Lol why are you asking me that? You are the one who brought it up.

"Depends how you define "biological male". The category is defined, not discovered."



You can define sex into being a spectrum just because mutants exist. But a lot of people disagree.

You are right! We can define sex into being a spectrum. In fact, the only practical way to avoid sex being a spectrum is to explicitly define it to not be. If we just base it on chromosomes, then a spectrum naturally arises from our observation of chromosal variation.

The world falls into clean biological categories 99% of the time, just because you can find some syndrome or genetic mutation that's extremely rare doesn't mean we will discard convention. If you want to study ultra-rare mutations like goats having two heads, that's fine, there are specific types of books that study those anomalies, but to frame that as being normal in a high school biology book is nonsensical.
Changing the world to everything is a spectrum because some tiny minority of people can't come to grips with their identity is nonsensical and unscientific.

Just because there are genetic mutants with abnormal variation in chromosomes, it doesn't mean sex is now a spectrum.

I guess it comes down to how we personally define sex. You think it's a spectrum, I say it's not. An impasse.

In the case of AIS, there are anywhere from 150,000-400,000 people on this planet that have AIS, so it's not equivalent to something as ultra-rare as a two-headed goat.

Cool, so there some degree of variability that leads to it being a spectrum.

Good talk.

Just because it's *normal* to fall onto one or the other side of the spectrum doesn't mean the middle doesn't exist. It's actually less scientific to ignore the middle in favor of creating easy solutions.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Apr 14 2022 09:45am

I am defining sex based on observations, you are making an ad-hoc restriction on sex so it can never be a spectrum.

So yes, it is a matter of definition, but ultimately you are actively ignoring things to make your definition, so it's not very useful when we move to topics like trans athletes or intersex individuals.

Taking the upper end of your range and dividing it by 7 billion we get a rate of .00005714285 or around 5 people per 100k at MAX.

Again that's not a category, that's a genetic abnormality that's not representative of 99.99% of humanity so to reclassify sexes based on this is nonsensical. I mean lets be honest in what's driving this, because we know it's not science but societal pressures.

I am not ignoring anything. I just don't think we should base things on a tiny subset of people with very rare chromosomal abnormalities.

It's kind of like, we make a category separately for people with two mouths. I have seen the pics of such an individual, he suffered from some kind of rare genetic abnormality and there was literally a second mouth growing out of the back of his head. But if we now start saying that there are two kinds of people, one with only one mouth, and the other with two, we would technically be correct, however we both know it would be stupid.

Genetic mutants do not mean sex is now a spectrum. Ugh.