I discovered Vaarsuvius' gender!

[Peelee]

Each pair contains two colours, some just share a common word. That is an issue of language, not of whether the colours are different or not.

Let's say that there is a color line going from red to blue. Every color between the two is represented. Every wavelength is shown. Where does red stop and blue begin? Are brick red and fire engine red not both shades of red? Is this just semantics of language?

[schmunzel]

The fact that there is a certain clustering of identifiers does not make the categorizing any less constructed. Sure, they do describe something. It is unlikely that any culture not have words for the two big clusters. But that does not make the distinct categories facts. Look:
The gathering of data (genital configuration, hormone balances, chromosomes) is factual. The sorting of the data, to see which expressions coincide more often than others is also still grounded in nothing but fact. If you do this, physical sex does indeed cluster mainly around two poles. Sure. But. As soon as you then draw lines between the clusters you amass, decide what to do with the cases that lie on the borders and name them, you construct categories that are BASED on facts, but aren't themselves facts. Because of the edgecases, because the whole thing is more complicated and fluid and ambiguous than your categories.
These categories will be helpful. It is good to have a basis of discussion for talking about different colours, different epochs, different generations and, yes, different sexes. If you forego categories entirely you will have a hard time doing that. But as soon as you assume your categories ARE the facts, instead of merely the simplified construct you use to talk about the facts, you are bound to run into problems and errors. So yes, sex is definitely based in reality. But it itself is still a social construct.

That is a very good answer. I will argue the conclusion though.
The concept of dimorphism is a biological fact (in mammals). Like everywhere in biology however, there is that bell shaped curve that makes reality just that little more interesting than our concept otherwise would be.
In short I argue the term social construct. Its a biological concept which we can use to acurately describe our reality in 95+% of cases.
I argue though that this concept is so entwined into our cultural heritage and language that we wouldnt be able to separarate our thinking of it if we tried.
Our perception and through it our ability to think revolves around opposites / polarity. Thats the foundation for our social constructs but these are not the social constructs in itself.

[schmunzel]

Ummm... no. If it was, every culture would agree in the number and demarcation of colours. But they don't - each culture has come up with separate number, divisions and cutoff points for colours. "Tell me what colours you see, and I'll tell you were you're from".

GW

edit:
Ok I see the problem - my bad bad comparison.
sry

[schmunzel]

People from different regions of the world are capable of seeing different nuances in the same wavelength of light. That doesn't mean the wavelength is different, just that some people are better at identifying it than others.

I agree with grey_wolf though that my comparison was lacking in the required clarity
though it truthfully shows that the perception of ONE and the SAME can differ markedly.

The idea is that sex is a biological concept. In mammals there are two sexes. sex a and sex b.
Then there is the bell shaped curve and biological variation.

Every discussion that evolves around the idea that sex a and b are interchangeable on the merits of the existence of biological variation is futile.
The truth is that you (me) are shaping (and being shaped) in our identity by our surroundings. BASED on our perception of ourselves which is genetically predetermined and socially determined AND the perception of us by others whic is equally shaped by their genetical and social identity.

I argue that since we are not living in a void the one cannot happen without the other.
Whether we like it or not.

sch

[atemu1234]

Italian has names for all of those.

Verde acqua- Azzurro
Indaco - Azzurro
Fucsia- Rosso

I always found the English use of "blue" for both light and dark blue very strange.



That means that you are still a student, right? Sexual dimorphism in humans may not be as strong as in other animals, but it is there. Just looking at someone's face: there are differences in forehead shape (f: rather vertical and smooth; m: wider, higher, sloped, have a ridge above the eyes,), hairline (m: deeper angles), fat (f: fat in cheeks), nose size (f: narrower nose), brow (m: the brow runs beneath the orbital rim, w: it runs above it), eye (m: eyelids are more closed). There also are differences in skeletal structure. The obvious example is the pelvis. And muscles also are different, not just in shape, but also in how they are activated. This leads to different ways of moving, for example to reach the same final position. (This is stuff I found when trying to learn how to draw, I am sure that a doctor would point out more and more interesting/important details.)
Some time ago I actually read about how pharmacological research had not cared enough about differences between male and female in the past.

Those distinctions aren't actually universal, hell, pelvic shape in particular has actually been a major point of contention as of late, as it's prone to failure as a means of gendering a subject skeleton.

Brow shape? By your definitions, my brother is female and I and my sister are both male.

And again, most pharmacological reasonings like that are for hormonal reasons, not 'sex' reasons. The issue is more related to overrepresenting certain categories.

[Themrys]

Some time ago I actually read about how pharmacological research had not cared enough about differences between male and female in the past.

Indeed. Heart attacks have symptoms in women that many doctors do not know about because only males were studied. I thought this was in the past now, and sincere efforts would be made to ensure women's safety and good medical care.

But now people claim that biological sex isn't real; and the end result will be that it will be all about the male body as default, again. (And people saying that this isn't sexist because "men can have penises, too!)

Girls and women are discriminated against on basis of their sex, not gender identity. Female fetuses are not asked what gender they feel they are before being aborted in China and India.

The replacing of legal protections against discrimination based on sex with protections against discrimination based on gender identity leads to ridiculous cases as a woman being told that being discriminated against for breastfeeding is not sexist discrimination because "men can breastfeed too".

People being discriminated against because they don't conform to gender norms (i.e. females (who may or may not identify as nonbinary or men) not wearing high heels in the workplace) is already covered by anti-sexism laws.

Making it all about gender protects no one. It only profits those who want to discriminate against women and not be called out on it.

And again, most pharmacological reasonings like that are for hormonal reasons, not 'sex' reasons

Nonsense. Even if there weren't any more differences between the sexes than "hormones", someone's sex decides which amount of which hormones they have. Not only from puberty onwards, but from birth.

The research bias is sexist, plain and simple, and I will not let get anyone away with trying to hide that behind some gender theory.

[Mikemical]

Spoiler: How to tell an elf's sex:

Show

[Floret]

Indeed. Heart attacks have symptoms in women that many doctors do not know about because only males were studied. I thought this was in the past now, and sincere efforts would be made to ensure women's safety and good medical care.

But now people claim that biological sex isn't real; and the end result will be that it will be all about the male body as default, again. (And people saying that this isn't sexist because "men can have penises, too!)

Girls and women are discriminated against on basis of their sex, not gender identity. Female fetuses are not asked what gender they feel they are before being aborted in China and India.

The replacing of legal protections against discrimination based on sex with protections against discrimination based on gender identity leads to ridiculous cases as a woman being told that being discriminated against for breastfeeding is not sexist discrimination because "men can breastfeed too".

People being discriminated against because they don't conform to gender norms (i.e. females (who may or may not identify as nonbinary or men) not wearing high heels in the workplace) is already covered by anti-sexism laws.

Making it all about gender protects no one. It only profits those who want to discriminate against women and not be called out on it.

Nonsense. Even if there weren't any more differences between the sexes than "hormones", someone's sex decides which amount of which hormones they have. Not only from puberty onwards, but from birth.

The research bias is sexist, plain and simple, and I will not let get anyone away with trying to hide that behind some gender theory.

1. Medical research taking "male" bodies as default, and assuming that this is how it works for everyone is indeed a problem, that has lead to people dying and recieving far worse medical care than they could have otherwise. True. This isn't in the past, not by a long shot. To make matters worse, this is sometimes legally enshrined: Since a woman's ability to bear children* is considered important, and untested drugs can mess with that, drug firms are wary of testing on them, in fear of lawsuits (that sometimes might not even be stopped by signing "no, I am fine with this, don't care about bearing kids" forms. Ofc, this may or may not apply in other countries).
*sexist lawmakers don't even consider trans people, most of the time.

2. Noone is claiming biological sex isn't real. People are (rightfully) claiming that the categorisations made are socially constructed. That is not the same thing.
Take, for example, the case of heart attack symptoms: Sure, the "male" and "female" clusters show different symptoms. An important thing to know! But... what is that actually based on? Chromosomes? Genitals? Hormone levels? (From my uninformed perspective, probably hormones).
And that is the crux. To act as if the reason for different symptoms is "female" is stopping one step short of real understanding, as it takes the category as a truth, and not just an ascription. To be able to properly adress people, regardless of sex, we need to know what actually causes which symptoms.
Where you think this will lead to people taking the "male" body as default, I have no idea - that is a pretty wild leap in logic. (Also, didn't know feminine penises were the default, now )

3. Nah. They are being discriminated based on genital configuration. Sure, that is one aspect that is usually used to ascribe sex, but it isn't synonymous with it. (And, medically is usually the one least important for anything unrelated to those specific parts, even.)

4. Has this ever actually happened? I mean, women being told that breastfeeding discrimination isn't sexist. Because that is kind of obviously absurd - but at the same time, the issue here is sexist laws discussing showing of breasts. And how does "you should respect people's gender identity" profit people who want to discriminate women and not want to be called out? Like... how exactly does that process work?

5. Oh no it doesn't. Genetics do that. Cis women with the right genetics can have testosterone levels for full beards, and men can lack the stuff for a significant drop in voice. The point here is: Hormonal levels are a spectrum, even without considering the abilities for medical intervention, and while it does cluster, it is way too broad of a spectrum to just act as if there are two (or even three, four, or nine) distinct categories. It just doesn't work like that.
As soon as you start to consider hormone therapy, for whatever reason (One of the hormone conditions leading to the phenomena described above, age-related dropoffs, and (especially) trans people) this logic falls apart even more.

7. And noone has tried to do that. At most they have argued that what you are arguing for, considering women in that research? Doesn't go nearly far enough. (Also this is utterly semantic. Sexism can be described as discrimination based on gender, as in everyday language the two categories are used interchangably more often than not. Sometimes I wonder if the fact that german has just one word for both might actually be a good thing on some level...)

[martianmister]

Spoiler: How to tell an elf's sex:

Show

OotS Elves are more similar to DnD Half Elves.

[Astrella]

@Themrys; Ah yes, I forgot that me being assigned male magically protects me from misogyny and sexual harassment. I'll be sure to bring it up to the next creepy dude that makes sexual comments to me at work.

And sex-based discrimination isn't being replaced by gender-based discrimination legally anyway.

[Liquor Box]

Which ones share a common word?

I speak English, so the first (blue and green) and the third (pink and red) have different words. The middle pair both share the word "blue" but are distinguished by adjectives, so probably light blue and dark blue.

I'd have to keep going (you do understand that there are more than 6 cultures in the world, right?), but you haven't answered the question, so I cannot. I'm also bored with your attempts at deflection, so I probably won't bother to continue.

GW

Quite frankly, that is laughable. I have answered each of your questions. Another poster (floret) has already (simply from me identifying the green emoji as green), correctly, excluded several countries. I even gave you a clue by using the spelling of colour that has a 'u' in it. If you can't live up to your boast "Tell me what colours you see, and I'll tell you were you're from", at least just admit it instead of trying to deflect and blame the people identifying the colours.

[Liquor Box]

Are #0404B4 and #0101DF the same colour?
(You can google those codes to see the exact hue)

Are you asking if they are the exact same colour, if I can distinguish between them visually, or if I would use a different word to describe each in English? My answers are:
- Obviously they are not the exact same colour. I can see that from the numerical descriptions of the colours.
- I cannot distinguish between them visually- they look the same to me. However, I am notoriously bad at perceiving colour variation (I sometimes get teased because of it), so it may be that some more perceptive posters could distinguish between them.
- I would use the English word 'blue' to describe both colours. I would not be able to distinguish between them by use of adjectives (partly because I cannot perceive the difference). However, I am aware that there are words in usage (driven by paint manufacturers I think) used to describe colours that differ in ways that I cannot perceive, so my lack of a better English words than 'blue' does not suggest that there is no more precise word.

[Liquor Box]

Let's say that there is a color line going from red to blue. Every color between the two is represented. Every wavelength is shown. Where does red stop and blue begin? Are brick red and fire engine red not both shades of red? Is this just semantics of language?

I don't think that there is any clear line where red ends and pink begins (for example). But that does not mean that there is no distinction between the two colours - fire engine red is still red (putting aside that it IS a social construct that associated fire engines with the colour red) and the Pink Panther is still pink. Just because there are cases close to (and within) the blurred and fuzzy line between the two colours does not mean that they are not distinct. Indeed, as I said to Grey Wolf, light blue and dark blue are distinct even though the common word for each in English is 'blue'. There are some colours that are clearly light blue, some that are clearly dark blue, and some that fall in the middle and are more difficult to classify one way or the other.

Applying this, as we were, to people's sex. There are come people who are clearly male by sex, some who are clearly female by sex, and some whose sex is not clearly either male or female. The existence of some people, who are not clearly male or female (by sex) does not mean that there is no biological distinction between those who are clearly male and those who are clearly female.

[Liquor Box]

Indeed. Heart attacks have symptoms in women that many doctors do not know about because only males were studied. I thought this was in the past now, and sincere efforts would be made to ensure women's safety and good medical care.

But now people claim that biological sex isn't real; and the end result will be that it will be all about the male body as default, again. (And people saying that this isn't sexist because "men can have penises, too!)

Girls and women are discriminated against on basis of their sex, not gender identity. Female fetuses are not asked what gender they feel they are before being aborted in China and India.

The replacing of legal protections against discrimination based on sex with protections against discrimination based on gender identity leads to ridiculous cases as a woman being told that being discriminated against for breastfeeding is not sexist discrimination because "men can breastfeed too".

People being discriminated against because they don't conform to gender norms (i.e. females (who may or may not identify as nonbinary or men) not wearing high heels in the workplace) is already covered by anti-sexism laws.

Making it all about gender protects no one. It only profits those who want to discriminate against women and not be called out on it.

Interesting, I hadn't realised that there was a feminist perspective that ascribing rights/protections to the female gender, rather than to the female sex was considered detrimental to the feminist cause.

Is your post representative of a wider school of thought within feminism, or whether it is your thoughts alone?

[woweedd]

Interesting, I hadn't realised that there was a feminist perspective that ascribing rights/protections to the female gender, rather than to the female sex was considered detrimental to the feminist cause.

Is your post representative of a wider school of thought within feminism, or whether it is your thoughts alone?

Um...Not taht I know of, outside of TERFs*(Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) who are a completely different thing, even if Thermys's rhetoric here bears some unfortunate resemblance.
*For reference, TERFs are radical feminists who believe that only women born with a vagina and xx chromosomes should be counted as "Real women." They're usually second-wave Feminists, stridently opposed to the current Third-Wave, and believe in a strict gender binary. They are small but, unfortunately, still quite influential.