• BluesF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Personally I think the “woke” definition of a woman (if there even is one) is much more straightforward than the alternative. This idea that the left “can’t define a woman” is absurd projection - the very people who ask this question are the ones who can’t define it without having to make 100s of exceptions.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      4 months ago

      yep “someone who identifies as a woman” doesn’t need to have caveats. every biological argument has to have many.

      • ObliviousEnlightenment@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Im trans, but this only works if you never rule out outliers, which is something a scientific term like female and its counterpart should be doing. There is a normal or default or whatever word youd prefer

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          first of all we’re not talking about science so it’s not really relevant, but…what do you even mean scientific terms should be ruling out outliers? if we do that we have faulty data and harmful medicine.

          • ObliviousEnlightenment@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Because that’s the standard procedure for collecting experimental data and defining terms? Because the things that cause those outliers are usually influenced by things other than the thing being defined/observed

            • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              The standard human body that biology supposes exists, does not exist.

              The perfect human cadaver does not exist, there’s no cadaver that follows the models in books. All cadavers have weird shaped organs, in kinda weird spots, not symmetrical, little tumors and tendon issues and muscle issues etc. Same for their neurochemicals including hormones (and fyi people can get adrenal autoimmune disease later in life that can cause changes in sex features). Same for genes. Like especially genetically, we know everyone has different genes because that’s how DNA tests work in forensics.

              No one is the standard and this is why many medical studies are super shitty and our medicine is so nonspecific. That’s why firstline treatment for depression is SSRIs even though they only have a 30% efficacy.

              So the idea that “control” groups in medical studies are really made up of some kind of standard body is pure nonsense, unfortunately. They do not even investigate for hormones or other diseases really during these medical studies. If the drug itself will impact sex hormones, the study will describe what tests they ran and will investigate then, but if it’s a depression drug or heart drug etc, they just go off whatever the patient thinks. Genuinely. Our studies are so primitive.