boddhi writes:
> Nature is what nature is and we try to characterize it
as best we can, knowing that we will always fall short.
Since we will always fall short, doesn't it make sense to characterize it in the way that causes least harm to people?
> To use the very small number of people who are born
with problems that affect the sex organs and androgenic
hormones to try and make the case that there is a
"continuum" of gender is statistically wrong, scientifically
wrong and morally wrong.
Well, people can make statistics say whatever they want, so being "statistically wrong" seems endemic to any effort involving statistics.
You offer no basis as to why it is scientifically wrong other than it does not conform to your notion of science.
As for morality, Yoshie's option is for me morally superior. Instead of individuals being labeled as "diseased" or "deformed," they are are made part of a continuum without stigma. As a queer male I can testify to the real world effects of being labeled "diseased." Clearly, the more moral option is to eliminate as many of those potential instances as possible.
> I dare say that most of these individuals would very much like
not to have the problems they have.
But don't we contribute to these problems by labeling them as diseased?
> To define male and female as XY and XX karyotypes, respectively,
does not deny any significant number of people a gender identity.
First, people can claim whatever gender they want, as far as I'm
concerned.
Then why not let them do so and move on to more important work in the struggle than coming up with these narrow scientific labels?
> Second, there is no reason to characterize people who suffer from
genetic disease as anything but people who suffer from genetic
disease.
But if characterizing them as part of a continuum instead of as diseased causes them to have less suffering, isn't that a good thing?
> The truth is there are two genders
That is the truth of your narrow scienctific stance.
> I think attempts on the Left to muddy this
Why do you see efforts at liberation as muddying?
> attempts on the Right to over-define these categories and hang them
with a bunch of taboos in an unscientific way.
But your approach is very akin to the Right's methodology: narrowly and strictly defined definitions.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister