Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 27-Jan-2025 00:48:48 JST Rich Felker

   FYI: There is no possible biological definition of male or female sex that does not exclude large numbers of (respectively) AMAB or AFAB cis people.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 27-Jan-2025 01:14:59 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • Platypusman

     @Dawilson999 ..?

   • Embed this notice
     Platypusman (dawilson999@sfba.social)'s status on Monday, 27-Jan-2025 01:15:00 JST Platypusman

     in reply to

     @dalias Based on the bias inherent in our male dominated culture, I would assume there are a lot more AMAB than AFAB.

   • Embed this notice
     Platypusman (dawilson999@sfba.social)'s status on Monday, 27-Jan-2025 01:21:09 JST Platypusman

     in reply to

     @dalias Many times the sex of the baby was assigned after deliberations and conversations between the doctor(s) and the parents.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 27-Jan-2025 01:21:09 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • Platypusman

     @Dawilson999 I'm not even talking about any sort of obvious ambiguity at birth. I mean quite literally that any definitions you propose will exclude large numbers of ppl who were "obviously male" or "obviously female" at birth.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 27-Jan-2025 01:58:27 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • Platypusman

     @Dawilson999 Yeah I thought so, but wasn't clear what you meant, and was clarifying that my original statement wasn't about obviously ambiguous/intersex births but about the ill-definedness of "biological sex" for lots of cis binary ppl.

   • Embed this notice
     Platypusman (dawilson999@sfba.social)'s status on Monday, 27-Jan-2025 01:58:28 JST Platypusman

     in reply to

     @dalias I am agreeing with your original statement. I’m sorry if it sounded like I wasn’t.