Technology

Sure. Let's just apply that consistently then. Atoms are binary, the vast majority (with fewer than 1% of atoms being exceptions) can be accurately identified as one of two distinct elements, hydrogen or helium.

I'm not quite certain the point you are making here. Is the implication that because humans typically have two hands, those that do not are not a group that can be described? Or that they can be, but only should be as the product of developmental errors?

We don't generally, where we know exceptions exist, refuse to acknowledge their existence. Saying sex is a binary is saying there are only males and only females. That's literally what binary means. Like binary notation either uses 0 or 1. If it was possible for sometimes to have a 2, it wouldn't be binary anymore. That's a different thing.

This is especially true for something like sex that is based on a grouping of traits, genes, expressions, etc. which are not universally 0 or 1. Sure, we generally agree on a category when some are different, but there's some points where it's not so stark. Hence, the binary fails because there can be overlap and grey.

Nobody is saying we have to stop using male and female to describe sex in most cases, especially in a medical setting. But if you had a child born intersex, and the doctor turned to you and said, "Nah, my gut says male. Nothing will be different," you'd probably ask for a second opinion.

This argument has always struck me as odd as in virtually every other discussion we would accept that the exception ‘proves the rule’.

This is category theory, the existence of exceptions means that the model is incomplete because it cannot categorize everyone. In this case, the exceptions prove that the rule cannot be binary, but must instead be bimodal to allow for the variation seen in the population.

Humans have two hands, except when they don’t due to something impacting fetal development.

Are you defining people without two hands as non-human, or are you admitting that defining humanity as exclusively two-handed will necessarily fail to account for all the exceptions to the rule?

Or just let the exceptions be exceptions with no social stigma rather than refusing to recognise that the vast majority of humans, and mammals, can be accurately identified as one of two distinct sexes.

Again, this is category theory. Exceptions mean you have forgotten to account for someone. Admitting that some people don't fit neatly into the only two boxes you'll recognize as legitimate is itself a form of social stigma that you perpetuate with your desire to "let exceptions be exceptions".

All you have to do is recognize the obverse, that regardless of how vast the majority of allosexual folks and critters might be, it is not the totality.

It feels like underneath all this, it's actually about people refusing to be marginalized and they want to be accepted as everyone else. But I think instead of trying to change words and ban conversations, maybe it's better to teach people to accept and even enjoy more variations?

Because right now it's a bit ridiculous. We are told to ignore obvious differences between people so nobody feels marginalized. That's likely to make it very difficult to even have a conversation.

It's like when you can't describe someone as black or white, or fat or thin, and it just becomes really humorous in the end, as you are struggling to find other words that are identifying the person.