you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FlanJam 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not a biologist so I have no idea the language academics would use to classify this stuff. But from a layman perspective, saying "sex is binary with intersex outliers" and saying "sex is bimodal with a small number of intersex in the middle of the spectrum" seems like essentially the same idea, just framed differently. And idk, maybe academics could argue why one is more technically correct than the other. But overall this debate just seems kinda pedantic to me.

I will note however, saying sex is a spectrum can get a little awkward. Because then you'd have to concede a woman who gets a mastectomy becomes less female, or conceded a transwoman is less female than a natal woman. And that just seems like a really awkward way of thinking about it, not to mention it can be pretty offensive when presented to a layman.

[–]kwallio 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

OP is conflating secondary sex characteristics with sex determination. For example in humans women have breasts (a secondary sex characteristic) but both males and females alike have breast tissue, just in males it doesn't develop into breasts. Secondary sex characteristics do, in fact, follow a bimodal distribution. But sex determination is pretty much binary and usually depends on whether someone has ovaries or testes and produces eggs or sperm (aka primary sex characteristics). OP conflates the two and is pretending that secondary sex characteristics (aka a bimodal distribution of such) and sex determination (aka gonads etc, more or less a binary) are one and the same. OP is arguing dishonestly (or ignorantly) and deserves no respect.