• Soggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 hours ago

    “From a biological standpoint” you’re still wrong because the real world isn’t simple. There’s more chromosome options than XX/XY. There’s various disorders that can cause people to develop in ways contrary to their sex chromosomes. There’s chimeras, intersex, people born missing parts of their body.

    “Biological sex” is a convenient simplification like “there are three phases of matter” or the concept of tidy electron orbitals.

    • Realitätsverlust@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 hours ago

      There’s various **disorders **that can cause

      Exactly. And that’s what they are. Disorders. That doesn’t mean it breaks the status quo. If 100 people are born with two arms and one person is born with three, we don’t go around saying “humans can be born with 2 or 3 arms!”. No, we still say that humans are born with two arms.

      Trying to extend definitions to include every possible whim of nature is completely futile.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        If 100 people are born with two arms and one person is born with three, we don’t go around saying “humans can be born with 2 or 3 arms!”.

        What? Yes we do. Only about one out of every hundred people is born with red hair, and we definitely say that humans can be born with red hair. If one out of every hundred people was born with three arms, we would absolutely say that some humans are born with three arms. We certainly couldn’t use having two arms in our definition of human

        • Realitätsverlust@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Only about one out of every hundred people is born with red hair

          Which is significantly more than people having a third arm.

          If one out of every hundred people was born with three arms

          Yes, but they’re not. That’s the entire point.

          • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            8 hours ago

            I get the sense that you don’t have nearly as firm a grasp on language and communication as you think you do. You explicitly made reference to a hypothetical situation in which 100 people are born with two arms and 1 person is born with three, and then made a statement about how we would act in that hypothetical situation. If your entire point was that a shockingly small fraction of the population is born with three arms, you should not have used a nearly 1% proportion in your hypothetical.

            But also, the proportion of the population doesn’t even matter. If some humans are born with three arms, then you have to acknowledge that humans can be born with three arms. You can say that humans are typically born with two arms, but trying to define human as something that’s born with two arms would be factually incorrect.