Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple, Amazon, Google and More Than 50 Other Companies Sign Letter Against Trump Administration's Proposed Gender Definition Changes (cnbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tussle-continues dept.

Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google, and dozens of other tech companies have come together to condemn discrimination against transgender people in the face of actions President Donald Trump is reportedly considering to reduce their legal protections. From a report: The move is a response to an Oct. 21 New York Times report that the Trump administration is considering limiting the definition of gender to birth genitalia. "Sex means a person's status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth," the Department of Health and Human Services proposed in a memo obtained by the Times. If legislation were to move forward, it would jeopardize legal protections for an estimated 1.4 million Americans who identify as a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth, the Times said.

The statement from the companies, which have nearly 4.8 million employees, said diversity and inclusion are good for business. "Transgender people are our beloved family members and friends, and our valued team members," the statement said. "What harms transgender people harms our companies."

45 of 769 comments (clear)

  1. brave by Orrin+Bloquy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Signing a letter. I guess the pen is mightier than the lawsuit.

    --
    "Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on /. and I must look smart."
    1. Re:brave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So we have...
      Apple that basically uses slave labor in China to make money...
      Amazon that abuses warehouse employees...
      And Google that pays tens of millions to cover ups sexual abuse of employees..

      Telling the reset of us how to be morally correct.

    2. Re: brave by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Insightful
      They should at least get it right: Trump et al are the ones resisting 'gender definition' changes.

      "LGBT - Which of these letters has nothing in common with the others?"

    3. Re:brave by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Geez, what has happened to us?

      As short as a decade ago, it was really easy.

      You have a pee-pee, you're male gender.

      If you don't, you are female.

      If you are one of the rare ones that don't fit in the first majority two categories, you fit into 'other'.

      Now, whatever you want to call yourself, however you want to dress...that's up to you, but for filling out a form, pick one of the 3 choices.

      That makes bookkeeping easy, and doesn't have a damned thing to do with how you dress or what you want to fuck in your daily life.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:brave by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It'd probably avoid a lot of complication to just take that box off the form entirely.

    5. Re:brave by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      a) That's sex, not gender. Sex is biological, gender is a social construct. Consider the "third gender" seen in some Southeast Asian cultures. It was only "really easy" a decade ago if you ignored anything except traditional post-medieval Western gender norms.

      b) Sex is a bimodal distribution, not a boolean. You can get all kinds of weird things - XX phenotypes that are morphologically male, for instance. Or a whole spectrum of intersex types - how would you classify someone with a semi-functional penis, no testes, and ovaries?

      The fact that it makes bookkeeping easier doesn't mean it's an accurate model of reality. Otherwise, we'd all be using 64-bit unsigned integers instead of names.

    6. Re:brave by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      a) That's sex, not gender. Sex is biological, gender is a social construct.

      Again, as I mentioned, how you want to dress and who or what you want to fuck, is up to you, but has nothing to do with how you fill out the forms. If you have a dick, use the mens restroom, if a vagina, women restroom.

      Easy peasy.....we're talking a VERY small minority of people in the world that have these issues.....why should the majority get all bent out of shape for this insignificant number of people outside the norm?

      I really don't care what an adult does, or two consenting adults do....in private, but don't force the masses to cow-tow to them...there should not be special treatment for acting outside the norms. You shouldn't be persecuted for it, but you also shouldn't expect special and protected treatment in every day life either.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:brave by shess · · Score: 3, Insightful

      a) That's sex, not gender. Sex is biological, gender is a social construct.

      Again, as I mentioned, how you want to dress and who or what you want to fuck, is up to you, but has nothing to do with how you fill out the forms. If you have a dick, use the mens restroom, if a vagina, women restroom.

      Easy peasy.....we're talking a VERY small minority of people in the world that have these issues.....why should the majority get all bent out of shape for this insignificant number of people outside the norm?

      I really don't care what an adult does, or two consenting adults do....in private, but don't force the masses to cow-tow to them...there should not be special treatment for acting outside the norms. You shouldn't be persecuted for it, but you also shouldn't expect special and protected treatment in every day life either.

      So, just to be clear, what you're saying is that restrooms should be provided as a service to _you_, but they shouldn't be provided to those other people who are different from you?

      And, again, just to make things clear to me, you would prefer to have a person dressed as a woman come into the men's restroom to use the stall, versus having them go into a women's restroom to use the stall, or vice versa? When answering, keep in mind that they are dressed to look like a woman (or man), and like most cisgender people they would prefer not to have other people looking at their genitalia outside the privacy of their bedroom at home.

      [Personally, it would make me more uncomfortable to have a man dressed as a woman come into the restroom to use a stall. Having a woman dressed as a man come in to use the stall wouldn't make me comfortable or uncomfortable, I simply wouldn't even notice, just like I react when a man dressed as a man does it.]

    8. Re:brave by gman003 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Easy peasy.....we're talking a VERY small minority of people in the world that have these issues.....why should the majority get all bent out of shape for this insignificant number of people outside the norm?

      You underestimate the number of people with such "issues". And why care about sex-segregated bathrooms at all? They're not even a fixture of classical Western society - they were mostly introduced post-Civil Rights era to keep the "good, noble" white women from being even potentially contaminated by contact with "black savages". Why not just have unisex bathrooms?

      I really don't care what an adult does, or two consenting adults do....in private, but don't force the masses to cow-tow to them...there should not be special treatment for acting outside the norms. You shouldn't be persecuted for it, but you also shouldn't expect special and protected treatment in every day life either.

      People are getting upset because this is a blatant prelude to an assault on people's freedom to do what they want in private. Pence in particular has been completely clear that the end-goal is to force everyone to behave in accordance with the gender norms that match their sex, and those noncompliant will be deemed sexual assaulters or pedophiles, and treated as criminals.

      Nobody is asking for special protected treatment - they're asking for some kind of guarantee they won't be abducted and shipped away to a torture camp. Which yes, happens - overly-religious parents that see their children acting "faggy", find out about "outdoor programs" using "conversion therapy" to treat them. But rather than a fun summer camp, it consists more of forced marches, sleep deprivation and just general "make them suffer until they'll do anything to make it stop"... this has more than once resulted in deaths.

      Our current Vice President describes himself as a firm advocate of these programs. If that doesn't sound faintly terrifying, I have no idea what more I can say.

      I get it. You see yourself as an open-minded person, with strong libertarian ideals. You see a group that you would never really consider persecuting, out there making demands. And the only big mistake you're making is assuming that, because you would never consider persecuting someone for something like that, that nobody would - and so their demand for explicit protection comes across as a demand for special attention, which naturally rankles your minimal-government ethos.

    9. Re:brave by laie_techie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      a) That's sex, not gender. Sex is biological, gender is a social construct. Consider the "third gender" seen in some Southeast Asian cultures. It was only "really easy" a decade ago if you ignored anything except traditional post-medieval Western gender norms.

      b) Sex is a bimodal distribution, not a boolean. You can get all kinds of weird things - XX phenotypes that are morphologically male, for instance. Or a whole spectrum of intersex types - how would you classify someone with a semi-functional penis, no testes, and ovaries?

      The fact that it makes bookkeeping easier doesn't mean it's an accurate model of reality. Otherwise, we'd all be using 64-bit unsigned integers instead of names.

      I came here to say something similar. People confuse sex and gender. Over 99% of all individuals are sexually either male or female. Gender and gender identity are a never-ending spectrum. I don't know if sex should be defined based on phenotype or genitalia. Genitalia is generally obvious with zero cost to determine (whoever delivers the baby looks the genitals and declares boy or girl). Phenotype and genitalia normally agree, but not in 100% of cases. Gender not only isn't just a spectrum, it's fluid. A person who self-identifies one way today may self-identify differently in the future.

  2. This article is an insult to my gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Obama, without statute, redefined gender to be whatever someone claims it to be. Trump changed that back to an objective standard.

    How can you have fairness in Title IX protections when it's not at all clear who they apply to and I can claim that any random thing I don't like was discrimination because I identify as a unicorn and nobody can prove otherwise? Of course, that was always the point, to make these into something that would be easy to abuse, turning a standard that was supposed to promote fairness into a codification of favoritism.

    I'm logic-gendered, so if you disagree with me, it's an insult to my unique gender and you deserve punishment, bigot.

    1. Re:This article is an insult to my gender by gtall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, it is an objective standard...and one that does not follow science in any way. He has an objective standard on air pollution: more is better than less. He has an objective standard on health care: no one but he needs it. He has an objective standard on dictators: dictators good, democratic leaders bad. He has an objective standard for everything, they are just the particularly demented standards of a 12 year old.

    2. Re:This article is an insult to my gender by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, it is an objective standard...and one that does not follow science in any way.

      Skipped the chapter on reproductive biology, did you?

      The thing most people seem to be missing from this debate is what is the purpose of defining gender in society? With the SCotUS decision allowing same-sex marriages, there are no more legal barriers imposed by gender. About the only issue that remains is which bathroom or changing room people can use. Those in support of LGBT rights consider only the plight of transgender people, and thus come out against bathroom use restrictions based on physical or genetic gender.

      But think about it - how does this affect non-transgender people? Why do we have separate male and female bathrooms? What purpose do they serve? It's not the transgender argument - so men can be self-assured in their masculinity by going into the men's bathroom, or women can have their sense of femininity reinforced by stepping into a bathroom marked women-only. The purpose of having separate bathrooms is simple - to make it harder for perverts to peep. Since the vast majority of the population is heterosexual, the vast majority of perverts are also heterosexual, with male perverts wanting to get into the women's bathroom (and I suppose a few vice versa). Imposing restrictions on bathroom use based on gender is a simple way to thwart them. That's the purpose of bathroom gender restrictions. Heterosexuals created separate bathrooms as a way to thwart perverts. They didn't create them as a tool to oppress transgender people, and you arrive at a baseless conclusion if you assume they did.

      That's the trade-off here. Like most things in life, there is no solution which results in the best outcome for all. You have to pick the solution with the fewest drawbacks.

      • If you enforce bathroom use based on physical gender, you stop the perverts, but you inconvenience transgender people.
      • If you enforce bathroom use based on claimed gender, you accommodate transgender people, but you also eliminate the barrier against peeping perverts (who simply have to claim they're transgender) and inconvenience everyone not wanting to be peeped upon.

      The bigger cost to society here is in the second case, since it defeats the entire reason we have separate bathrooms in the first place. So the best choice is to restrict bathroom use based on physical gender. Actually, the best compromise is probably to use apparent gender rather than physical gender. Most peeping toms are unwilling to cross-dress, while most transgender people are happy to. So allowing only people who look like women into the women's bathroom, and people who look like men into the men's bathroom yields the best overall outcome. Thwarts most of the peeping perverts, while allowing most transgender people to use the bathroom they feel they should. After that, completely enclosed single-toilet bathrooms are the next best option.

  3. Re:Great by Jfetjunky · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We wish. More like pandering to a constituency to keep their favor.

  4. Woke rules by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rules should benefit 0.01% of the population, because they matter most. Everyone else should change behavior and culture and their understanding of nature and the world to make these 0.01% of people feel comfortable.

    The rest of us can expect nothing in return for the effort to accommodate the 0.01% of people who matter.

    1. Re:Woke rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Rules should benefit 0.01% of the population"

      Seeing as that's how the US economy works, I don't see why we can't use that standard for other stuff as well.

    2. Re:Woke rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Rules should benefit 0.01% of the population, because they matter most. Everyone else should change behavior and culture and their understanding of nature and the world to make these 0.01% of people feel comfortable.

      I completely agree! Small sections of the population (man, what a clunky turn of phrase! lets just call them, for now, "minorities") should not have any rules made to benefit them.

      The rest of us can expect nothing in return for the effort to accommodate the 0.01% of people who matter.

      And yeah, shameful how little we can expect to receive in return for a modicum of human decency. When my Grandma calls me up to drive her to the grocer, I always think "what's in it for me??"

    3. Re:Woke rules by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, okay, so maybe Trump should repeal the Americans With Disabilities act while he's at it, since it's such a bother to have to make places accessible to someone in a wheelchair or otherwise physically disabled to the point where, say, getting up stairs is impossible for them. Obviously, their so-called 'disability' is part of God's Plan for them, so why should anyone subvert His will, right?

      While we're at it why are we tolerating children with autism or similar disability? They're just disruptive and a drain on everyone around them and they couldn't possibly ever contribute to society.

      And you know, now that I'm thinking about it, all these old people hanging around, being useless, some of them being all crazy and shit because they've got 'Alzheimers' or whatever, are just such a downer, why are we putting up with them? Can't we 'do' something with them? Clearly their usefulness is past.

      ..and you know, these whiny crybaby military veterans need to STFU, they knew what they were getting into when they volunteered, so it's their fault if they get their legs blown off. They should just suck it up instead of being leeches on government money.

      Similarly to all the above, gender identity is scientifically proven to be a choice, even if they're single-digit age, so they should just have to suck it up and be in whatever body they were born in, even if it doesn't match their 'choice', right? And if they kill themselves because they just can't live with it, then so much the better right? Then nobody has to put up with all those confusing, scary feelings you get when you try to wrap your head around the audacious idea that someone could be 'different' from your concept of 'normal', I mean who does that, right? They're clearly choosing not to live according to God's Will therefore they should just be left to suffer.

      </EXTREME_SARCASM>

    4. Re:Woke rules by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And yeah, shameful how little we can expect to receive in return for a modicum of human decency.

      We don't receive human decency in return.

    5. Re:Woke rules by Kohath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I was one of the special people, you would have a responsibility to accommodate my personal problems. But I'm just a regular 99.99% person, and people like us can fuck off.

    6. Re:Woke rules by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'Accomodate YOU'? What, precisely, do you expect them to do to 'accomodate' you? Really, I want you to answer that question.

    7. Re:Woke rules by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When your straw man argument is this illogical and off topic (and throws in some religion bashing for good measure)....

      Oh, okay, so maybe Trump should repeal the Americans With Disabilities act while he's at it, since it's such a bother to have to make places accessible to someone in a wheelchair or otherwise physically disabled to the point where, say, getting up stairs is impossible for them. Obviously, their so-called 'disability' is part of God's Plan for them, so why should anyone subvert His will, right?

      Who defines who has disabilities? That's what we're talking about here with gender - what is the *definition* of gender, from a scientific, objective, legal perspective. You better believe that "disability" is extremely well defined. There is an entire segment of the law (and lawyers) dedicated to proving a person has disability to the government. If you think that currently any person can merely claim they are disabled and get government assistance, or even just a handicap parking permit to hang in their window, then you're very much mistaken.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    8. Re:Woke rules by Raenex · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because consumers don't benefit from capitalism? Great idea, let's go down the path of Venezuela and all the other failed socialist experiments.

  5. Oh no! by Jarwulf · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We're going back to the more objective terminology, sex, that we haven't had since a whole 8 years ago. What is the world coming to!

  6. From a country that still only has two genders by Gabest · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Americans look a bit strange, almost like mentally sick.

    1. Re:From a country that still only has two genders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gender Disphoria is not currently classified as mental illness.

      Yes, but by any objective criteria it clearly should be. If someone believes that they are Napoleon or the King of England then we treat this as a mental disease because their brain is telling them something that is contrary to objective reality. The exact same situation applies to transgendered people: they have a brain that is telling them something that is completely at odds with objective reality.

      This does not mean that we should not treat them with compassion or understanding nor does it mean that they cannot be productive members of society. However, passing laws that require everyone to just follow along with their mental delusion is simply wrong just as it would be to pass laws requiring everyone to go along with someone else's delusion about being royalty.

      In many ways the transgender issue has become like a road runner cartoon where the coyote can walk on air over the edge of a canyon without any problem provided nobody points out the reality of his situation to him. However, at some point reality always catches up with him and the result is always disastrous. Instead of trying to force everyone to ignore reality which is simply never going to work we need to admit that gender dysphoria is a mental condition and concentrate on understanding and compassion for those afflicted with it.

  7. Status? by Calydor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If your sex defines your status then we don't have the equality we keep saying we have. Shouldn't we work more towards getting THAT in order and leave gender as simply a physical trait similar to 'has two arms'?

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  8. The only thing I agree on with the conservatives by RickyShade · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Transgender is a lie. Getting surgeries, chopping off your weewee (optional of course) and taking hormones does not mean you're now a woman. It means you look like a woman (sort of, some cases are definitely better than others). Sorry my fellow liberals but I just can't get behind this trans movement. People with gender dysphoria should be treated for their mental disorder in a different way than sex 'reassignment'. Let's quit lying to ourselves and each other. Dudes are dudes and dudettes are dudettes. The only people with a legitimate case for benefiting from sex (re)assignment are those who were born with ambiguous genitalia.

  9. Okay fine, but what's the alternative? by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In 2016, NYC had to release a list of 31 recognized genders, and even that wasn't enough for some, so they had to expand it even further.

    How the fuck are you even supposed to put that on a form??

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Okay fine, but what's the alternative? by Drethon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In 2016, NYC had to release a list of 31 recognized genders, and even that wasn't enough for some, so they had to expand it even further.

      How the fuck are you even supposed to put that on a form??

      Male, Female and other, given that other for the moment is a fairly small percentage of the population? Not guaranteed to stay that way though.

      That being said, I wonder if we are getting the point where that question doesn't belong on a lot of forms anymore.

  10. Re:Hypocracy by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Conservatives: "We want personal liberties, get the government out of our lives, freedom!"

    Also Conservatives: "Thank god we have the Government telling people how they are allowed to identify themselves."

    The government isn't telling people how they can identify themselves. They are setting down how people will be identified by the government. Since there are no mandatory federal IDs in the US, I'm not sure how much it matters to people who work for tech companies, not the government. Might be annoying for passports, I guess (though you won't get much sympathy for how other countries treat US citizens at the border, given the reverse).

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  11. Let's have no gender assignments by MooseTick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why does the government need to assign/recognize gender now? Its not like anyone has more/less rights due to their gender. Women are now allowed to own property, serve in the military, etc. If the govt didn't bother recognizing gender, it would save a lot of time, money, and those arguments. And I honestly don't care who is using what bathroom. If some woman feels like a man and wants to use the men's room, I don't care. And if some man feels like a woman and wants to use the ladies' room, that's fine too. It still doesn't give them the right to molest or attack someone. And I honestly don't believe the current laws are what keeps most perverts from exploiting this now.

    But I don't think the govt should recognize marriage either. Ending marriage recognition would end the debate over who can get married. Do whatever you want in your church, temple, or backyard shack. Make whatever legal agreements with whoever you choose. I don't care or need to know about it.

    Sure, ending recognition of gender and/or marriage will complicate some other issues, but it would stop this never-ending debate over who is what and what should be allowed.

    --
    Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
    1. Re:Let's have no gender assignments by Shotgun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Take the sport of wrestling. Recently, a state champion for the girls division in Texas was a boy. Some girls would not even wrestle him, because they worried about getting hurt. I coached for a while, and I can tell you that the girls simply can not compete. The best girls will have excellent skills and conditioning, but no where near enough strength. There is already a JV/Varsity division. Should the girls be relegated to the JV team....forever?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  12. Re:Great by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trump himself is far from so-con, so this is clearly political horse-trading.

    I woudn't think this would be his priority either. I wonder what he's getting in trade.

    Trump's a regular guy (in the sense of being common, coarse, etc.).

    Sure, he has no coherent political philosophy, but he is a regular guy (which is what many elites actually dislike about him).

    And like it or not, regular guys know the difference between boys and girls. Sure, they may pretend to go along with the mass hysteria, to keep their jobs and not be labeled social pariahs, but they know, in reality.

  13. Large tech companies are anti-science? WEIRD! by Chas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't give a shit if a man wants to live as a woman or vice-versa.
    I don't care if someone wants to mutilate their genitals.
    I don't care if someone wants to call themselves some newly invented "gender" and live a certain way.
    What they do in the privacy of their own life is their own business.

    But science says there are two genders. PERIOD. There is one other state, biological intersex, where the person has BOTH. But it's a mutation and rare to boot (maybe as high as 1.7%).

    Also, the government should not be expected to subsidize these people's lifestyle choices in their documentation. Nor should someone be able to go back years later, cross things out, and scribble "Whatever!" in the margins.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  14. Re:Great by rogoshen1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    shhh, we're supposed to go a step beyond merely tolerating other people's delusions; and actively engage and foster them.

  15. Re:Large tech companies are anti-science? WEIRD! by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But science says there are two genders. PERIOD. There is one other state, biological intersex, where the person has BOTH. But it's a mutation and rare to boot (maybe as high as 1.7%).

    Insists that science says there are two genders. Immediately notes that science identifies more than two genders.

    /and this leaves out the whole gender!=sex thing

  16. Re:Great by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Regular guys believe and are very sure that they know the difference, just like
    they are sure about many other things they have no clue about. It's called ignorance and yes, this is a common feature of the so-called regular guy.

    All you are doing is making a bigoted blanket statement about "regular guys" exposing your own biases.

    Some degree of ignorance is useful and necessary in order for people to function in the real world and get anything at all accomplished.

    Some assume too much for their own good while others are too careful and indecisive for their own good. If you feel compelled to judge try doing so on an individual basis using something resembling objective criteria.

  17. Re:Large tech companies are anti-science? WEIRD! by iCEBaLM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Infact, the word "gender" was synonymous with "sex" up until the mid 1960's, in which feminists and "gender studies" professors started to redefine it as something different in order to further their ideas that gender was "socially constructed" in some way. We've all be duped. Gender isn't socially constructed and shouldn't be thought of that way. They were successful in their attempts to change peoples perception of the word.

  18. Trump is not a regular guy by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    unless you define "regular guy" as somebody whose dad funneled millions of dollars through him when he was a kid to dodge taxes. Me? I'm a regular guy and I was lucky to get a couple books and a Nintendo from my Dad. I also don't go out of my way to be a jerk to transgender people to score cheap political points with my base. Go figure.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  19. Re:Hypocracy by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So if someone is born biologically male, gets gender reassignment surgery because psychologically they're female, and now they feel like what they are is normal, the government is supposed to treat them as male anyway? What could POSSIBLY go wrong!? Or are they supposed to not get the surgery and 'pretend' to be a man their whole lives, even though they go through life feeling like they're living a lie?

  20. Re:Great by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    America must be doing really shitty if the constituents who want this are statistically significant.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  21. Re:Large tech companies are anti-science? WEIRD! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People with XX chromosomes can have normal male genitalia, including testicles. So your classification comes down to producing viable sperm. The male infertility rate in the US is around 9%. Since you argue there are only two sexes, those people are female?

    I'm not sure you know what science is. Which wouldn't be terribly uncommon on the Internet.

  22. Re: Great by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Left handed people are a much larger minority and the egregious damage that right-hand bias clearly imposes on our lives doesn't for some reason foster champions of social justice to save us.

    No, it's a sex thing, more than a 'plight of the minority' thing. An opportunity to be loud and brash, which is always a fun adventure.

  23. Fashion != Gender by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, that's a concrete, undeniable example of how fashion changes. A boy is still a boy whether he is dressed in blue, pink, yellow, green or any other colour and the same is true for a girl. You cannot change your gender simply by changing your clothes any more than wearing a saddle would make you a horse.