You might be right about this. I don’t know how spectrum is defined in the social/medical/psychological sense vs the physical science sense. This is the internet, after all, and getting bogged down in semantics is what people do.
But, fundamentally and more importantly, I think we both agree that social and legal equality should not be reliant on biology.
Not all genetically linked traits that are differentially advantageous to the sexes are going to happen to linked to the presence or absence of a Y chromosome. If we will posit that there was a string of genes that was linked to “wanting to have sex with men more than women,” that would be evolutionary more advantageous for women than for men. There may be many such genes with various effects and the expression of them may be related to why “gender” is often more complicated than Y chromsome or not.
Edited to add: Especially when you add societal conventions of “gender” which may define some of these traits as more appropriate for men or women.
The article doesn’t mention any changes though, it lists things that simply reaffirm the consensus (the articles it lists don’t even all deal with biological sex research either), and falsely paints them as being more significant than they are. The only new information in the field (that I’m aware of) is on the finer detail about how things work on a biochemical level, it doesn’t change the basic makeup of biological sex differences in the wild, they still are what we thought they were. There are still lots of unanswered questions, I’m not saying we have all the answers, but we haven’t discovered anything earth shattering that backs up the more radical views from non-scientific political/sociological theories.
I posted the actual English definitions of “spectrum”, from both Merriam-Webster and the Oxford Dictionary for you, which fully satisfy the context where “spectrum” was used, FFS. Your nitpick has been nitpicked fully into nonexistence at this point; care to post something, besides your own insistence…?
they make a biological case for women’s equality, when the real case is a social and ethical one.
That’s good as far as it goes but that’s not very far. Race is far more of a social construct but we do ourselves no favours if we ignore those constructs rather than confronting them.
Women are those outside typical gender norms are discriminated against because of how society genders them so it’s no good to just point to biology. Trying to locate a biological predisposition to homosexuality hasn’t changed the minds of those who needed convincing.
100 times this. Unfortunately, the proportion of people who seem to really think about the basis for their beliefs on morality seems vanishingly small.
Also unfortunately (or maybe not, I’m unsure), despite shared humanity, we don’t actually have a consistent basis of underlying metaethical principles everyone agrees on. So, we have to justify each individual thing in every possible framework, even ones that make little sense.
Is that like “nearly all of the experimental data supports your hypothesis, except for the ~1% that disproves it”? I am interested to know why in the social sphere, people are so invested in denying the existence of that ~1% as a reality in daily life, apart from as a bit of curious trivia. That in itself appears to constitute a political ideology.
I’d imagine that it would be beneficial generally health-wise for hospitals and clinics to know - say - a patient’s/patron’s gender. Example, there’s breast cancer, and there’s prostate cancer. A responsive health provider would want to be ready (while practicing efficiency) for what’s out there. I’d say that absolutely no data re gender-specific issues would not be a way to go if the subject is health maintenance. (As far as airlines having to know a passenger’s gender, I don’t see any GOOD reason for that. Airlines? They may be mining for data to sell to someone else to which I say to heck with that.
No, the ~1% doesn’t disprove anything, and no-one here is denying the existence of that ~1%. I am certainly not invested in denying the existence of that minority (and as I’ve previously posted, just because it’s a small percentage doesn’t mean it’s a small number of people, nor does the actual total number change our moral responsibilities towards those people, be it smaller or larger than we currently think), and neither are the people being unfairly criticised in the OP, I’m at a loss as to why anyone would think they are doing that. There are people who are invested in doing that, usually for ignorant religious reasons, direct your ire towards them, as I do.
Slightly OT, obsessive cleanliness and limes or lemons were the secret weapons of the Royal Navy for many years. The French and Spanish were said never to have worked out why the RN had a much lower rate of disease and a better record of recovery from operations than did their ships. The wooden walls RN also had a lot of women on board, which helped, but this wouldn’t be so on small ships. tl;dr gender roles were much more fluid in the RN than is generally suspected.