| > Probably you missed TFA and the whole conversation thread you're answering to? TFA and whole conversation are exactly the context which makes it ridiculous to claim that 1% is an acceptable margin of error. > Of course. 1% blood alcohol gets its significance not in what it is ("1% oh, so much") but RELATIVE to the amount that's OK for a human to stand. > 1% error in missile calculations gets its significance RELATIVE to the target area it has to hit and the acceptable margin of error. Agreed. 1% error in judging the gender of people is significant relative to medical and social policy targets. On what grounds are you claiming that 70 million people are ignorable in medical and social policy? Ironically, the only argument from you I've seen so far against sex being considered a spectrum is basically, "1%, oh, not so much". You said: "You say that like it's some huge number. 70 million or not, it's still 1%." And ultimately, this is in research before we are even talking about medical and social policy. I'm not sure why we should just discard that 1% of data at all--there's no reason to artificially create error in reasoning that isn't imposed by data collection methods. |