- There are more than two biological sexes (intersex people exist, and there are multiple forms of being intersex).
- The point of this whole field of study is to dissect gender on cultural terms. You're _begging the question_ when you declare that there are only two genders without backing it up and considering the evidence brought forward by those with opposing characterizations of gender.
- More to the point, effectively you saw an article about an unprovoked violent attack and are saying "that stabbing person has some good points"
Update: To clarify, my original comment was to highlight that even the way a journalist describes an attack on a gender-studies class is implicitly taking a stance on what gender is and what its role and significance is and should be. While I disagree with your immediate doubling down on "there are 2 genders", that makes you no better or worse than a Guardian reporter I suppose. Irrespective of how many genders there are, Levine had to decide that it was important to mention the victim's genders but not their blood types, zodiac signs, preferred mobile operating system, or geographic region of birth. The instinctual assumption seems to be that gender labels _must_ be communicated, and it's worth interrogating why.
3 comments
[ 437 ms ] story [ 910 ms ] threadRelevant because:
- the HN community has many connections to Waterloo which has produced many great software engineers
- the current incarnation of politicization of gender issues is meaningfully fueled by online discourse, communities and social media
I also found it interesting to note that this coverage felt it necessary to give gender-binary labels for each of the victims.
- The point of this whole field of study is to dissect gender on cultural terms. You're _begging the question_ when you declare that there are only two genders without backing it up and considering the evidence brought forward by those with opposing characterizations of gender.
- More to the point, effectively you saw an article about an unprovoked violent attack and are saying "that stabbing person has some good points"
Update: To clarify, my original comment was to highlight that even the way a journalist describes an attack on a gender-studies class is implicitly taking a stance on what gender is and what its role and significance is and should be. While I disagree with your immediate doubling down on "there are 2 genders", that makes you no better or worse than a Guardian reporter I suppose. Irrespective of how many genders there are, Levine had to decide that it was important to mention the victim's genders but not their blood types, zodiac signs, preferred mobile operating system, or geographic region of birth. The instinctual assumption seems to be that gender labels _must_ be communicated, and it's worth interrogating why.