Is gender a binary or a spectrum?

Post Reply New Topic

^ Based on that post, your argument seems to be against official recognition of anything, since labeling gives people the opportunity to legislate against behavior.

Certainly I would be very suspicious about such legislation yes and for good reason.

Fundamental rights are more important to protect.

The principle of rights which I advocate is one person's rights should not contract anther's. Otherwise it is not a right.

There a good reason why there are few fundamental rights, there is a requirement to be atomic. Derivative rights are simple expression of fundmantal rights it is not fundamental/derivative it is not a right.

The smallest minority is the individual.

Biology isn't as tidy as you think. First, there are species with more than two sexes. Two just happens to be efficient, and therefore common. Second, development isn't as tidy as you think. So even in species in which there are, in principle, only two sexes, reality is quite a lot less binary than that. Specifically, the sex chromosomes don't have as deterministic an effect as you think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome.

More importantly, the shape of the genitals would be only a cosmetic detail without behavioural differences. You acknowledge that yourself when you write that nothing you do to the shape of your genitals changes whether you are a boy or a girl. So now see where that takes you in the real world, in which people aren't so tidily binary.

When you look into behavioural sex differences in humans, an effect size of 0.8 is about as large as it gets. If you know of a larger difference, do let me know. And an effect size of 0.8 means a lot of overlap. If you score as the average male on something where the effect size is 0.8, 20% of women will score as more masculine than you. If the effect size is 2 (height), and you are of average male height, still 2.275% of women are taller than you. If you are of average female height, 2.275% of men are shorter than you. And even if you tried using height to classify people as male or female, you still get guys as short as Peter Dinklage, and women as tall as Gwendoline Christie. For anything behavioural, you get a lot more overlap, simply from natural variation.

You will get that overlap in anything. Even if you look into several variables with sex differences, in a large enough population you will find people with a dick and XY chromosomes who are more feminine than the average woman on all of them, and you will find people with a vagina and XX chromosomes who more masculine on all of those variables than the average man.

Because the variables that show sex differences don't correlate perfectly, you can get people who fall into opposite tails of the distributions for different variables. One of those variables will be what kind of body people feel comfortable in. That's what gives you transgender people. You made clear that you consider the shape of the genitals to be a minor detail. You are demonstrably wrong on the chromosomes being the crucial variable, because chromosomes simply don't have consequences as deterministic as you assume. If you want a better candidate for what matters more than the cosmetics, may I suggest the mind? That would mean what matters is how people identify.

You can, of course, impose binary gender roles onto that biological continuum with poor cluster separation, but statistically, that's just bloody silly. Giving up on such nonsense is just culture catching up with science.

What are the biological markers for autism?

If there are no biological markers for autism, then anyone can claim to have it, and it renders all discussion about disorders meaningless. You can say you have Pink Kerfuffle Syndrome, and people have to believe you.

See? I can do it too.

It's tied to this discussion because some people want to claim gender is irrevocably tied to biology despite the fact that 1.) No, it isn't, and 2.) "Biology" isn't so simple.

In terms of biology there are just male and female, intersex is a congenital disorder where the body didn't develop right not evidence of a spectrum. Like if you were born without an arm, doesn't mean there is a spectrum on limbs. Gender as defined by whether or not you're masculine or feminine doesn't seem very based in science since so much of that is cultural, what's innate and what is socialized is up for considerable debate with people going as far to believe we are blank slates when we're are born.(very popular with older feminists) If you have a fully functioning set of reproductive organs of one sex but 'identify' as the other for whatever reason that means your gender is different than your sex? Is gender simply how you present yourself or does it mean more?

As best as I recall my education, "sex" refers to physical sex characteristics and/or the chromosomes that determine them. Therefore, other than certain genetic conditions (XXY, XO, etc), there are only two sexes.

"Gender" refers to behaviors, cultural norms, and all other things a society ASSOCIATES WITH sex, or to the way sex is expressed in the behavior of an individual.

Therefore it seems logical that gender lies along a spectrum. I realize the world is full of people who think that "men should act like men" and "women should act like women." I've been upbraided more times than I care to count for being "unfeminine" and "mannish."

WHATEVER. I am not interested in "becoming male." I would appreciate it, however, if people would stop assuming that what hangs (or doesn't) between our legs should automatically put us neatly into the appropriate, predictable, rigid box.

Um, no. Autism is a psychological disorder. Neither sex nor gender are psychological disorders. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Autism and many psychological conditions are sometimes considered to be typologies, with no firm basis, in reality. For instance, there is no chemical imbalance or physical deformity, per se. It's more like an identity or identification -- just a label.

If you mean to judge gender, that way, it's a choice. You have grown habituated and could learn new behaviors, if you want to call that a therapy, because you were not strictly born that way, or it's not written in stone.

No, I'm not.

"Autism" currently has no biological markers, yet people here are comfortable claiming to be "autistic."

Of course, with no biological markers for "autism," anyone can claim to be "autistic." I find it infinitely amusing that we apparently can't claim to be "non-binary" because GENDER MUST BE BASED IN BIOLOGY, but we can identify as "autistic." It's exactly the same thing.

What are the biological markers for autism and for homosexuality? I mean, if you were to name specific ones.

I see lots of different case histories, and people are collating them, under a certain header.

No. Autism is a psychological disorder. It's definition isn't rooted in the biological process of sexual reproduction. Humans, like all primates, are bisexual, meaning they have two sexes. The vast majority of the animal kingdom is bisexual.

Prior to the 1970s, the gender was a purely linguistic term. It had nothing to do biological sex or any kind of personal identity.

Gender has since turned into some kind of personal identity based in the biological sexes. Those are male and female. The reason for the two sexes is reproduction, which is a biological process.

Autism is psychological. There are standard for a diagnosis. Sure, anyone can CLAIM they have autism, but that doesn't make it true.

I'm sorry, but reality is not a social construct and neither is gender. There are objective facts.

Is it a fair summary of your position that gender must be based on sex, sex is binary, and therefore gender must be binary?

Yes. Gender is the expression of biological sex or the characteristics commonly associated with the biological sexes.

Gender must be rooted in the concept of biological sex or it could be anything. You can't have the gender of a basketball. That would be lunatic.

Autism markers https://gene.sfari.org/autdb/CNVHome.do

Multi-faceted research points to autism being caused by genetic mutation, including numerous studies into heritability.

I'm sceptical of the existence of a "homosexual gene". Epigenetics likely plays its part, along with (obviously) postpartum environmental factors.



Autism is a neurological disorder which presents as a varied selection of psychological symptoms, but the root cause appears to be physical, not behavioural. Labelling it a "psychological disorder" simply is not accurate.

And you say there are objective facts. My profile says I am male. If we met, on what objective facts would you rely to decide whether you agree? Assume I give you access to relevant medical records and that I am willing to undergo tests. What would you want to know?