Its a bit misleading to say that "some people" have variations other than XX or XY, when that "some people" is less than 0.2%. That seems like relevant information. Sex is clearly not a spectrum.

The religious do like to silence blasphemers. I look forward to the forthcoming video about how humans are born with gender souls.

Actually I am watching on Nebula, but there is no where to comment there. I'm pleased your not taking a basic view of sex given that it doesn't actually exist. Sex is a by product of a theology. It's an incalcation into modern science of am idea from previous scientific paradigms. It's important to science because it's a key axiom of the Wallace/Darwin hypothesis. But their hyothesises is just a simple reinterpretation of the temporal great chain of being. Science even carries over some of the religious similes such as the tree of life. Part of the issue is Charles Darwins's basing his analysis on his grandfather Erasmus Darwin propounding of Linne "work" in realty he had merely plagiarised Cammerius's Hyothesises. Linne was heavily funded by his friends in the Swedish Hatist party & thus his latinate classification based on sexing a creature be it plant, animal or whatever by the number of peneses or ovaries it had, was taught & spread across Europe. These peneses & ovaries weren't always real but romantic creations, also his naming system was full of abuse about his detractors which there were many. Because his classification system was a power grab by a group of academics. An successful attempt to replace an earlier much more logical Latin based naming system that described typically creatures with up to 16 seperate characteristics. Such as the shape of the root, or the leaf, or the branch, or stem etc, then the two most important characteristics were used to describe the creature such as Homo Sapien. All these classification systems were perforce artificial as nothing could be proved till the advent of genetics & the science of gene replication (not reproduction which is again an idea tied back to theological ideas of sex & also to patriarchy) Sorry for the long run but the history of the creation of the idea of sex is a long one. And I haven't even begun to explain why sex is a bullship religious creation other than to ask where else in biology which is widely complex in other ways does it come down to an approximate 50:50 split into two group? BTW if you would like to discuss Gender Identity all this sprung from trying to understand why gender identity exists! Other than being able to say I work with a bunch of GITS (Gender Identity TheorieS)! And clearly not only does exist, it's also learn't. But unlike John Moneys assertion we are born 'tabula rasa' which the evidence clearly shows is not so, there is a need for child rearing & the experience of their being two genders, which is where the idea of two sex's originated from. It actually turns out gender is actually based on two biological process in the brain that act as precursors to gender both of which are used by numerous creatures such as humans to manage other aspects of their brains. Now I wonder if KZfaq will delete this?

​@montypythonator ever heard of the idea of the exception that proves the rule. This is that exception! The word proves in this context should be read as proves or checks the rule i.e an exception proves that it isn't a rule. For a rule/law has to work it has to work everytime without question. But the more you explore sex the more you discover how much of a house of cards it is, how much of it is theology not science. It exists because it's an axiom of the Wallace/Darwin Hypotheses on evolution which is a quick & dirty rewrite of the theological 'great chain of being'. It's why the church liked Darwins work so much as it didn't challenge the theology in the way other more radical theories did.

​​@john_michael_white I hate KZfaq deleting my replies. But to cut it short you don't need souls to have gender. That we experience gender or that we observe it in others is based on the melding of two biological processes that are used by brains across numerous creatures to handle information for a wide variety of sources. I could go on but KZfaq keeps deleting me

What branches of science do people generally not accept unless they understood them when they were 10?

See also: Pluto.

FACTS!

⁠​⁠@@john_michael_white I think the demarcation is rhetorical. 10, 6th grade, high school, middle age, etc., are different examples of when someone may decide they know enough and start rejecting new information. The problem is that the more you learn the more you realize how ignorant you really are. The more you learn the more nuance and uncertainty you have to deal with. I think some people have difficulty handling that. Even the concepts we think we know with certainty start looking abstract and nebulous.

When integrating new information into one's existing knowledge base, there is a balance to strike. On one side of that balance is the ignorant response which says, "I reject this new information and refuse to think about it further, even though it has been factually demonstrated to me". On the other side of the balance you have the uncritical, or gullible, response which says, "The self-proclaimed expert and his self-proclaimed expert friends all say that a+b=z, therefore I must believe z and not question it". Put another way, you can be narrow-minded, or you can be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

Thank you Ross!! That means a lot

You're welcome Leanne! Thank you for watching ☺️

haha I was lowkey proud of my accent on that one, so I appreciate you saying so ☺️🇫🇷

Thank you for watching Paul!!

Thanks so much for this comment Andy, I really appreciate it! I put a lot of effort in trying to make it a solid video that hits the right tone, especially as it can be (as you say) such an emotional topic. So cheers for breaking your 'don't usually comment rule' for me!

That line reminded me to bring an umbrella today, so there's that.

"mostly binary" implies that non binary are exceptions, and excuses people to ignore them. Even though explicitly they believe intersex deserve the same rights, implicitly they ignore their rights. I feel like the term "bimodal" is better to show the reality, but I prefer to just ignore these terms since it can always lead to exclusion.

Do you have data to back up the claim that non medically necessary cosmetic surgeries result in better outcomes for this population?

@@rosalie.e.morgan just all of bloody medical science until the identitarians forced themselves into the fielf and declared biology to be oppressive and inherently problematic

She did mention health problems with some intersex conditions. Her example was a single x chromosome. Most intersex conditions are completely unnoticeable by others or even the person themselves. Yes, being infertile is usually the only bad effect if any when it comes to intersex conditions. Also, infertility being bad is subjective. "Edge cases" and "normal" are just comments on their frequency. You could mean something else but I don't think your hair color illustration explains it effectively. She does mention frequency so I don't think she is being dishonest there. If you mean that it isn't inherited, why does that even matter? If it exists, it needs to be accounted for. If you want to give a complete explanation of something, you can't say everything works this way when it only works that way most of the time. They are edge cases and that's why we simplify it for kids. The problem is that the simplification is actually wrong.

You might balance your pessimism, and some of your views on the terms used here by also reading and listening to what intersex people have to say. In my own experience, and what I know from many others, being treated as "abnormal variations" due to benign intersex traits (without health effects, which is the case for overwhelming majority of our variations) is in fact directly harmful (this value judgment throws you outside of gender norms without any chance of redemption). This socially prevalent view on anatomical variations has been for more than 6 decades the primary reason for the most unethical medical and surgical treatments meted out to intersex people. This belief in our "abnormality" is the direct cause of the belief in a need to "normalize" and "correct" ourselves as early as possible in our childhood, _for our own good_ , without telling us, which involves numerous practices of medical lies, withholding of information, imposed secrecy, physical and psychological trauma, shame and isolation. It's a high price to pay to maintain the illusion of normalcy, and we're the ones paying it.

You thought all that was simple? Okay but it does get even more complicated than even this. I think you are stumbling into the Dunning-Kruger effect.

If it was a spectrum what would the units of that spectrum be? Human height is a sex affected bimodal spectrum. The units are metres. Average human voice pitch is a spectrum. Its units are Hertz. What is the usint of the "sex spectrum"? This is like finding a Steve Mould video on human energy field auras.

How many people are there in the world... then multiply that by 0.2%. That's not an insignificant number. 0.2% is also the number of people in the US that die of cancer each year hardly a value to ignore.

@@cheekychappy1234 Every one of those 0.2% have a clearly characterisable binary sex. It's insulting to say they aren't "real" men or women because of a genetic deviation. Like saying that those with Down's Syndrome aren't really human because humans have 46 chromosomes.

@@john_michael_white I suggest you watch a good video on logical fallacies next.

​@@cheekychappy1234 Those 0.2% are real men and women, and it's not a fallacy to say otherwise. It's testable fact. No-one disputed this until those with delusions wished to have their mental disorders normalised and not treated.

'' It won't fix it.'' that is exactly the point; _our sexed bodies don't need to be fixed_ . We do experience lies, and deeply harmful practices, from the very people who claim we are "abnormal" and we need to be "normalized". By the way, there is no ''norm'' in biology, in the material substrat of the world. We'd better say ''typical'' and atypical body features. Even speaking of "function'' is at best a way of speaking.

What's the unit of refractive index? Or Mohs scale? Are you saying that optics and geology are pseudoscience? As an aside: where, on the scale from "ignorant" to "obstinate bigot", do you think you are?

@@pchelagmail Refractive index is a ratio of velocities, they're measured in m/s. They show us the spectrum of light, axis unit either wavelength or frequency. Mohs Scale measures hardness, and is a shorthand for multiple properties that can be measured with forces, energy, pascals and more. That's because it's science.

​@@john_michael_white"shorthand for multiple properties that can be measured" WHAT DO YOU THINK SEX IS?????

@@joshplaysdrums2143 A binary characteristic where a human's biology is built to develop either sperm or ova. One or the other. There has never been a human hermaphrodite, every single human was born with, and dies with, a body that was built to produce either sperm, or ova.

​@@joshplaysdrums2143 I just answered and it was censored! 😂 The actions of those confident in their answers.