quote (Plaguefear @ Oct 29 2019 11:57pm)

Except they have found cultures thousands of years old that have up to 6 genders.
99% is not 100%.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 30 2019 12:01am)

You have a poor understanding of categorization. When we put things into categories it's for convenience, not based on the categorization scheme being natural, biological, or sensible. It's about making a set easier to work with, not any inherent property of the set.

I'll take something I'm sure you consider to be even more natural than gender descriptions. Chemical elements. Why do we define a chemical element using the number of protons in the nucleus? An introductory chemistry textbook would say it's because the chemical reactivity is dependent on the number of protons, but that's only true in certain circumstances. For instance the reactivity of hydrogen changes drastically depending on the number of neutrons, and if you drink too much water with Deuterium (hydrogen with an extra neutron) it will kill you. Similarly, some isotopes will spontaneously become other isotopes which drastically changes chemical reactivity. Lastly, if you heavily ionize an atom it's reactivity will change much more drastically than changing the number of protons. So since all this is undeniably true, why do we define the chemical element based on the number of protons? Inanc short, it's a convenient teaching tool for early chemistry students, and an experienced chemist knows there are several other factors to consider before understanding the reactivity of an atom. We could just have easily defined every isotope as a different element and the only thing that would have changed is Gen Chem I would have gotten harder.

Quote (ReturnFormer @ Oct 30 2019 03:10pm)

in a sense, yes. but since its aimed at kids, no. making things sexless for the sake of kids has zero bearing on what defines sex in the real world.




you do know what an exception is, right? those are exceptions and few and far between. if we discovered that every culture before 2000 bce had 10 genders, then you might have a point. but they didnt. apart from a few excceptions, every culture has defined two genders.





wrong. we define atoms by the number of protons because that is a constant across all instances of that atom. netrons and electrons can change, but the basic atom remains the same, even if it has different properties. change the protons and youve got a different element.

likewise, getting surgery or hormone therapy is like creating a different isotope. it has different properties, but its stillthe same basic element - male or female - whatever it started as.

Quote (ReturnFormer @ Oct 29 2019 11:10pm)

wrong. we define atoms by the number of protons because that is a constant across all instances of that atom. netrons and electrons can change, but the basic atom remains the same, even if it has different properties. change the protons and youve got a different element.

likewise, getting surgery or hormone therapy is like creating a different isotope. it has different properties, but its stillthe same basic element - male or female - whatever it started as.

Quote (Plaguefear @ Oct 30 2019 12:12am)

Genders are purely a social construct though, so to say one construct is any more valid based on an appeal to popularity is silly.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 30 2019 12:15am)

Your response is a tautology, it would be true no matter what categorization scheme we used. Please give this some thought, it's not an easy subject to broach at first since from our own perspective the categorization schemes we were raised in always appear to be natural.

Quote (ReturnFormer @ Oct 30 2019 12:03am)

pretty much anything can b e said to be a tautology. youre free to try redefine 2+2 to equal 5, but im gonna stick with 4 because it works. if you dont understand why we define atoms by the number of protons, then you need to learn more chemistry. you dont understand how atoms and the periodic table work. if you did, you would realize the defining atoms by neutrons or electrons would be a total mess and it would be impossible to have any sort of usable periodic table. again, youre free to try to do that if you want but im gonna stick with what is proven to work. its not arbitrary at all.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 30 2019 01:14am)

Yes, it would be a total mess. We define things the way we do for convenience, not because there's an inherent natural order to the way we define them. You've just agreed with everything I said, we define things because it is convenient to define them that way, not because there's an inherent order to the definition. Go back and reread this short exchange and meditate on it a bit. When you cool down and decide not to be so confrontational you will see we are in agreement, and then if you take it a step further and apply it to our categorization of the sexes you will come to better understand why we have traditionally sorted sexes the way we do, and that there's no inherent reason to do it that way.

FYI I have a master's in chemistry, I know more about why we sort atoms the way we do than you will ever know because it's my field of study.

Quote (ReturnFormer @ Oct 30 2019 12:22am)

and how do you know that i dont as well...?

the two bold statements are a contradiction.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 30 2019 01:14am)

Yes, it would be a total mess. We define things the way we do for convenience, not because there's an inherent natural order to the way we define them. You've just agreed with everything I said, we define things because it is convenient to define them that way, not because there's an inherent order to the definition. Go back and reread this short exchange and meditate on it a bit. When you cool down and decide not to be so confrontational you will see we are in agreement, and then if you take it a step further and apply it to our categorization of the sexes you will come to better understand why we have traditionally sorted sexes the way we do, and that there's no inherent reason to do it that way.

FYI I have a master's in chemistry, I know more about why we sort atoms the way we do than you will ever know because it's my field of study.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 30 2019 01:29am)

Because we've talked before, and you would have been in total agreement about why we define elements the way we do.

The bolded aren't in contradiction. You can make different definitions and still have convenience. What trends you use for convenience are dependent on what you want to have easy to remember, not the other way around. Theres been many different proposed periodic tables based on different trends, our modern one is just the one that's popular right now.