Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Elaedith said:
"The claim sex is bimodal suggests we can make a measurement on an individual and use that to plot them along a distribution."

To nit-pick, a categorical variable can have a mode since the mode is a frequency count. However, the accompanying graphs showing overlapping continuous distributions make it clear they are not thinking about sex as a categorical variable.
Click to expand...

Trying to remember my stats work... I'm inclined to say that categorical variables can have modes as a result of frequency counts among several categorical variables... but they cannot have a bimodal distribution. to have a bimodal distribution, the data being evaluated has to at minimum be ordinal.

You can make a picture based on non-ordinal categorical data so that it looks like it's bimodal, but that's an artifact of an arbitrary arrangement. And because there's no inherent order to the data, any perceived bimodality is at best a false impression and at worst the result of intentional misinformation.

Sex isn't ordinal, thus it can't be a bimodal distribution. Personally, I think the insistence that it's bimodal is intentional misinformation.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Trying to remember my stats work... I'm inclined to say that categorical variables can have modes as a result of frequency counts among several categorical variables... but they cannot have a bimodal distribution. to have a bimodal distribution, the data being evaluated has to at minimum be ordinal.

You can make a picture based on non-ordinal categorical data so that it looks like it's bimodal, but that's an artifact of an arbitrary arrangement. And because there's no inherent order to the data, any perceived bimodality is at best a false impression and at worst the result of intentional misinformation.

Sex isn't ordinal, thus it can't be a bimodal distribution. Personally, I think the insistence that it's bimodal is intentional misinformation.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree, although it depends on what you mean by distribution. A categorical variable can have two categories with much higher frequency counts than the others and approximately equal counts, in which case you would say it has two modes. This remains true regardless of how the categories are ordered. In fact this would be true of a dichotomous categorical variable, so it clearly is not what the 'sex is bimodal' crowd mean by bimodal. Aside from that they always graph continuous distributions.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Sex isn't ordinal, thus it can't be a bimodal distribution. Personally, I think the insistence that it's bimodal is intentional misinformation.
Click to expand...
I think that's unduly uncharitable. Plenty of otherwise competent MD's and PhD's flail about when they are asked to do stats, and basically everyone is subject to the usual heuristics and biases when they are trying to prove some point in furtherance of their political agenda.

Andy Lewis was right to call this muddling of the mind, and the muddle goes all the way up to science influencers like SBM & Science Vs.
 
Last edited:
AIUI, bimodal simply means that the distribution of a given set of data might have two peaks. For example of you made a graph showing the distribution of human body-weights, you will likely find two peaks, one for males and one for females. If you did one for racehorse race times over standing two-mile races you also might find two peaks, one for stallions and one for mares... in fact you might find three peaks, with the third one being for geldings, in which case the distribution is trimodal.

But this cannot be applied to biological sex. Bimodality (or trimodality) is a result of variations in the data being measured. In the first example above, some samples (humans) are heavier and some are lighter. Same principle applies to the second example, some samples (racehorses) are faster and some are slower. These are inherent properties of those samples. But biological sex does not have these inherent properties, Setting aside outliers such as those with DSDs intersex, all humans are either biologically male or biologically female. One biological female cannot be more or less biologically female than another biological female. One biological male cannot be more or less biologically male than another biological male. On a graph of the biological sex of all humans, ~50% of the samples are all in the same peak at one extreme end of the graph, and the other ~50% are all in the same peak at the extreme other end of the graph, and zero samples exist between them. Biological sex can only be said to be bimodal such that both peaks are hard up against the ends of the graph with nothing in between. This result can have but one conclusion... biological sex in humans is not bimodal, its binary.
 
d4m10n said:
I think that's unduly uncharitable.
Click to expand...

Given how many times the claim has been addressed, and how many times it has been pointed out that a histogram of categorical data cannot be viewed as being a bimodal distribution, and how many times the fundamental question of *what is being measured on the x-axis* has been asked over the past SEVERAL years since the "sex is bimodal" talking point first reared its misguided head... I don't think "unduly" is warranted.

Uncharitable, sure, but it's entirely duly at this point. And I no longer feel any need to be charitable to anyone who seeks to turn my sex into a costume for males to wear. I DNGAF if it's "uncharitable", just as I DNGAF if it's "not kind" when I say that males should NOT be allowed to use female-specific showers and spas or be placed in female prisons.

I think it's unkind and uncharitable to expect females to "be kind" in those situations.
 
smartcooky said:
AIUI, bimodal simply means that the distribution of a given set of data might have two peaks.
Click to expand...
Bimodal implies that the data is at least ordinal. It has to have an inherent ordering to it, it has to be measurable in a way that allows for a natural progression of lesser to greater. It must be able to be represented in a numerical fashion, in which the numbers are directly correlated with the measure itself.

smartcooky said:
For example of you made a graph showing the distribution of human body-weights, you will likely find two peaks, one for males and one for females. If you did one for racehorse race times over standing two-mile races you also might find two peaks, one for stallions and one for mares... in fact you might find three peaks, with the third one being for geldings, in which case the distribution is trimodal.
Click to expand...
All of the things being measured are ordinal in nature. We can order height from shorter to taller, based on an objective measurement. We can measure race times from shorter to longer.

smartcooky said:
But this cannot be applied to biological sex. Bimodality (or trimodality) is a result of variations in the data being measured. In the first example above, some samples (humans) are heavier and some are lighter. Same principle applies to the second example, some samples (racehorses) are faster and some are slower. These are inherent properties of those samples. But biological sex does not have these inherent properties, Setting aside outliers such as those with DSDs intersex, all humans are either biologically male or biologically female. One biological female cannot be more or less biologically female than another biological female. One biological male cannot be more or less biologically male than another biological male. On a graph of the biological sex of all humans, ~50% of the samples are all in the same peak at one extreme end of the graph, and the other ~50% are all in the same peak at the extreme other end of the graph, and zero samples exist between them. Biological sex can only be said to be bimodal such that both peaks are hard up against the ends of the graph with nothing in between. This result can have but one conclusion... biological sex in humans is not bimodal, its binary.
Click to expand...
As Elaedith pointed out earlier, categorical data can have multiple modes - it can have more than one category that demonstrates a statistically significant higher prevalence than a different categories. But multiple modes of categorical data is not the same as a measure having a bimodal distribution.

All of which is me being pedantic, because the substance of your post is correct. :D
 
Simple question: absent some genetic and physical abnormality present since birth, can a woman have a penis?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Given how many times the claim has been addressed, and how many times it has been pointed out that a histogram of categorical data cannot be viewed as being a bimodal distribution, and how many times the fundamental question of *what is being measured on the x-axis* has been asked over the past SEVERAL years since the "sex is bimodal" talking point first reared its misguided head... I don't think "unduly" is warranted.
Click to expand...
I've seen no evidence that the author of that piece heard the question and understood it.

You are imputing bad faith from the jump, assuming that he already knows better.
 
Hercules56 said:
Simple question: absent some genetic and physical abnormality present since birth, can a woman have a penis?
Click to expand...


Of course she can. Though the legal question of whose, and how she obtained it, might be troubling.
 
Elaedith said:
James Esses has reached a settlement with the Metanoia Institute over his expulsion from their psychotherapy course. Metanoia issued this statement.
Click to expand...

"Metanoia recognises that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010. These are the beliefs that sex is binary, immutable and biological and is fundamentally important. Whilst Metanoia specialises in professional training for those working in adult and not child psychotherapy it accepts as a matter of general principle the validity of the professional belief that children with gender dysphoria should be treated with explorative therapy, rather than being affirmed towards medical intervention. Discrimination against students because of these beliefs is unlawful.

Metanoia also acknowledges the changing policy landscape in this field, including the significant UKCP withdrawal from the 2017 Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, on child safeguarding grounds, as well as the outcome of the Cass Review. We accept that Mr Esses’ advocacy on this subject-matter was motivated by a desire to protect children."​

Oh boy... that is what I call a backpedal!
 
Why elite women’s sports need to be based on sex, not gender

Sort of amazed they let this article through at WaPo.

The essential example is Katie Ledecky, who is said to be “better at swimming than anyone is at anything.” She just won an unprecedented fourth straight Olympic gold medal in her best event, the 800-meter freestyle. Her world record time in that event — 8:04.79 — shows up at No. 26 among the best American 15- to 16-year-old boys.
Click to expand...

Comes with excellent illustrations as well.
 
Last edited:
That is simply brilliant. I couldn't get past the paywall on my computer but it showed up on my phone. Absolutely nails it.
 
I liked this bit:

"Some federations are even testing out new “open” or “nonbinary” categories — although that’s often over the objection of activists who see the female category as “the best place” for all gender diverse athletes."
 
smartcooky said:
"Metanoia recognises that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010. These are the beliefs that sex is binary, immutable and biological and is fundamentally important. Whilst Metanoia specialises in professional training for those working in adult and not child psychotherapy it accepts as a matter of general principle the validity of the professional belief that children with gender dysphoria should be treated with explorative therapy, rather than being affirmed towards medical intervention. Discrimination against students because of these beliefs is unlawful.

Metanoia also acknowledges the changing policy landscape in this field, including the significant UKCP withdrawal from the 2017 Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, on child safeguarding grounds, as well as the outcome of the Cass Review. We accept that Mr Esses’ advocacy on this subject-matter was motivated by a desire to protect children."​

Oh boy... that is what I call a backpedal!
Click to expand...

Only because transphobia is protected speech in England.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Only because transphobia is protected speech in England.
Click to expand...

Gender-Critical speech is considered to be hate speech. Those of us who say that sex is binary, which is an observable, scientific reality, are labelled as transphobic. What a completely upside down, ******-up world we are living in at this time in history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom