Your remarks on the sex thing don't actually fit with what I've read from (people I understand to be) actual scientists specializing in this stuff, which basically boils down to "You know that binary male-female classification? We basically made that up and nature didn't ask our opinion, kind of like how the platypus fails to conveniently fit our made up categories for animals because our made up categories and mental models are just that and nature doesn't really have a big investment in what we think before it does its thing."
My thoughts on gender and social construct stuff likely wouldn't fit with whatever is politically correct and I've been gratuitously burned enough, thank you, so I don't care to go there at all this time around.
You listed 5 categories, 4 of which are defined in relation to the well known binary classification. Intersex and asexual are well understood variations of that classification system.
In a nutshell, I'm saying your 5th scientific category of "make shit up" would be more accurate for a broader subset than your framing would tend to suggest.
It's a little like the concept of Newtonian gravity, which was made obsolete by Einstein's Theory of Relativity, yet we still use mathematical formula based on that for calculations here on earth because it's sufficient to that scenario and less work. Theory of Relativity calculations matter for interplanetary travel. Using Newtonian formulae would get you very off course in a basically deadly fashion.
For many situations, male and female are broadly sufficient mental models. Where they aren't, they can be actively harmful. But the fact that higher levels of accuracy are frequently not needed doesn't mean they are actually true anymore than using Newtonian math here on earth makes Newtonian physics not obsolete in a post Einstein world.
> For many situations, male and female are broadly sufficient mental models. Where they aren't, they can be actively harmful. But the fact that higher levels of accuracy are frequently not needed doesn't mean they are actually true anymore than using Newtonian math here on earth makes Newtonian physics not obsolete in a post Einstein world.
I would like to add that you just can't live in a complex world without
the broader models. Trying to use the accurate models for every case would
be just overwhelming.
Sure, everyone likes to bitch about other people using the broader model
for their own pet peeves, but this doesn't mean that they aren't - and
have to be - ignorant in other cases.
>In a nutshell, I'm saying your 5th scientific category of "make shit up" would be more accurate for a broader subset than your framing would tend to suggest.
I get you, I think I may have put my point across fairly badly in that case.
My thoughts on gender and social construct stuff likely wouldn't fit with whatever is politically correct and I've been gratuitously burned enough, thank you, so I don't care to go there at all this time around.