The author even presented it less as binary and more just that it had clear, obvious categories. But like, anyway. That was to be expected. Except.
-
Show this thread
-
Later in the chapter she writes about operationalizing variables and the idea of a proxy measurement, the two examples of which she uses are "field tests of a person's sobriety by law enforcement" and "quality of patient care in a hospital."
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likesShow this thread -
I had forgotten the meaning of a proxy measurement, but it's when you decide or legitimately are correct in deciding that you can't measure [variable] so you're going to measure something that you think clearly stands for variable.
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likesShow this thread -
How is it not obvious that sex is a proxy measurement
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likesShow this thread -
I feel like even cis people who think inside the binary should know this, because they have some idea of what makes a man or a woman and it's highly unlikely to be any of the things they can observe, see *gestures at bathroom discourse*
2 replies 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @BootlegGirl
Hmm, wait - so is it that sex is a proxy for something else, or that we use dozens of variables (badly) as a proxy for sex?
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @mssilverstein
No, I mean, from any perspective, from bigoted to inclusive, knowing someone's sex without making more measurements than we usually do about people we do assume have a sex, is based on a proxy. Unless you Always Know :P
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @BootlegGirl @mssilverstein
So for me, as a random example, I will always accept someone's sex that they tell me as the true sex that person has (but sometimes, they are wrong about it and decide so later, so it's still not a *precision measurement*). In any case though I make assumptions.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @BootlegGirl @mssilverstein
But I assume the sex of people I haven't spoken to. So does almost everyone. Nearly everyone makes a proxy measurement of sex using something (less clueful people use stereotypical traits and body traits, more clueful use gender presentation, but none of them measure "sex")
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @BootlegGirl @mssilverstein
As Serrano etc. have spent a lot of effort on demonstrating, sex itself is a measurement like "intelligence" that cannot be precise or reflect an objective reality, but even if you think it's something else, people make proxy judgments about what chromosomes or junk ppl have
1 reply 2 retweets 3 likes
Sex in a statistical survey is almost always self-reported, and the whole thing is they used to assume both that everyone had accurate knowledge of their "biological sex" and that there was no reason to ever self-report "incorrectly"
-
-
I.e. they see being trans as a strange pathology that started happening very recently
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
This is the thing I got from arguing with T*RFs, that in reality almost all statistical knowledge we have of "biological sex" is already self-reported -- there's no way it can be otherwise, everything is self-reported -- and there's nothing they can do to stop that
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.