>Relative to what? I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
Relative to the total population. Whether it's Canada, the US, France, or the Whole World you're taking into account, it's still 1% of it.
>You can't just say 1% is a negligible amount without context.
Probably you missed TFA and the whole conversation thread you're answering to?
The context was if only 1% of the population doing them is enough to call sexual preferences "a spectrum" (with regard to those "atypical sexual practices"). Something divided in 99% and 1% is not a "spectrum" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact there's a word for that 1%, outliers.
>1% blood alcohol will probably kill you, 1% error on your taxes, if intentional, is enough to put you in jail, 1% error in floating point arithmetic is the difference between a missile that hits its target and a missile that lands in a civilian residence. But numbers get their significance relatively, right?
Of course. 1% blood alcohol gets its significance not in what it is ("1% oh, so much") but RELATIVE to the amount that's OK for a human to stand.
1% error in missile calculations gets its significance RELATIVE to the target area it has to hit and the acceptable margin of error.
> Probably you missed TFA and the whole conversation thread you're answering to?
TFA and whole conversation are exactly the context which makes it ridiculous to claim that 1% is an acceptable margin of error.
> Of course. 1% blood alcohol gets its significance not in what it is ("1% oh, so much") but RELATIVE to the amount that's OK for a human to stand.
> 1% error in missile calculations gets its significance RELATIVE to the target area it has to hit and the acceptable margin of error.
Agreed. 1% error in judging the gender of people is significant relative to medical and social policy targets. On what grounds are you claiming that 70 million people are ignorable in medical and social policy?
Ironically, the only argument from you I've seen so far against sex being considered a spectrum is basically, "1%, oh, not so much". You said: "You say that like it's some huge number. 70 million or not, it's still 1%."
And ultimately, this is in research before we are even talking about medical and social policy. I'm not sure why we should just discard that 1% of data at all--there's no reason to artificially create error in reasoning that isn't imposed by data collection methods.
Relative to the total population. Whether it's Canada, the US, France, or the Whole World you're taking into account, it's still 1% of it.
>You can't just say 1% is a negligible amount without context.
Probably you missed TFA and the whole conversation thread you're answering to?
The context was if only 1% of the population doing them is enough to call sexual preferences "a spectrum" (with regard to those "atypical sexual practices"). Something divided in 99% and 1% is not a "spectrum" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact there's a word for that 1%, outliers.
>1% blood alcohol will probably kill you, 1% error on your taxes, if intentional, is enough to put you in jail, 1% error in floating point arithmetic is the difference between a missile that hits its target and a missile that lands in a civilian residence. But numbers get their significance relatively, right?
Of course. 1% blood alcohol gets its significance not in what it is ("1% oh, so much") but RELATIVE to the amount that's OK for a human to stand.
1% error in missile calculations gets its significance RELATIVE to the target area it has to hit and the acceptable margin of error.