this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2025
110 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19346 readers
1430 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

It seems that way if you don't look closely, but there are outliers that don't fit the binary in some way or another. Around ~~1 in 200~~ edit: apparently this has been revised from the 0.5% number I'd heard in the past, and is closer to 1 in 5500 people are born intersex - meaning something about their biology makes them not fit within the biological norm for their gender. For example, there are people born with a Y chromosome, but are born with only female genitalia. Some are born with both sets of genitalia (historically when this happened the parents would pick a gender and the baby would be operated on to remove the other genitals). Biology really only fits into our perfect boxes of gender until we look at the rare outliers, and see the nuance.

This is part of the reason that Trans rights matter, because while some would have you believe that it's all just people who were born in one box, wanting to have been born in the other box (which IMO is still a choice people should be able to make), there's also people who genuinely, biologically don't fit in our neat little boxes either who have just as much right to exist as those of us who do.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

1 in 200? Do you have a source for that? Seems like a much larger number than I would have thought possible.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female, occur in 0.018% of the population [1].

The claim that 1.7% of the population is ‘intersex’ [2] includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex [1], and is often wrongly used to back up the ideological assertion that ‘sex is a spectrum’, or that biological sex is not dimorphic.

https://statsforgender.org/it-is-not-true-that-1-7-of-the-population-is-intersex-the-proportion-of-people-with-dsds-intersex-conditions-is-0-018/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

Thank you for this, I had heard/read a ~0.5% statistic in the past, but apparently the current estimate is lower. I'll edit my original comment to reflect this.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I do know that intersex people exist, obviously, but even in the explanations mammals have X vs Y chromizones, or male vs female genetalia, from a biology perspective. What is the 3rd chrmozone, or third type of genetalia? Or are chromizones a spectrum, genetalia a spectrum?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 hours ago

The reason there's a spectrum is that the simple "rules" like Y chromosome = male genitalia, aren't rules nature plays by. It's just the first pattern we noticed when we looked at DNA, that holds true most of the time. The actual instructions to make genitals aren't even fully located on the X or Y chromosome, they're all over our DNA.

The "third option" is "doesn't follow the rules we thought it was supposed to" - which is more about our lack of understanding how it works. Then saying the people who don't fit with our idea about how we think it works are the problem, instead of something we've oversimplified and don't fully understand. Then you get those unwilling to accept that maybe we don't understand nature, so we're going to force any outliers to fit into the neat boxes we made up before we knew better.