you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Rare, sure, but keep in mind that even a 0.2% incidence rate means that 16 million people wouldn't fit the binary gender model. And that's the most conservative estimate for the condition given in the article. 6% puts it closer to half a billion people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    That's what I took from it as well 0.2 is 1 in 500, ok its quite a lot, but 6% is just over 1 in 16 people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    And the sad truth is that we dont even know if its 0.1 or 0.2% or even higher than 6% cause we are curreently choosing not to and have not chosen to research the commonality and impact of this type of person being born deeper.

    We are for some reason choosing to be stuck on these estimates when we should be trying to be as caring and exact as possible, ESPECIALLY when it comes to a babie's gender and their bodily autonomy!

  • source
  • parent