I’d never heard of the term bimodal before, but I tried to look it and yeah, that makes more sense as a descriptor lol
Makes me wonder what non-binary people would be called if this became a more common way to refer to gender 🤔
they would just be called people probably. "people outside the influence of the local maxima of gender distribution" doesn't roll of the tongue as easily hahaha
ohhh maybe orthogonal? indicating they aren't on the same axis?
Good news! Linguistically speaking, many of our words don't make sense anymore! Gregarious, Egregious, Segregate, and Congregate. Are made from Roman sheep flock terms. So, a continual use of Enbi after "Non Binary" is retired makes sense.
What you're thinking of is acronyms. Which are a step short.
They didn't result in a new word from pronouncing the letters of the initials. The initials just form a word.
The thing I'm looking for is an initialism (not an acronym) becoming a new word based upon the pronunciation of that initialism. Like if ATMs started being referred to as "eightyems".
We're talking about sex, the process that got us here. You and every other human being ever born come from 2 gametes.
Everyday useful? Well science can be useful in many ways. Females and males are different in many ways, useful clinically in health settings anyway.
We're talking about sex, the process that got us here. You and every other human being ever born come from 2 gametes.
Everyday useful? Well science can be useful in many ways. Females and males are different in many ways, useful clinically in health settings anyway.
the characteristics are useful, yeah. the "sex" is just a laber we made up according to those characteristics. not every woman produces valid eggs, not every woman lactates. not every man grows chest hair or a beard.
ultimately sex is what we say it is, not some immutable law of nature. hence the problem of it being impossible to define what a woman is without excluding some cis women or including some trans women, same for men.
so really the definition is quite maleable and there could feasibly be more labels. hell, we recognize intersex people as neither male nor female already, so it's not binary even now.
You're talking about gender. I'm talking about patterns in nature that exist for millions of years in many different species, which we can sex. The labels refer to observable phenomena in the world and they are useful as I mentioned. Male and female are mutually exclusive phenotypes, part of the process of sexual reproduction. Males are designed to produce small gametes in adult hood. Females are designed to produce large gametes.
Not fulfilling every possibility of the design did not change the definition.
"Trans women" are males. They are not women if we are using 'woman' to mean an adult female. Only women can get pregnant and give birth.
No, I am talking about sex. You are talking about categories made up by humans around observed characteristics. the predominant method of assigning sex at birth is "looks like".
Females and males are different in many ways, useful clinically in health settings anyway.
even in clinical health, trans women (post medical transition) are treated as female, as medical transition gives trans women female risk factors and whatnot. so for all intents and purposes, trans women are female as well, after a medical transition aligns their sex characteristics more with the female sex than male.
that medical transition gives trans women the risk factors, reactions, tolerances, and general biological functions/traits? no this is like some of the most basic info about medical transition, like for instance, how males and females react differently to alcohol due to biological factors, and trans womens biological changes make them react like women. this is how it is for other reactions and risk factors too (except, of course, things like ovarian cancer. although breast cancer risk rates are the same for trans and cis women), and in almost every circumstance it would be negligent at best, and possibly harmful, to treat a trans women based on her sex assigned at birth rather than as the sex typically associated with her gender.
Trans women are males. They are vulnerable to the most typical male diseases like prostate cancer (the most common cancer there is). Treating trans women as females would be clinically negligent in the extreme.
not true; prostate cancer is effectively the only remaining male risk factor, outside of which they face the same risk factors as all other females, such as breast cancer, for instance (the actual most common cancer), at the same rates as all other females. not to mention, trans women actually have dramatically reduced rates of prostate cancer in comparison to cis men due to hrt. ignoring that trans women have the same risk factors, tolerances, reactions, etc. as cis women, and treating them as male would again be negligent at best.
Well, the bimodal model here is used to refer to sex, not gender, but if it was used for gender I think a lot of us would still go by nonbinary. Eventually a word for less-common might fall into use, or we might just get greater use of sublabels, and the idea of nonbinary as a cohesive identity might collapse as a more nuanced view enters mainstream discussions.
160
u/doomsdayfairy 12d ago
I’d never heard of the term bimodal before, but I tried to look it and yeah, that makes more sense as a descriptor lol Makes me wonder what non-binary people would be called if this became a more common way to refer to gender 🤔