I’ve gotten a few emails and /msgs about this so I really wanted to post a clarification.
When I put the color survey together, I was mostly interested in making maps and tables of color names; the opening survey was almost an afterthought. Finn added a question about chromosomal sex, since it’s closely correlated with colorblindness (Finn is one of the rare people with two faulty X chromosomes for color vision).
We debated for a long time to find a wording of the question that would be answerable unambiguously by everyone, regardless of gender identification or any other issues. In response to a friend who was suggesting we were overcomplicating things, Finn said, “I *refuse* to word the question in a way that doesn’t have a good, clear answer available for transsexuals, intersex people, and people who already know they have chromosomal anomalies.” I felt the same way, and at the same time I didn’t want to assume everyone remembers what the hell chromosomes are. After hours of debate, everyone was happy with this:
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.
We didn’t add a question about gender identification, in part because I wasn’t really planning to do anything with the survey data beyond basic calibration and didn’t want to hassle people with more questions, and in part because gender is really complicated. We recently programmed Bucket, the IRC chat bot in #xkcd, to allow people set their gender so he can use pronouns for them. This ended up taking hundreds of lines of code, three pages of documentation, and six different sets of pronouns and variables, just to cover all the basic ways people in the channel with different gender identifications wanted to be referred to (even without invented pronouns like “xe”, which we vetoed). And that’s just to cover the pronouns. The role of gender in society is the most complicated thing I’ve ever spent a lot of time learning about, and I’ve spent a lot of time learning about quantum mechanics.
So when I wrote the survey, I really didn’t have anything in mind for the data. After it went up, I saw the DoghouseDiaries comic, and immediately wanted to investigate. I was really amazed by the results, particularly the top-five list of colors, which came as a complete surprise. Everyone agreed it was the most interesting of my results (at some point, my friends were sick of hearing me talk about hues and saturations) and I couldn’t resist publishing it somehow.
Originally, my post had a big wall of text discussing how all I had was chromosomal data, and that what the comic talked about was gender identification. I rewrote this post a bunch of times, and ended up with roughly the wording that’s there now:
[…] realized I could test it (as far as chromosomal sex goes, anyway, which we asked about because it’s tied to colorblindness).
I didn’t want to spend a long time boring people about sex and gender (I’ll talk forever if you let me), but I also wanted to clarify that this was something I cared about and was trying to pay proper attention to. I ran it by some friends before posting, and they approved; one specifically thanked me for adding that note. So I figured I’d found a good balance.
But a number of people were still offended or upset by my use of the chromosomal data in a conversation about gender. Now, there are always going to be people upset about anything; as Ford Prefect said, “Fuck ’em. You can’t care about every damn thing.” But this is an issue I really do care about, and one I spend a lot of time trying to get right—and I genuinely appreciate the guidance. If people were offended or feel I didn’t handle this right, I’m sorry, and it’s my fault. But it wasn’t for lack of caring.
And to anyone writing software that handles gender or sex information, it’s a good reminder that these questions are not always straightforward for everyone, and a little courtesy can do a lot to make someone feel respected.
xkcd 
Seriously?
Penis = boy
‘Gine = girl
Other = defective goods, get am RMA number
You are not as unique and complicated as you want to be.
Will this post be censored as troll/spam? Who knows.
LikeLike
I would like to point out that there are some biological females (frequently related to colourblind biological males) who have troubles with red-orange-brown-gold type colours. I would also like to say thank you, Randall, for taking time to word the question the way you did- it may not matter to the majority of the population, but to the people it does matter to, it matters a lot. Thanks.
LikeLike
I was pleased with the way that you worded the original question. I also really enjoyed the survey over all. I appreciate the thought and time you put into the overall gender vs. sex question forming dilemma. Did XY chromosomes really answered ‘penis’ as a color? Did any XX chromosomes answer ‘breast’ as a color? Just wondering. I love your comic by the way.
LikeLike
@Emily: I think you should read the comments. Few of them are rage inducing, and it’s not very open-minded to completely ignore people you think might disagree with you.
LikeLike
Speaking as a trans woman, I was very pleased to see how the survey question was worded, and I agree with those above who noted that it definitely shows that the survey was designed to include generally marginalized groups without jeopardizing the data. (Speaking as a gender studies major, I’d probably gripe about the fact that the question referred to SRS rather than to identification, but I’m very possibly the only person who cares so that seems a bit pointless.) I was happy to participate, and it was quite interesting (and rewarding, for that matter) to see the results.
@Emily: J’s right; except for anonymous howard’s comment above, the comments have tended heavily toward the respectful and open-minded.
And my ReCaptcha is “inviting problems”, which seems rather ominous for the reaction to this comment…
LikeLike
@Erica: I think it quite likely several people would have asnwered “Boobs”. “Breast” I doubt, “Chicken Breast” Possibly.
LikeLike
Couldn’t we see this as a failure of language rather than a failure of other kinds (personal discrimination/bias, cultural, etc.)?
LikeLike
I just wanted to thank you for saying this. (I didn’t email, I wasn’t offended.) It was a really graceful way to approach a difficult subject (and when people think it’s simple, they obviously haven’t thought much about it). I really appreciate it. I’m used to random sexist/homophobic things popping up when I least expect it, so to have the opposite happen is reassuring.
LikeLike
lol math majors trying to discuss gender theory. thanks but no thanks.
LikeLike
@Boland: Colourblind XXY males would be extremely rare because they’d have to coincidentally get the wrong number of X chromosomes (rare) and have both X chromosomes be defective for colour vision (also rare). A survey can’t nail down every single contingency.
I thought the wording of the question and the options offered were great, because it addresses directly the most common and likely cause of people not being able to see colours properly. Kept things straightforward and simple. At first I was going to complain that you can have XY biological females who have mutations in the SRY gene, androgen insensitivity syndrome, etc., and then I realised that neither of those are relevant to X-linked colourblindness anyway.
I’m a straight XX female (fairly sure of the XX because had to do own karyotype for an undergrad genetics class), for what that’s worth, since everybody is throwing their gender out there =P
LikeLike
I totally answered like a chick.. who knew “lavender” was an actual color? (and I totally got it right too)
LikeLike
I am genetically female, have a clitoris and all the other usual female parts, and identify as female, but I still have a nagging doubt that I might have accidentally answered that question incorrectly one of the times I did it. I actually restarted the survey once to make sure I’d answered it correctly. It’s not that I have any doubt about my chromosomes, just that when I see a question with a Y in it as a whole word I’m afraid I’ll reflexively answer Y.
Also, it would be interesting to see the colour map showing just the results of colourblind people, if there were enough of them.
By the way, where did you get the more specific colour names shown in the instructions (e.g. ” ‘brown’ and ‘raw umber’ are both good answers”) and did you notice a bias toward these colour names? I know I named colours ‘light olive’ a few times, and that colour name might not have occurred to me if I had not seen it in the instructions.
LikeLike
I found the survey fascinating, and I think that the M/F question was worded in an excellent way. Most people wouldn’t have even started to go to the effort you guys went to.
People on here have commented on XXY, XYY etc. How does one find out what chromosomes they have? I’m interested because on my submission to the survey, I used a number of typically (from the results) feminine names for the colours. in terms of gender and sexuality, I identify as male and hetero, but I am a cross-dresser, and enjoy certain aspects of femininity.
I’d love to find out more about these things (i know a reasonable amount about the psychology of transvestism, but nothing about the biology. I would really appreciate any pointers to further reading on the subject.
Thanks for setting up such an interesting experiment.
P.S. I vote to change the X11 colours too.
LikeLike
I would think graphic art professionals and/or painters/fine artists would have distinctly more precise answers, or maybe they would just use Pantone numbers. Too bad you couldn’t sort out that sample to see.
LikeLike
what about those of us with cloacas? how do we fit in?
LikeLike
The amount of effort you put into this is commendable. Given that the point was chromosomal sex, transition status and gender identity are irrelevant for the purposes of the survey. If folks are still pissy about the wording because they feel their gender identity isn’t being respected, they’re completely missing the point. Screw ’em.
Obviously it gets more complicated with intersex folks, particularly if they are chromosomally intersex in some way, but if the point is you’re linking colour-blindness to the Y chromosome, all you need to know is if they have one. Although it might be interesting to hear from people who have more than one (XYY, etc).
Anyway, thank you for being awesome and working hard to be inclusive. So few people can be bothered to show that kind of respect.
LikeLike
i wonder how many people bought the biggest box of crayolas they could get and then named the colors on the screen by matching the colors on the crayons? as far as i am concerned, they still hold the standard.
LikeLike
As always, I agree with Mr Adams assessment. Fuck them.
Being a Biologically Male Colorblind Male (If I have to go that far as to clarify that I a person who was born with a penis and still has it attached, and also happens to have trouble telling colors apart) I think the phrasing was flawless. It did not go into too much detail, and asked exactly what was relevant to the survey. If someone wants to read too deep into it, then the issue is only pertinent to said individual. On a side note, writing with all neutral pronouns is a pain in the ass.
Then again, I was in the target population the phrasing was designed for, so this is just another rant.
LikeLike
I learned colorimetry from the Institute of Radio Engineering magazine Proceedings, 1954 Jan, and from “Television Engineering Handbook” by Donald G. Fink. The subject is nontrivial, but quite absorbing. I used many other sources, too, but they are too diffuse to mention.
One problem with these tests is the monitor’s calibration—lack thereof. Most monitors come adjusted to 9300K. Round-screen color TVs used 8500K. Noon-daylight is 5000K, and video uses 6500K. The latter is also called D65 and Illuminant D. If you turn on an incandescent lamp during the day, it will look orange—2850K, to be exact.
Have fuuuuun!
I did not get to participate in the survey, but someone who takes the effort to get something RIGHT—according to the folks above—is aces in My book.
LikeLike
Sex is a physiological phenomenon.
Gender is something people made up to draw lines in our society that give us something to bicker over. Ignore it. It’s easier and nicer for everybody that way.
End of story.
LikeLike
I couldn’t reist pitching in my two cents – being an architect (the design type for buildings that is) & structural engineer and a bit flabbergasted by the colour-naming stereotypification I had to send this, since most women might name colours that way – but what if those like myself truly think like men?! I’m an INTJ on the Briggs-Meyers type (it seems only 0.005% of women in the world are), a healthy touch of Asperger’s and a brain systematization quotient (male – brainness) of 66/80. According to Simon Baron-Cohen ‘normal’ men have a b.s.q of 30 and ‘normal’ women have 24. Therefore you got those ‘colour’ names on the survey. I cannot make out those ‘intermediate shades’ and mushy names either! And wish things weren’t so classified by gender. Doesn’t work for me!
Here’s my opinion on how in these ‘typification’ of male-males vs. girly-girls, the sexy-girls-with-male-brains get left out:
LikeLike
Hey Randall,
having taken classes in GIS, I was wondering if you wished to explore how ‘colour’ can be used as information as in RGB composites of satellite imagery….here’s a post I’d written on colour as viewed by the Landsat 7 which led to thinking of colour theory:
http://gipsygeek.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/hello-world/
LikeLike
Just wanted to throw in my thanks to the list. It made my day to see how you phrased that question, and I had been having a really good day, so that’s saying something.
LikeLike
I think there should’ve been an extra question asking to which gender you identify yourself. The way you asked about chromosomes was great, and your reasoning for it makes sense. Colorblindness is directly affected by chromosomes, so that is what needs to be determined.
But the chromosome answer shouldn’t have been used by your later observations. After all, it would have been interesting to know whether transgender people answer more like their original or more like their self-identified gender.
I’m male-to-female transgender myself. I wasn’t offended by the way you asked the question at all, as it made sense to me. I just think that part of your interpretation of results could be based on invalid data.
*Hugs all*
LikeLike
Did Ford Prefect really say that? If so, I’d like to know where — I love it!
LikeLike
For Russell G:
‘I ordered us some foie gras,’ said Ford.
‘What?’ said Arthur, whose attention was entirely focused
on the television.
‘I said I ordered us some foie gras.’
‘Oh,’ said Arthur, vaguely. ‘Um, I always feel a hit bad
about foie gras. Bit cruel to the geese, isn’t it?’
‘Fuck ’em,’ said Ford, slumping on the bed. ‘You can’t care
about every damn thing.’
‘Well, that’s all very well for you to say, but…’
‘Drop it!’ said Ford. ‘If you don’t like it I’ll have yours.
What’s happening?’
LikeLike
I think the Y-chromosome question was the best gender question I’ve ever seen.
And the reCAPTCHA for this post was “scanners cannot”. That is also good.
LikeLike
Matthew puts it well. Sex is a physiological phenomenon, one that ought to be relevant only to your romantic partner and your physician. The fact that you made it clear that you were NOT asking about it (being neither romantic partner nor physician) struck me as the right way to go about things.
LikeLike
All right, you get away with it because you posted your survey initially unrelated to the Doghouse Diaries survey, but they asked about things like using “lavender”, “lime” and so on as color names, and they related it (rightly or, more likely, wrongly) to gender, not to color blindness.
LikeLike
Well, we now have enough data to conclude that anonymous howard is a dick. (Or, in some dialects, a prick, or a putz.)
LikeLike
Okay, look. I don’t know why people would be offended by science. You’re not making any of this up (or if you are, you’re doing a bang up job) and quite frankly, it offends me when people get offended by well supported conclusions from data. The way in which you asked for gender was spot on. You cut right to the biological chase, which is where the hard data will be. (Psychological identification of gender is about as “hard data” as Velveeta after 60 seconds in the microwave is “soft cheese”.)
LikeLike
My mum is one of those women. She’s very colour-blind. She likes playing that speedy bubbles game because it’s more difficult for her because all the colours look the same. My Grama is only a little bit colour-blind, just enough to throw her titrations off. After my Great-Grama died we thought maybe she was too because we noticed that she made some strange decisions in her quilting. In the Android market there is a game called Colouroid which has a colour-blind mode. It’s difficult being colour-blind. I don’t think I am; it’s just that I don’t have a lot of different names for colours. My brother didn’t believe he was very colour-blind until I told him that green and red and brown are as different as pink and blue and black. He’d never thought about it that way.
LikeLike
As a trans person who was offended by your question, I don’t really think you answered why sex was the important contribution in this study compared to gender.
I won’t really get into it, unless you really care to. However, I’m very happy that you posted something about it and at least acknowledging that you were aware of the issue. 🙂
LikeLike
There are possibly two easy ways to avoid giving offense while still maintaining a standard impersonal information form:
1. Prefix “No offense, but,” and append “(you know what I mean)” to every field.
E.g. “No offense, but, are you some kind of moron? (you know what I mean). Yes/No/Don’t know”
Personally, I feel comfortable enough answering “Yes”, and I am certainly not offended.
2. Long-winded expandable clarificatory paragraphs accessible through a superscript “Why do we ask this? First, allow me to explain before you improperly make unwarranted deductions ” link pre-empting the reasonable objections of those most likely to take offense.
Ideally, both methods can be used on the same form, thus obviating future apologies.
LikeLike
I’m so sick of people being offended at everything. That was a perfectly legitimate and appropriate scientific question. Randall may be with Ford Prefect, but I’m with the voice of the Guide.
LikeLike
Oh, yeah, and: For the record, your handling of how to ask about Y chromosomes, including the brief explanation of why you were asking, was one of the best I’ve ever seen — including for sociological research where the study designers really, really ought to have known better. As someone who identifies as both genderqueer and intersexed, not being forced into a binary box I don’t fit in is important to me.
(My reCaptcha is “yourself diagram” — which, in fairness, reminds me that even I find it challenging to delineate gender or biological-sex categories that fit people as far off the binary as I am.)
LikeLike
The question should have been “Do you have more than one X chromosome?” Having a Y does not mean having only one X, and the genetics of colorblindness depend on the recessive nature of the gene (or genes, I forget the details) and its/their presence on the X chromosome.
LikeLike
As a transwoman, I applaud you for phrasing the question that way. It was very clear what it was asking for (unlike every single other sex/gender field in the world) and what its purpose was. It was a very nice surprise.
@anonymous howard: While we aren’t that unique (there are millions [yes, MILLIONS] of us, after all), it really is that complicated. So fuck off.
@Matthew: Gender is not just “made up”; it is an intrinsic component of one’s identity. Story not over. Fuck off.
(Normally I wouldn’t feed the trolls, but this time, it’s personal.)
LikeLike
::sigh::
In response to Mew and any other trans-identified people who don’t understand why asking about whether respondents had a Y chromosome was relevant to a colour-naming survey and wasn’t offensive in either intent or effect:
FFS, GFE, WFE.
Okay, no, that’s not fair. If they knew what those three acronyms meant, they wouldn’t be confused.
Colour-blindness is what’s called an “X-linked” condition. That means that the genes that cause it are on the part of the X chromosome, aka the 23rd chromosome pair, which is missing from the Y chromosome.
For those who need even that part explained: Most anatomically male humans have one X and one Y chromosome, and most anatomically female humans have two X chromosomes. Humans generally have 23 pairs of chromosomes, having inherited one copy of every chromosome from each of their parents. All of the chromosomes except the Y chromosome look more or less like an X in shape; the Y chromosome might more accurately be called the iota chromosome, because it’s significantly smaller than the other, X-shaped chromosomes. (Some conditions, such as Down syndrome and Klinefelter syndrome, are the result of inheriting an extra copy of one chromosome, so that there are three copies instead of two, and a total of 47 chromosomes instead of the usual 23 pairs = 46.)
If a woman inherits an X chromosome from her colour-blind father — which she almost always will, because the only copies of chromosome 23 he has are his Y chromosome, which would under most circumstances lead to a child with it being born male, and the X chromosome which caused his colour-blindness — she won’t necessarily be colour-blind. This is because women (under most circumstances) inherit their other X chromosome from their mother, and even if her mother is a carrier of colour-blindness, with one X chromosome that carries the gene for colour-blindness and one that doesn’t, there’s only a 50-50 chance of a daughter inheriting the one with the colour-blindness genes.
Colour-blindness is recessive. This means that, so long as someone has at least one copy of the chromosome that the genes which cause the condition are on which is “normal” — i.e., that doesn’t have genes which cause the disorder — then the person will show few if any signs of the condition, because our bodies go with the “good” copy if there’s a good one and a not-so-good one. (Some genes are dominant instead of recessive, and affect those who carry them even if there’s only one copy, but that’s an explanation for another day.) People with one X chromosome and one Y chromosome, besides usually being biologically male, don’t have a spare “good” copy of the X chromosome, so if the X they inherited from their mother has the colour-blindness gene on it, they WILL be colour-blind.
Women can be colour-blind (there’s a popular misconception that cisgendered women are never colour-blind, but it’s merely very rare compared to how often cisgendered men are colour-blind) IF they inherit an X chromosome with the genes for colour-blindness from both their fathers and their mothers. If a woman has only one X chromosome with the colour-blindness genes on it, and at least one other “normal” X chromosome, remember, she won’t be colour-blind. Or, well, she might have very slight difficulty distinguishing some colours in the red-brown-green range. But most XX women who are merely carriers of the colour-blindness gene have no symptoms.
Of course, not everyone with a Y chromosome is biologically male or of male gender, any more than everyone with two X chromosomes is biologically female or of female gender. Some women have only one X chromosome (Turner syndrome), some women have three X chromosomes (trisomy X), some women even have an X and a Y (androgen insensitivity syndrome being the most common cause) or two X chromosomes plus one Y chromosome (Klinefelter syndrome, which often but not always presents as an intersex condition or an apparently biological male at birth). There are over a dozen intersex conditions, and, with some overlap, there are people who self-identify or are labelled as transgendered / transsexual / trans/ genderqueer / two-spirit / many other terms, generally with a gender identity distinct from their genetic and/or anatomical sex.
But it was out of awareness of all that stuff I mentioned in the preceding paragraph that Randall Munroe (the xkcd guy, whose blag this is, & who designed the colour-names study) worded the Y-chromosome question the way he did.
Whether or not someone has a Y chromosome is the important factor for correlating colour-blindness with colour perception testing. This isn’t the result of any bias on the study designer’s part; it’s the result of how human genetics works.
If a researcher wanted to examine, for example, whether the prevalence of sickle-cell anemia (a disease which confers resistance to malaria for both sufferers and carriers; like colour-blindness, it’s recessive, though not X-linked like colour-blindness is) is lower among Canadians of African descent than among people in tropical latitudes where malaria remains endemic, they would naturally exclude from their study Canadians of African descent who were first- or second-generation immigrants from areas where malaria has not been eradicated. This would not be a matter of bias on the researchers’ part against immigrants, but rather a matter of scientific reality: people would have to spend several generations in a malaria-free area before the sickle-cell trait would be selected against. That, too, is how human genetics works.
LikeLike
The care and thought put into the wording of this question matters in itself. It was also interesting and made others think. I am having trouble understanding why people complained, except those who do not understand the genetics (which in itself is not a criticism).
I do agree with Elizabeth, that perhaps the question should have been ‘Do you have more than one X chromosome?” both for the genetics reason and because XX vrs XY is often defined as the absence of the Y rather the presence of more than one X.
@Jack Thank you for your considered and informed comment.
LikeLike
One of the few, (if not the only) female-to-male guy speaking up here – I think you worded it find. The quick explanation at the end was the moment of “oh, I see what you’re getting at. Ok, yeah.”
Would have been nice to have a gender field, since the data was analyzed based on chromosomes alone, though.
But it was analyzed for fun and curiosity, so no biggie. The sheer amount of data and all the correlations you could sit there there and draw is just… really freakin’ cool. o_o
aside: is it just me, or does anyone else think that people are using reCAPTCHA phrases as 21st-century horoscopes now?
LikeLike
Then just to confuse matters… there are those who are chimerae or mosaics. So may or may not have a Y chromosome in the ocular system, or have it in one eye but not the other.
Ah, the joys of Intersex.
Under the circumstances, I don’t see how this question could have been worded better. Full marks.
LikeLike
Just thought I’d let you know: as a transgirl, I thought it was phrased pretty perfectly, especially since you mentioned it was about genetics. Colorblindness is primarily a genetically-male thing, so even if I don’t identify as a boy I’m still at a larger risk for colorblindness. Good job, even if you didn’t please everyone.
LikeLike
@Jack I was totally going to go into that, but then you did so I didn’t have to. Thanks.
@Mew see, did you really want to have to read through all that on the front page? I wouldn’t. How else would you summarise it besides the way Randall chose to?
I thought the question was concise and respectful. People who do differ from the binary system deserve respect but also have to realize that as the minority, especially in science-based activities such as this one, they’re going to have to classify themselves. (I’m female and always have been, in case it matters.)
My recaptcha was 307 Merak, which doesn’t seem to have any particular significance.
LikeLike
Perhaps Randall Munroe could look up the percentage of the population of transgender individuals, intersex individuals, and those whose chromosomes otherwise differ from their gender and then include it in his data on gender related things as possible “noise”?
LikeLike
I can understand why intersex people are unhappy with biological gender data being used for psychological sex results. It’s certainly not scientifically apprpriate. However, I’m sure the idea to use it that way came after he’d already started collecting the data. It would have been impractical to start the survery all over again just because Randall saw a relatively lulzy correlation. I do not understand taking offence to him pointing out a relatively lulzy correlation.
LikeLike
I find it interesting that I decided to read your blog after I just spent a couple hours refreshing my knowledge on sex and gender something I’m pretty interested in. (Sex: Unknown is a fascinating NOVA documentary btw). I also just finished a course in genetics and I am a computer science major with colorblindness so all of my interests fell together on this blog entry.
I think the way you worded the question on the survey was very well done. If I was writing the survey I would have worded very similarly. I wish more people would take the time like you have when asking people questions like this. It really is appreciated.
LikeLike
On further thought, there are really two things going on here. (I just couldn’t let go of this niggling feeling that I was forgiving you for something, when I really thought you handled things well.)
One is the question. That was perfect.
The other is the interpretation. And the little logical leap you make, to take chromosomal data to discuss gender, is the part that erases trans identities. And I have to admit, even though I was thrilled overall, this little moment was really, really painful, when I realised, “No, wait, I’m in the wrong column!”
BUT. This wasn’t a survery about gender and color. You didn’t think there were going to be any interesting gender-related findings. Once you found that there WERE interesting correlations with chromosomes, correlations more based on probable gender than on the chromosomes themselves… I can understand why you would make that little leap. AND, I think the WAY you made the leap was pretty much the best anyone could do.
You DID have a sentence acknowledging, right from the get-go, that you were using chromosomal data, not gender data. And then, when folks protested the leap of logic, you explained why it happened, and you had a good explanation. And you apologised. And I really don’t think the long gender/sex discussion belonged in the same post as the general results.
The assumption that chromosomes = gender remains one that must be actively fought. But after your thoughtful data-collection left you with no other way to discuss your most interesting results, you used that assumption in a way that trod as little as possible on the identities of those for whom it does not hold true, and you demonstrated that you understood the importance of the subject you were dealing with.
So I did have to forgive you for the leap itself, but it wasn’t a “I’m so used to oppression I’ll be happy with less-oppressive” kind of forgiveness, because your actions surrounding the leap were optimal.
So, tl;dr again– Confusion/ disagreement over appropriateness of offense may be aided by distinguishing between the question, its use, and its commentary as three separate actions. Only the use was flawed.
LikeLike
I’m with Ford Prefect here.
If people are still complaining after the amount of effort you put in to avoid complaint, they’re trolls, pure and simple. They’re in the business of being offended, and will loudly trumpet their complaints no matter what.
Don’t feed the trolls.
LikeLike
Elizabeth is exactly right. While Randall is correct to ask about chromosomal gender for the purposes of color blindness, the relevant question is how many X chromosomes do you have, not do you have a Y chromosome. An XXY person has rougly the same probability of being colorblind as an XX person, which is to say, considerably less than that of an XY person.
It’s particularly ironic that Jack, above, spends six paragraphs doing a generally good job explaining the genetics of the most common type of color blindness, including consideration of people with combinations of sex chromosomes other than the common XX or XY, but from there jumps to a completely unwarranted defense of Randall’s Y chromosome question, when Jack’s previous reasoning supports a question which asks about the number of X chromosomes, but not one which asks about the presence of a Y chromosome.
LikeLike