[Aloisius]

> If the "simplistic" male/female binary explains >99% of observations, there does not seem to be a strong case for describing biological sex as a "spectrum"...

1% of the world population is nearly 70 million people. That is not a small population. One would hope that we might be more flexible in our descriptions considering how large of a population that is.

[Symmetry]

It's closish to 99.9% so 7 million. Which is a big enough population that we should consider how we draft our laws and policies but not nearly so large that "male" and "female" cease to be useful concepts for our everyday lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Population_figures

[TuringTest]

> not nearly so large that "male" and "female" cease to be useful concepts for our everyday lives.

Who says those are not useful? The point is to not make therm exclusive by forcing everybody to be identified by one of them when it's not a good fit.

[Aloisius]

The article is referencing "DND" or Disorders of Sex Development. This is a far larger group than what "intersex" covers.

[Kalium]

Does that make a highly accurate approximation into a less accurate one?

At what point is it acceptable to say that something is an approximation, and should not expected to be precise and accurate in perfect detail?

[Aloisius]

> Does that make a highly accurate approximation into a less accurate one?

What we have right now is not an approximation, but a binary measurement. Turning sex into an approximation would be considered a significant step forward considering science tells us it is not binary.

[Kalium]

As simon_ and Symmetry point out, that binary is in fact a pretty accurate approximation. So it seems we have both a binary measurement and an approximation in one. Perhaps we should consider that something can be both a binary measurement and a reasonably accurate approximation of a spectrum.

Regardless, my earlier question stands. At what point is it acceptable for an approximation to not be accurate in detail? What's the acceptable level of error in approximations?

[TuringTest]

> What's the acceptable level of error in approximations?

I'm fairly sure the lifes of those affected negatively by the error are outside the "acceptable level". We're talking about humans here, not mathematical rounding errors.

[Kalium]

It seems your objection is not to approximations or the error inherent in them, but to what happens when people forget approximations are not reality. Is that correct?

[nickff]

The 'two-sexes approximation' is boolean, not binary. Boolean involves two possible values; binary involves an infinite number of possible values, represented in base-2.[1][2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary

[quadratical]

Not to be pedantic, but binary is entirely correct in this context. We aren't talking about computer science. Binary means relating to, composed of, or involving two things.

Boolean is simply a binary variable, having two possible values: true and false.

[pornel]

Yes, we should, because getting it wrong can ruin lives and even cause deaths.

[Kalium]

When an approximation is confused for reality and policy formed, yes, the consequences can be very ugly. This must be avoided.

Does this mean approximations should not be used, or does it mean that one should be aware that the map is not the territory?

[copsarebastards]

Can we agree that 70 million people is not a negligible number?

[Kalium]

Depends on what you're dealing with and the significance of it. 70 million is not a significant number of atoms of most things, for instance.

The important question is the second one I posed. What is the acceptable level of error in an approximation?

[copsarebastards]

> Depends on what you're dealing with

We're dealing with people.

> and the significance of it.

People are generally pretty significant. 70 million people is very significant.

> 70 million is not a significant number of atoms of most things, for instance.

70 million people is a pretty significant number of people.

> The important question is the second one I posed. What is the acceptable level of error in an approximation?

Since you seem to have mistaken my rhetorical question for an actual question, I'll restate it as a statement: 70 million people is not an acceptable level of error in an approximation.

[Kalium]

OK. Then what is an acceptable level of error in approximation when dealing with people? 7 million, at a scale of billions? 7? 1?

[copsarebastards]

I think an acceptable level of error in approximation in legal and scientific terms would be one where the error is not likely to affect people negatively according to shared values (a shared value might be: people shouldn't get beaten to death or commit suicide--both problems among atypically sexed people). That number is difficult to come up with: it would have to look at impact analysis to see whether programs can effectively help people. And as technology, social programs, and medicine become better, the margin of error would likely go down. I can't come up with that number exactly, but given that we've seen significant benefits from social programs for atypically sexed people in the last few decades, I think it's pretty clear that we can still provide more benefit.

[Crito]

For comparison: Approximately 1.3% of black males are born with polydactylism.