The peaks do not designate “cis”, you can be cis and fall anywhere on the chart - being cis is about the sex you were arbitrarily assigned at birth (and whether that assignment aligns or conflicts with your actual gender identity).
And when doctors change assignments, it’s really unclear whether you’re cis or not if you transition - e.g. a baby assigned female at birth who is then weeks later assigned male at birth later transitions to be a girl, she was originally assigned female at birth - is she trans or cis?
Instead the peaks represent the most common combination of male and female sex traits in humans, with the slopes representing less common combinations of traits, e.g. to the left of the male peak might be men who experience excessive androgenization like lots of body hair, maybe precocious puberty, early balding, and so on (more male traits than average).
This chart as a model of sex actually doesn’t make much sense, since sex has been redefined in light of how complex sex is and the differences in sexual development that occur.
Where on the chart would we put someone with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS)? With CAIS a person is born with XY chromosomes and thus has a typical male karyotype, but their androgen receptors do not respond to androgens, so none of the masculinization is able to occur - leading the person to look, develop, and usually live as a woman.
The chart implies a spectrum, when the reality of biological sex is much more complex than a simple spectrum would allow - more like a constellation. Each sex differentiated trait is an axis / spectrum of its own, and there are thousands of ways differentiation can happen.
EDIT: oh, and to answer your question, it sounds like your question is really whether the peaks on a bimodal distribution represent a smaller number than the tails in aggregate, and the answer is that it depends on how you select your aggregates and how much of the peak you lump together. I think the entire point of the bimodal distribution, though, is to show that the majority fall on the peaks while the tails represent a minority.
That said, a MRI study found that when examining brain sex, >90% of people (mostly cis) were not able to be classed as having fully male or female brains, so realistically I think it’s fair to say most people are sexually divergent in some way.
So what youre saying is, is that because theres like 200 per million babies born without legs. That means we cant classify human beings as a bipedal species?
I mean, if you ask the owner of dog if the dog is a boy or a girl… How does the owner know what to answer? Do they take the dog for an MRI? Do some blood tests? How would they know?
And why would a doctor “assign” one sex, and then change their mind two weeks later? Is this a particularly stupid doctor?
All the shit to worry about in life, and this nonsense is what people choose to focus on.
Accurate statistics on the number of transgender people vary widely,[11] in part due to different definitions of what constitutes being transgender.[6] Some countries collect census data on transgender people, starting with Canada in 2021.[12][13][14][15] Generally, less than 1% of the worldwide population is transgender, with figures ranging from <0.1% to 0.6%.[16][17]
I’m providing context for why numbers regarding transgender people are fuzzy at best and why telling someone they’re “fucking lying” about them is misguided at best.
Are we sure he would describe himself as either consistently “stable” throughout his experiences? Alternately, he might also protest to feeling as though his existence and the context around it might be well described as a sort of experimental setting, albeit not contained within a traditional laboratory setting.
Any world famous musician who not only survives their 30s but is relatively alive and kicking for decades later I would consider to pass the first condition, considering the track record for individuals experiencing that volume of fanatic obsession at young ages.
You know… Maybe I interpreted the question wrong. I think I added the HYPER modifier to “gender”, rather than “real”. In my interpretation his gender sort of rotates in and out of 3d space like a hypercube. Now that I’ve noticed that the modifier was actually on “real”, I’m trying to figure out if that changes my answer. Because, while I may not know exactly what gender Bowie was going for, I know that his instantiation of it was far more REAL than most people manage to achieve.
Hyperreal refers to a fake tthing that feels more substantial than the real thing. Like a vegan meat substitute being more meaty than meat, or any current mass political thing.
Well, clearly. If you define a male characteristic as something that’s more common in men than in women and vice-versa, then e.g. being tall would be a “male characteristic”.
Height isn’t a binary thing with men being exactly Xcm tall and women exactly Ycm, so there’s people who have more of said male characteristic and people who have less. And you also have women who have more of this characteristic and some men (e.g. there are some women that are taller than some men).
The same can be done for every characteristic that’s associated with a gender. Genitals are on a spectrum (large clitoris vs micropenis), fat distribution is on a spectrum (e.g. there are men with breasts and women without), body hair is on a spectrum, hormone distribution is on a spectrum and so on and so on.
If you take a lot of characteristics at once it becomes clear in most cases whether the person you are dealing with is a man or a woman (though there are some where that’s more difficult or impossible), but if you take just a single characteristic (e.g. height) it’s impossible to say whether the person you are dealing with is definitively a man or a woman.
I don’t think it’s an accepted term anymore, but you reminded me that they used to call the triple X chromosome syndrome by the term Super-Female-Syndrome.
I am a horrible person, but the only thing I can think of reading this is a small-circuit pro wrestling event where all participants have this set of chromosomes, billed as ‘The Triple X Throwdown’, for the title of Supreme Female.
It means that traditionally understood cis male can still have some female characteristics (no facial hair, higher pitched voice, bad at driving) but some males will have none.
Yeah but they decay into sometjing indistinguishable from a cis person in like five seconds outside of extremely exotic lab conditions, so it’s more accurate to say they’re possible than “they exist”.
If we assume that the distribution is measuring some trait (e.g. “testosterone content,” “femininity,” measured however you will), and it’s bimodal (distribution is dominated by two binary sexes), then there will be people on either side of both peaks.
Yes but beyond a elrelatively close range it does not remain stable outside of very expensive laboratory conditions. We have not yet found a way to achieve, for example, 16x standard hypermasculinity at room temperature without some very exotic blood chemistry i don’t entirely understand, except for the alcohol and testosterone numbers im not aure are survivable without lite support, and (i used to drink with a ucla researcher who was involved) he had to be restrained to keep him from building an exploding ramp to do what they all admitted would have been an extremely sick rocket assisted jump.
Do the two tails left of M and right of F mean there are males more male than cis males, and similarly with females?
The peaks do not designate “cis”, you can be cis and fall anywhere on the chart - being cis is about the sex you were arbitrarily assigned at birth (and whether that assignment aligns or conflicts with your actual gender identity).
And when doctors change assignments, it’s really unclear whether you’re cis or not if you transition - e.g. a baby assigned female at birth who is then weeks later assigned male at birth later transitions to be a girl, she was originally assigned female at birth - is she trans or cis?
Instead the peaks represent the most common combination of male and female sex traits in humans, with the slopes representing less common combinations of traits, e.g. to the left of the male peak might be men who experience excessive androgenization like lots of body hair, maybe precocious puberty, early balding, and so on (more male traits than average).
This chart as a model of sex actually doesn’t make much sense, since sex has been redefined in light of how complex sex is and the differences in sexual development that occur.
Where on the chart would we put someone with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS)? With CAIS a person is born with XY chromosomes and thus has a typical male karyotype, but their androgen receptors do not respond to androgens, so none of the masculinization is able to occur - leading the person to look, develop, and usually live as a woman.
The chart implies a spectrum, when the reality of biological sex is much more complex than a simple spectrum would allow - more like a constellation. Each sex differentiated trait is an axis / spectrum of its own, and there are thousands of ways differentiation can happen.
EDIT: oh, and to answer your question, it sounds like your question is really whether the peaks on a bimodal distribution represent a smaller number than the tails in aggregate, and the answer is that it depends on how you select your aggregates and how much of the peak you lump together. I think the entire point of the bimodal distribution, though, is to show that the majority fall on the peaks while the tails represent a minority.
That said, a MRI study found that when examining brain sex, >90% of people (mostly cis) were not able to be classed as having fully male or female brains, so realistically I think it’s fair to say most people are sexually divergent in some way.
So what youre saying is, is that because theres like 200 per million babies born without legs. That means we cant classify human beings as a bipedal species?
I mean, if you ask the owner of dog if the dog is a boy or a girl… How does the owner know what to answer? Do they take the dog for an MRI? Do some blood tests? How would they know?
And why would a doctor “assign” one sex, and then change their mind two weeks later? Is this a particularly stupid doctor?
All the shit to worry about in life, and this nonsense is what people choose to focus on.
There are like 1 in 100 people born trans, a similar number born intersex. It’s as common as having green eyes or having red hair.
Regardless, I figure the scientists are probably looking at this with more detail and seriousness than either of us.
well, thats a fucking lie.
That census data came from Brighton, which last time I checked, was the LGBT capital of the UK, if not the world.
Trans people account for between 0.1 and 0.6% of the population, and intersex is even less at 0.018%.
Stop getting your facts from facebook.
From wikipedia.
Thanks for repeating what I said… I dont know why you did though.
I’m providing context for why numbers regarding transgender people are fuzzy at best and why telling someone they’re “fucking lying” about them is misguided at best.
Yes, hyperreal genders do exist, but are not stable outside lab conditions.
I would submit David Bowie as a counter example.
Are we sure he would describe himself as either consistently “stable” throughout his experiences? Alternately, he might also protest to feeling as though his existence and the context around it might be well described as a sort of experimental setting, albeit not contained within a traditional laboratory setting.
Any world famous musician who not only survives their 30s but is relatively alive and kicking for decades later I would consider to pass the first condition, considering the track record for individuals experiencing that volume of fanatic obsession at young ages.
You know… Maybe I interpreted the question wrong. I think I added the HYPER modifier to “gender”, rather than “real”. In my interpretation his gender sort of rotates in and out of 3d space like a hypercube. Now that I’ve noticed that the modifier was actually on “real”, I’m trying to figure out if that changes my answer. Because, while I may not know exactly what gender Bowie was going for, I know that his instantiation of it was far more REAL than most people manage to achieve.
Hyperreal refers to a fake tthing that feels more substantial than the real thing. Like a vegan meat substitute being more meaty than meat, or any current mass political thing.
So David Bowie represents the Impossible-Gender, or the Beyond-Gender…? I can accept that.
I don’t know. I barely know who david bowie was.
Well, clearly. If you define a male characteristic as something that’s more common in men than in women and vice-versa, then e.g. being tall would be a “male characteristic”.
Height isn’t a binary thing with men being exactly Xcm tall and women exactly Ycm, so there’s people who have more of said male characteristic and people who have less. And you also have women who have more of this characteristic and some men (e.g. there are some women that are taller than some men).
The same can be done for every characteristic that’s associated with a gender. Genitals are on a spectrum (large clitoris vs micropenis), fat distribution is on a spectrum (e.g. there are men with breasts and women without), body hair is on a spectrum, hormone distribution is on a spectrum and so on and so on.
If you take a lot of characteristics at once it becomes clear in most cases whether the person you are dealing with is a man or a woman (though there are some where that’s more difficult or impossible), but if you take just a single characteristic (e.g. height) it’s impossible to say whether the person you are dealing with is definitively a man or a woman.
I don’t think it’s an accepted term anymore, but you reminded me that they used to call the triple X chromosome syndrome by the term Super-Female-Syndrome.
Probably not what the author intended though.
…
I am a horrible person, but the only thing I can think of reading this is a small-circuit pro wrestling event where all participants have this set of chromosomes, billed as ‘The Triple X Throwdown’, for the title of Supreme Female.
It means that traditionally understood cis male can still have some female characteristics (no facial hair, higher pitched voice, bad at driving) but some males will have none.
bad at driving is a male trait
(though that’s partially for social reasons, biological factors are not the only relevant)
Is not being able to take a light hearted joke a female trait, or just a you thing?
wasn’t aware the sexism was intended as a light-hearted joke, my bad apparently
You must be just so much fun to around…
Yeah, I was kidding.
yes.
Yeah but they decay into sometjing indistinguishable from a cis person in like five seconds outside of extremely exotic lab conditions, so it’s more accurate to say they’re possible than “they exist”.
Funny.
If we assume that the distribution is measuring some trait (e.g. “testosterone content,” “femininity,” measured however you will), and it’s bimodal (distribution is dominated by two binary sexes), then there will be people on either side of both peaks.
Yes but beyond a elrelatively close range it does not remain stable outside of very expensive laboratory conditions. We have not yet found a way to achieve, for example, 16x standard hypermasculinity at room temperature without some very exotic blood chemistry i don’t entirely understand, except for the alcohol and testosterone numbers im not aure are survivable without lite support, and (i used to drink with a ucla researcher who was involved) he had to be restrained to keep him from building an exploding ramp to do what they all admitted would have been an extremely sick rocket assisted jump.