ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags transgender incidents , transgender issues , transgender rights

Reply
Old 24th June 2019, 08:53 AM   #241
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 43,486
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That happened once. Didn't go well. Really, really horrible story.

The story of David (or Bruce or Brenda it got weird) Brenner.

First Bruce, then Branda, then David Reimer.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 09:00 AM   #242
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,401
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I don't accept completely internal criteria in the way you are asking me to do. "Identity" isn't a thing that I factor in how I view the world in the way you're telling me to.
I'm not telling you to do anything. If you want to take the view that you aren't conscious, that's fine by me.

Quote:
We're disagreeing and having a discussion about that.
No, you're disagreeing with a straw man, and thus not having a discussion at all. If you want to have a discussion, you'll need to stop doing that first.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 09:02 AM   #243
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,350
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
I'm not telling you to do anything. If you want to take the view that you aren't conscious, that's fine by me.
What does conscious have to do with anything?

This is more and more like the Jabba Immortality Thread every post.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 09:06 AM   #244
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,401
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
What does conscious have to do with anything?
If you don't accept internal criteria, then you should reject the idea that you are conscious.

At least, if I've understood what you're trying to say. It's a bit word salad-y.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 09:16 AM   #245
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,163
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
2. Social roles placed on the sexes (Men have to do this, Women have to do this, Girls are expected to do this, boys are expected to do this) that we should be working to get rid of.
Why should we be working to get rid of them? I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that women wear sundresses and men (generally) don't, or that men wear neckties and women wear some other form of gratuitous silk ornamentation. I’m okay with the fact that men are generally expected to go without makeup and nail polish, whereas women get to choose. I'm even okay with the fact that people are significantly more likely to ask (politely) for my help with the Ozarka bottles and other such heavy lifting tasks.

Has anyone in this thread (or its lengthy predecessor) argued that all gendered roles and expectations must be abolished in favor of some other system?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 09:21 AM   #246
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,350
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
If you don't accept internal criteria, then you should reject the idea that you are conscious.

At least, if I've understood what you're trying to say. It's a bit word salad-y.
No I just reject that your internal opinion of how reality should be is some form of objective reality in and off itself.

You keeping get mad that I'm equating "Gender Identity" with "The Gender I want to Be" but I still don't get difference you think there is.

I keep having to go back to asking again and again the most simple and basic of questions that I haven't got an answer to that I can't move forward into until I do.

Standing in front of me is a person. This is person is biologically male. This person tells me they identify as female.

For your concept to make any sense, something has to change here. Something meaningful has to change.

What is this change? What do I do, say, think, conceptualize, act, react, or otherwise is any way do differently with this new information?

If you can't answer this question in a way that is completely self referential I've got nowhere to go and right back to choosing whether I get transphobe screamed at me by your side or rape enabler screamed at me by Rolfe's side.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 24th June 2019 at 09:23 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 09:30 AM   #247
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,173
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Yeah and let me tell you adding "transgenderism" into the mix has really made the "we don't treat the sexes fairly/equally" problem go away.



Again, this can't be your go-to excuse to wave away everything that doesn't make sense.
It's my go-to excuse for this one thing, because this one thing happens to be more understandable as a human idiosyncracy rather than as a logically coherent proposition.

You were asking about subjective height or eye color. But nobody seems to be struggling with issues of subjective height and eye color. So what's your point in asking about it?

Is there some insight there you'd like us to see? Some new perspective that sheds light on the question of gender identity?

Why is the question of subjective height relevant, JoeMorgue? Because it seems to me that, knowing what we know about humans and human social issues, subjective height is a complete non sequitur that adds nothing to the discussion about subjective gender.

If you think differently, please explain.


Quote:
Fine. I'll settle for informal logic. Or any logic. Or even just someone explaining anything beyond "Because the person says so."
What do you need explained? Why subjective gender is a real social issue that concerns us today, but subjective height isn't and probably never will be? How do we as a society work with things that are both subjective and very important to a lot of people? What kind of formal rules we can establish about subjective values and how they work in society?

You are (presumably) a human being living in a human society. What have you figured out for yourself so far, about how subjective values work in such a society?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 09:43 AM   #248
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,401
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
No I just reject that your internal opinion of how reality should be is some form of objective reality in and off itself.
I don't think you can reject that, since I've never asserted it.

Quote:
You keeping get mad that I'm equating "Gender Identity" with "The Gender I want to Be" but I still don't get difference you think there is.
I've never once expressed any anger about that.

Quote:
I keep having to go back to asking again and again the most simple and basic of questions that I haven't got an answer to that I can't move forward into until I do.
You do get those answers. Every time you ask. Then you wait a few minutes and ask again. Certainly, you will never make any progress doing this. The rest of us are not so hidebound.

Quote:
For your concept to make any sense, something has to change here. Something meaningful has to change.
"I'm was born male (or assigned male at birth, or whatever) but identify as a woman" is perfectly intelligible. Nothing has to change in order for me to accept that this as a true proposition.

Quote:
What is this change? What do I do, say, think, conceptualize, act, react, or otherwise is any way do differently with this new information?
You seem to have to have this hang-up where you think description implies prescription. It doesn't. I'm sure transgender people have some advice for you here, but it's just immaterial to understanding gender identity as a phenomenon.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 24th June 2019 at 09:45 AM.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 09:57 AM   #249
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,350
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Has anyone in this thread (or its lengthy predecessor) argued that all gendered roles and expectations must be abolished in favor of some other system?
I certainly have, which is why (as I've stated multiple times) that leaves me nowhere to go.

I don't put roles on men and women outside of what is literally required by pure biology, therefore "Man who identifies as a woman" has as much literal meaning to me as "Crankshaft that identifies as a meatloaf."

A man who wears a dress isn't a woman, or "a woman on the inside" and there's no scale or dial that tips just a little toward "woman" or anything else.

So there's nowhere for me to go, so I'm everyone's bad guy. Person with a vagina in my bathroom? Don't care. So Rolfe thinks I want her to get raped. But since I don't think the woman in my bathroom "identifying" as a man or a woman matters or indeed even makes sense, I'm the other side's badguy as well.

Can't win, can't lose, can't quit the game.

I'm not even gonna touch the whole "Getting rid of Gender Roles? Why (gasp) when did anyone ever suggest that?" revisionism because I don't feel like playing a rousing game of "Show me where someone said exactly that in those exact words before I'll admit the idea was ever even on the table."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 10:02 AM   #250
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,163
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm not even gonna touch the whole "Getting rid of Gender Roles? Why (gasp) when did anyone ever suggest that?" revisionism because I don't feel like playing a rousing game of "Show me where someone said exactly that in those exact words before I'll admit the idea was ever even on the table."
Expect to be met with skepticism if you don't want to play a rousing game of "I have at least some evidence for the proposition I put forward in a skeptic forum."

ETA: If you're literally the only gender abolitionist here, I don't see any reason to take the idea seriously.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 24th June 2019 at 10:04 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 10:09 AM   #251
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,350
So that's it? We've done a 360 back to "Women stay in the kitchen"-lite?

So now I have to put societal role back on men and women to be "woke?" and "Get ride of stupid rules put on the genders that we don't need" is such a fringe belief it's dismissable as not worth considering?
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 24th June 2019 at 10:10 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 10:17 AM   #252
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,198
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
ETA: If you're literally the only gender abolitionist here, I don't see any reason to take the idea seriously.
No, he's not. I think we're all just clumps of matter and for the sake of convenience people invented categories for easy classification, but the need for that classification is mostly archaic cultural baggage. Also the classes were never as sharply defined as the proponents assumed they were, but there's insufficent significance to the classification to justify effort to clarify it.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 10:19 AM   #253
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,173
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
So that's it? We've done a 360 back to "Women stay in the kitchen"-lite?

So now I have to put societal role back on men and women to be "woke?" and "Get ride of stupid rules put on the genders that we don't need" is such a fringe belief it's dismissable as not worth considering?
Rule of So aside, I don't think it's a dismmissable fringe belief. I think we absolutely consider it. I think the first thing we need to consider about it is how do we figure out which rules we don't need, what might replace them (if anything), and what happens when we get it wrong. See also: Chesterton's fence.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 10:19 AM   #254
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,163
Can you see a difference between these two proposed reforms, Joe?

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Social roles placed on the sexes . . . we should be working to get rid of.
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Get rid of stupid rules put on the genders that we don't need...
I can see a pretty obvious difference, in part because I agree with the latter claim but not the former.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 10:30 AM   #255
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,706
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
You could try giving sex reassignment surgery to boys born with deformed genitalia and then look at the outcomes.
That's not a valid description of an experiment, you didn't specify which outcomes of this would entail which conclusions. Furthermore, even if it were, your proposal only concerns boys born with deformed genitalia who are a small minority of the population. So I ask you again: What experiment could be performed that allows one to determine someone's gender identity?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 10:32 AM   #256
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,706
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Gender is relatively easy to observe if you take it to mean what I take it to mean.
True, but then it isn't cross-culturally invariant and the claim for a neuroanatomical basis fails.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 10:35 AM   #257
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,706
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Can you see a difference between these two proposed reforms, Joe?





I can see a pretty obvious difference, in part because I agree with the latter claim but not the former.
By your own definition of gender the latter is nonsense.

"Get rid of stupid rules put on the genders that we don't need..."

Gender = A set of behaviors, roles & norms typically associated with one sex.

Substituting: "Get rid of stupid rules put on the set of behaviors, roles & norms typically associated with one sex."
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 10:41 AM   #258
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,706
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Yet they seem oddly willing to accept sexual orientation at peoples word with out any kind of strict medical proof of such a thing.
The difference is that sexual orientation is empirically observable, namely by whether you engage in intercourse with people of the same sex or of the other sex. Gender identity is not empirically observable, it is not phenomenal. What can be observed is that someone says they have a gender identity, but that doesn't mean that gender identity is phenomenal. For the same reason that just because it can be observed that someone says they have a soul doesn't mean that a soul is phenomenal.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 10:43 AM   #259
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,163
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
By your own definition of gender the latter is nonsense.
Which is why it's charitable to assume Joe wasn't using it in that context.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 10:47 AM   #260
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,864
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The difference is that sexual orientation is empirically observable, namely by whether you engage in intercourse with people of the same sex or of the other sex.
Except of course when it isn't. Clearly people who have not had sex have no orientation.
Quote:
Gender identity is not empirically observable, it is not phenomenal. What can be observed is that someone says they have a gender identity, but that doesn't mean that gender identity is phenomenal. For the same reason that just because it can be observed that someone says they have a soul doesn't mean that a soul is phenomenal.
And yet it certainly is as well
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 10:50 AM   #261
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,198
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The difference is that sexual orientation is empirically observable, namely by whether you engage in intercourse with people of the same sex or of the other sex.
I disagree. Situational homosexuality is a thing, for just one example. Sexual activity doesn't actually prove orientation. Or even that orientation is actually a thing.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 10:51 AM   #262
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,350
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Which is why it's charitable to assume Joe wasn't using it in that context.
Because I'm asking what the context is.

There's been a lot of people asking me to define the the thing they are arguing for in this discussion.

So that's where we are at. I don't think men and women should have purely non-biological rules, roles, and expectations placed on them. So I can't conceptualize "A man who identifies as an X" or a "A woman who identifies as a Y" the way I'm supposed to.

Problem I do this and I've got "Rape enabler!" screamed in one ear and "Transphobe!" screamed in the other and my best solution is to pick one of those two sides and I ain't doing that.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 24th June 2019 at 10:55 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:00 AM   #263
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,864
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I disagree. Situational homosexuality is a thing, for just one example. Sexual activity doesn't actually prove orientation. Or even that orientation is actually a thing.
Then there is the aggressively not gay male x male sex of the bro job.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:05 AM   #264
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,706
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Except of course when it isn't. Clearly people who have not had sex have no orientation.
Then it would be observable by which sex they attempt to have sex with, or what kind of porn they watch while masturbating, or any similar behaviours which can be observed.

Quote:
And yet it certainly is as well
A soul is phenomenal?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:06 AM   #265
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,198
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Then there is the aggressively not gay male x male sex of the bro job.
I'm not familiar with that term. There is a phenomenon called "helping a buddy out" which has a long history, but it is never referred to by any terms so concrete. It'd be a breach of etiquette to discuss the matter at all, before or afterward. There is a charming mixture of naivete and subtlety in such matters, which has afforded a great many gentlemen a good deal of quiet fun over the centuries. Some traditions are worth preservation.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:06 AM   #266
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 617
I haven't caught up with the thread, so maybe someone has cleared this up for you. But...

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Yeah and let me tell you adding
Person A: "X = Y, but X does not equal Y."
Me: "That doesn't make sense."
You: "Oh we're not systems of formal logic."
The highlighted is where you go wrong.
In math terms:

X represent biological sex such that
X(0) is biologically male and X(1) is Biologically female

Y represents gender such that
Y(0) is Masculine gender and Y(1) is feminine

X=Y is a false statement although moist of the time this appears to be true.

because...

X and Y are strongly correlated, but it's not a 1:1 correlation.

A plot of X will show very high peaks at X(0) and X(1) such that the sum of X(0) and X(1) is very nearly, but not quite 100%, depending on how you plot those with intersex conditions. These are very steep peaks with slopes approaching infinity.

A plot of Y will also show high peaks near Y(0) and Y(1), but these peaks will be broader and flatter. This is because gender (defined by behaviors and expectations) is less polar. The affinity to the poles (Y(0) and Y(1) is weaker. There are feminine males and masculine females. (Also, we are simplifying a complex set of behaviors down to a single variable....)

If you graph X vs Y, you will see a strong correlation, but you will also see significant noise around the 1:1 line.

In short: Sex and gender, when defined as biological morpholigy and behavior patterns, while strongly correlated are not the same thing.

One of the difficulties here is that we are talking about the intersection between a biological trait that can be directly measured, and a psychological trait that can't. If that bothers you, you are likely to have a hard time with psychology/sociology as well. (To be fair, that's one of the reasons I'm a biologist rather than a psychologist.)
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:08 AM   #267
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,706
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I disagree. Situational homosexuality is a thing, for just one example. Sexual activity doesn't actually prove orientation. Or even that orientation is actually a thing.
If someone claims to have a certain sexual orientation yet displays no observable behaviours then this sexual orientation isn't phenomenal either. Because that's the definition of phenomenal, that it is observable through the senses.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:10 AM   #268
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,163
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I don't think men and women should have purely non-biological rules, roles, and expectations placed on them.
I'm not sure which sort of current social expectations you'd tolerate.

Would men still be expected to shave their faces? Women their legs? Can I still shave my head or is it unisex haircuts for everybody? Will sundresses continue to exist and if so will I have to buy one? Makeup for all, or none? Separate sports leagues?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 24th June 2019 at 11:13 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:14 AM   #269
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,198
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I'm not sure which sort of current social expectations you'd tolerate.

Would men still be expected to shave their faces? Women their legs? Can I still shave my hair or is it unisex haircuts for everybody? Will sundresses continue to exist and if so will I have to buy one? Makeup for all, or none?
Why is it required to have such expectations to begin with? Anybody of any sex or gender can shave anything they like (so long as it's their own), and dress how they please (although there are some places with particular gendered rules for clothing, which rules ought to be abolished).
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:16 AM   #270
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,350
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Would men still be expected to shave their faces? Women their legs?
Bloody hell of course not! What kind of sexist B.S. is that?

Do you think any of those things? Because that's some goddamn Handmaiden crap right there.

Screw... all of that.

Quote:
Can I still shave my head or is it unisex haircuts for everybody? Will sundresses continue to exist and if so will I have to buy one? Makeup for all, or none?
Oh pisstake. You went right into "Will I be forced to" without even pausing for breath. Sod that.

If you don't see the difference between "Everyone is free to choose" and "everyone is forced into identicalness" I can't even begin to help you.

Quote:
Separate sports leagues?
You know what... I don't care. I don't care. It's sports. Society is not gonna rise and fall on it.

Since we're talking entertainment the answer is "Whatever people want to pay to watch."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 24th June 2019 at 11:32 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:17 AM   #271
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,401
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
That's not a valid description of an experiment, you didn't specify which outcomes of this would entail which conclusions.
An outcome where those boys were raised as girls and given adequate medical support yet nevertheless ended up identifying as boys at much higher rates would entail the conclusion that gender is not merely a matter of social programming.

Quote:
Furthermore, even if it were, your proposal only concerns boys born with deformed genitalia who are a small minority of the population.
You think it would be inappropriate to generalize? Why?
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:30 AM   #272
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,706
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
An outcome where those boys were raised as girls and given adequate medical support yet nevertheless ended up identifying as boys at much higher rates would entail the conclusion that gender is not merely a matter of social programming.
Not necessarily. At what age did those boys start identifying as boys? If it is at puberty or post-puberty then it would suggest that social cues are responsible, for example the other girls developing breasts but not him, or the other girls developing periods but not him, or the increased focus on genitals cuing him in that he is not "like the other girls." If your conclusion is correct, that gender is neuroanatomical then he should also identify as a boy in pre-pubescent childhood.

Quote:
You think it would be inappropriate to generalize? Why?
Several possibilities. For example it could be that the intersex condition itself is responsible for the psychological result so that you're not so much seeing an example of a general psychological phenomenon but a specific result linked to the intersex condition itself. Another possibility might be underestimating the base rate of the intersex condition, not every person with an intersex condition ends up being identified as having such condition, so it's possible that the higher rate you're seeing is a result of underestimation of the base rate of the condition.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:34 AM   #273
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,864
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I'm not familiar with that term. There is a phenomenon called "helping a buddy out" which has a long history, but it is never referred to by any terms so concrete. It'd be a breach of etiquette to discuss the matter at all, before or afterward. There is a charming mixture of naivete and subtlety in such matters, which has afforded a great many gentlemen a good deal of quiet fun over the centuries. Some traditions are worth preservation.
Apparently they are getting more comfortable talking about it. There was/is even a hook up site for straight dudes looking for straight dudes.

https://www.salon.com/2015/10/12/the...other_partner/
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:39 AM   #274
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,163
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
What kind of sexist B.S. is that?
Wait, what? By invoking the spectre of sexismWP, you seem to be saying that men shaving their faces somehow makes them superior to women.


Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Do you think any of those things? Because that's some goddamn Handmaiden crap right there.
I'm not really seeing the harm in any of those social norms, especially when compared against Atwood’s dystopian vision of forced sexual and reproductive servitude.

Care to explain?

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
You went right into "Will I be forced to" without even pausing for breath.
We are talking about social norms and the usual social enforcement mechanisms here, we are not talking about criminal law, arrests, and jail cells. My question was which of the existing gendered social norms you find acceptable, and (as best as I can discern) your answer is basically just sports.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 24th June 2019 at 11:40 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:43 AM   #275
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,126
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Not necessarily. At what age did those boys start identifying as boys? If it is at puberty or post-puberty then it would suggest that social cues are responsible, for example the other girls developing breasts but not him, or the other girls developing periods but not him, or the increased focus on genitals cuing him in that he is not "like the other girls." If your conclusion is correct, that gender is neuroanatomical then he should also identify as a boy in pre-pubescent childhood.
You have this backwards. If it's neuroanatomical, then puberty should have a huge effect, since that's when testosterone levels shoot up.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:45 AM   #276
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,350
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Wait, what? By invoking the spectre of sexismWP, you seem to be saying that men shaving their faces somehow makes them superior to women.
What? What are even talking about?

I don't know if you're being serious or setting up some argumentative trap for a gotcha, but I literally what you are trying to say here.

"Men hot having to shave their beds is sexist to women" is nonsensical. It's a Lewis Carrol poem.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:49 AM   #277
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,163
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I don't know if you're being serious or setting up some argumentative trap for a gotcha, but I literally what you are trying to say here.
There exists a fairly pervasive social norm in western society that men (especially professional career-minded men) should shave their faces. You said of that norm, "What kind of sexist B.S. is that?" Sexism is when you discriminate against people on the basis of sex, typically in a way that favors men, as you can see on the relevant wiki page. Not sure what you're really driving at, though.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 24th June 2019 at 11:51 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:51 AM   #278
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,706
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You have this backwards. If it's neuroanatomical, then puberty should have a huge effect, since that's when testosterone levels shoot up.
Nope, gender identity is claimed to be fixed by age 3. If it is neuroanatomical then the group under consideration should also have identified as boys in pre-pubescent childhood. Them identifying as girls before puberty but as boys during and post puberty suggests a social basis for gender identity and not a neuroanatomical one.

If testosterone levels determined gender identity then everyone should identify as girls before puberty. You seem to have this weird idea that somehow testosterone levels are explanatory for, well, pretty much anything.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:51 AM   #279
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,350
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
There exists a fairly pervasive social norm in western society that men (especially professional career-minded men) should shave their faces. You said of that norm, "What kind of sexist B.S. is that?" Sexism is when you discriminate against people on the basis of sex, typically in a way that favors men, as you can see on the relevant wiki page. Not sure what you're really driving at, though.
Yes. Expecting (even when hiding behind a weasel concept like "What? It's not like I can make them!") men to shave their faces or women to shave their legs is... problematic. I don't care to get into one of your dictionary fetishist "Well what does the dictionary say?" debates with you about whether it's Sexism or Sparkling Sexual Discrimination.

Putting unnecessary rules on the sexist is sexism by any workable definition. Why am I arguing this point?
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 24th June 2019 at 11:54 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:56 AM   #280
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Because humans are sexually dimorphic
Pretty incredible that, in this day and age, we have to remind some people of something we've been aware of since, like, ever.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.