RE: Wie viele Geschlechter gibt es eigentlich?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Sehr interessantes article/blog!
We deal with what we humans do all the time to simplify the world so that most of us can make sense of it. The two gender setup is part of this. But as you pointed out, from a biological point of view, this isn't two but a whole spectrum. But how should we deal with this whenever we want to categprise? Perhaps we shall leave categorisation to gender, stop doing so. It is quite an intesting question to try and answer what the result of such will be, when none of us is known in any system and/or in our own ID/Passport to be a male/female or something else, but just 'a human'. That said, clasification to be human is under presure or will be under pressure as well. With brain machine interfaces incoming, I am pretty sure we'll see a marge of human and machine in all shapes and forms. And what about an AI that is super intelligent and behaves like a human, in all aspects? Very very interesting topic you brought forward leading to even more questions 😉
Thanks for your thoughtful comment! You are right: categorization helps us navigate the world, but it can oversimplify complex realities. The idea of 'just human' on IDs is interesting. At least for me it doesn't matter to see my sex on my passport (actually, in terms of complete freedom I would not even need a passport, but that is another story).
True and agree regarding oversimplification.
Question is when we categorise humans in genders, should this just be on biological elements or does the mind also play a role? I know, the latter you didn't debate in our article. Anyways, the question on genderification administration starts with the why. Why do we want to classify humans in genders? I think those who drive gender recording shall have a close look towards this topic. Perhaps some form of public debates and decision making shall be made. In my country the concept of citizen council is used more often these days, especially for topics with the difficulty of this one. For now the results of such citizen council is an advise to politicians, but I think this should become less advisory, more decision. Under the condition that the citizen coucil works, ie also get exposed to right experts, when needed even from different areas and even with different view points.
No ID: that is another interesting topic. Also in the grey zone. Like all these type of topics are, every outcome and decision has its (objective) pro's and con's for the individual, the neighbourhood, the town/city and the larger society.
These are interesting and absolutely legitimate questions: Should 'mind' be considered when determining sex? And why do we categorize humans at all?
Regarding the mind's role, the problem is that biological markers are (mostly) objectively verifiable, while internal identity is subjective and hard to assess externally. That's not necessarily an argument against considering it – but it does raise practical questions, especially in contexts where verification matters (like competitive sports).
Perhaps the solution isn't "biology OR identity", but context-specific approaches? For example, medical or sports contexts may need biological data; social contexts may prioritize self-identification.
That is a great way of looking at things. Indeed, for sports, biological markers may need to be used. For other topics, self-identification may indeed be the way forward. You got me in thinking mode with some great perspectives. Thanks for that!
You are very welcome! If my post made some people think, that's the best I could hope for. :)