arundelo comments on 2011 Less Wrong Census / Survey - Less Wrong

77 Post author: Yvain 01 November 2011 06:28PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (694)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: arundelo 03 November 2011 03:01:57PM *  9 points [-]

I was kind of surprised how many people can't settle on a specific gender

You could cut the gordian knot by borrowing Randall Munroe and Relsqui's solution for the xkcd color survey, which was to ask about chromosomal sex:

Do you have a Y chromosome?

[Don't Know] [Yes] [No]

If unsure, select "Yes" if you are physically male and "No" if you are physically female. If you have had SRS, please respond for your sex at birth. This question is relevant to the genetics of colorblindness.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 November 2011 07:26:27PM 7 points [-]

Technically, isn't it the number of X chromosomes that matters to colorblindness? It's just that people with Y chromosomes almost always have one X chromosome, and people without them almost always have two.

Comment author: Relsqui 29 November 2011 06:52:00AM 2 points [-]

You're correct; we asked for Y chromosomes rather than X chromosomes because it's way easier to have an extra X and not know it than to have a Y and not know it. So if we ask about Y, we can rough-sort into "probably XY" and "probably XX" groups and then look at the statistics for chromosomal deviations within those groups.

Comment author: homunq 05 November 2011 03:52:30AM 0 points [-]

... especially if they're responding to xkcd polls.

Comment author: pengvado 05 November 2011 02:22:11PM *  6 points [-]

You have some reason to believe that Klinefelte's syndrome (XXY) is less common among xkcd readers than among the general population?

Comment author: homunq 07 November 2011 04:16:38PM *  0 points [-]

I thought I did. Now that I've followed your link, I realize that even if it were less common, it would probably only be marginally so, so I withdraw my comment above.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 November 2011 03:36:24PM 3 points [-]

Most people don't actually know their karyotype, and are often surprised to learn that it's not always what you assume. You can't necessarily infer chromosomes from external appearance and self-identification reliably; you have to look at the actual chromosomes to be sure.

Comment author: Prismattic 05 November 2011 09:05:06PM 3 points [-]

If I'm not mistaken, you don't need a DNA test for this. A cell sample under a strong microscope will show the barr bodies for XX (this won't distinguish XXY, but that's pretty rare).

Comment author: [deleted] 06 November 2011 12:34:46AM 0 points [-]

Looking at the barr bodies is not a karyotype test. A test that can't detect whether or not someone is not XX/XY sufficient to actually tell you the information you need to know your chromosome type.

Yes, in terms of strict probability most people will be one of those. The test of the method is how well it handles edge cases (not at all); this is of considerably greater importance when you're talking about those edge cases.

Comment author: Relsqui 30 November 2011 10:56:02PM 1 point [-]

Also, rereading that explanation, I'm annoyed at how I worded it. It's okay, but my trans*-inclusive vocabulary has improved since then and I could do better. Hell, just "if unsure, select 'yes' if you were born with a penis" would have been sufficient.

Comment author: Alicorn 30 November 2011 11:36:46PM 2 points [-]

I'm not sure how any of these wordings of questions handle people with ambiguous genitalia.

Comment author: Relsqui 04 December 2011 07:50:36AM 0 points [-]

Fair point. I'm not sure either; I think I'm relying on a given individual who is e.g. intersex either a) knowing that, and being able to make a better-educated guess about their chromosomes than any heuristic I offer, or b) not knowing that, which I'm willing to assume correlates well to having genitals that either do look like a penis or don't.