News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by hughprime on Friday August 21, 2009 @03:36PM (#778273)
Given that 99-point-something percent of people fall into one biological category or the other, it's a pretty reasonable approximation.
Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by josefresco on Friday August 21, 2009 @03:44PM (#778285)
There are more cross-gender people in America than there are Jews.
Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by hughprime on Friday August 21, 2009 @04:46PM (#778423)
By "cross-gender" I assume you're including categories like "biological men who identify as women", which is a very large group compared to the biological categories mentioned in the article.

I mean, I have no problem with men who want to identify as women, or indeed with men who want to identify as $6.99 Ikea table lamps, but the existence of such men isn't a challenge to binary human/lamp classification schemes.

Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by whye on Friday August 21, 2009 @05:15PM (#778482)
You have it backwards.

prevalence of Klinefelter's syndrome (XXY male, with symptoms): 1 in 1000 men

prevalence of Transsexual men ("biological" men who identify as women): 1 in 30,000 to 1 in 4,500

(source: Wikipedia, but the references for these statistics appear to be in legitimate scientific publications)

Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by dgordon on Friday August 21, 2009 @05:54PM (#778563)
Actually, prevalence of transsexual women (the accepted term for what you meant, since "women" is what they identify as) is probably quite a bit higher than that. http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TSprevalence.html does an analysis that concludes that said prevalence is on the order of 1 in 500.

But I don't think we were talking about transsexuality, which is something different from the intersex conditions which might make this whole business of sex testing more complicated than one might expect.

Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by Goladus on Friday August 21, 2009 @03:59PM (#778317)
In the meantime, binary conceptions of gender solve problems like: girls in an Indiana high school want to play varsity basketball but cannot compete on the boys team.
Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by dmm on Friday August 21, 2009 @03:51PM (#778293)
A binary conception of Jewness is insufficient.
Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by DTrejo on Friday August 21, 2009 @06:08PM (#778597)
Why?
Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by pyre on Friday August 21, 2009 @06:32PM (#778644)
Well, does 'Jew' describe one's ancestry or one's religion?
Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by DTrejo on Friday August 21, 2009 @06:44PM (#778658)
Both.
Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by pyre on Friday August 21, 2009 @09:12PM (#778831)
So someone with Jewish ancestry that is a practicing Catholic, and someone that is not of Jewish ancestry that converted to Judaism are both Jewish? That sort of makes it an ambiguous term, no? What if someone was born to two parents that are not of Jewish ancestry, but converted to Judaism? Is that person a Jew by birth? What if that person becomes a Buddhist later in life? Are they still a Jew?
Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by DTrejo on Friday August 21, 2009 @10:05PM (#778885)
>So someone with Jewish ancestry that is a practicing Catholic, and someone that is not of Jewish ancestry that converted to Judaism are both Jewish?

If your mother is Jewish, then the Jewish establishment would consider you Jewish. You are considered Jewish if you convert.

>That sort of makes it an ambiguous term, no? Unlike other religions, Judaism is a religion and a cultural identity. Many Jews are secular, but still have strong cultural connections.

>What if someone was born to two parents that are not of Jewish ancestry, but converted to Judaism? Is that person a Jew by birth?

That person is not a Jew by birth, but that person is a Jew by conversion.

Historically, the only real test of "Jewness" that matters is this: if the Nazis were around, would they want to kill you?

Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by pyre on Saturday August 22, 2009 @01:19AM (#779050)
> Historically, the only real test of "Jewness" that matters is this: if the Nazis were around, would they want to kill you?

It seems sorta sad if that's what the Jewish community uses as an 'Are you a Jew?' litmus test.

Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by DTrejo on Saturday August 22, 2009 @04:15PM (#779743)
>It seems sorta sad if that's what the Jewish community uses as an 'Are you a Jew?' litmus test.

Sad? It's survival. (And yes, it is sad that antisemitism exists.)

Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by pyre on Saturday August 22, 2009 @09:34PM (#780045)
Survival? Where are Jews hunted nowadays?

I'm talking about what the Jewish community currently uses. It seems sorta sad that they would adopt the same attitude toward 'Jew-ness' that the Nazis used... In a Helsinki-syndrome sort of way.

Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by DTrejo on Sunday August 23, 2009 @12:24AM (#780188)
If the world were perfect then no one would have to be paranoid.

The Helsinki syndrome has nothing to do with this.

>Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in abducted hostages, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger or risk in which they have been placed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome]

Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by pyre on Monday August 24, 2009 @03:23PM (#783018)
My bad, meant Stockholm
Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by roundsquare on Saturday August 22, 2009 @06:50AM (#779231)
Indeed it makes the term ambiguous, but luckily in this case its easier to fix. When it matters, then just specify: If you are saying "Jews believe that..." you are referring to people who practice Judaism. If you are saying "Jewish genes are such that..." you are referring to someone of Jewish ancestry.

I suppose it could be more confusing with people of mixed ancestry, but we can probably generally find a usable definition by context.

Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by pbhj on Friday August 21, 2009 @04:18PM (#778370)
Some stats on that please. And some definitions, what do you mean by "cross-gender"?
Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by fallentimes on Friday August 21, 2009 @04:06PM (#778340)
Really? Do you happen to have a source? A quick google search was fruitless for me.
Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by jacquesm on Friday August 21, 2009 @04:18PM (#778372)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/usjewp...

http://www.hrc.org/issues/9598.htm

The first lists the number of Jewish people in the US as roughly 6.5 million (2.2% of total), the second lists the number of transgender people as between 0.25 and 1% but warns that may be under counted.

Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by helveticaman on Friday August 21, 2009 @06:31PM (#778642)
Source?
Re:There's No Rulebook for Sex Verification by boredguy8 on Friday August 21, 2009 @06:32PM (#778645)
The whole point of that article is that there isn't one biological category or the other. It's nice to see blatant discrimination so highly rewarded, though. Maligning people as 'other' and making artificial constructions of stability that simply don't exist is really sad.