|
24th December 2019, 14:46 | #241 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Mammals fall into two distinct categories. Those that produce big sex cells and those that produce small sex cells. The former we label “female”; the latter “male”. We can use different labels if you’d like to avoid confusion - maybe biggies and littlies?
|
24th December 2019, 18:25 | #242 |
|
You're allowed to have obsessions about categories and labels. Although I've read even more obsessive observations that explain what you describe in much more complex detail.
You have to use power if you want to impose the results of these obsessions upon others.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
24th December 2019, 20:12 | #243 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Do you agree that biological sex exists and that the core distinction I make - big sex cells and small sex cells - divides mammals into 2 categories?
|
25th December 2019, 01:31 | #244 |
|
I can tell you what I think of my sex if you like? Beyond that, it's not my domain. I know enough to know I don't know very much at all. People who do seem to know what they're talking about suggest complex nuance not typically appreciated by the layperson.
An important part of my own epistemological approach is the question of for what purpose is this knowledge? It's a health science thing I guess. You don't get to go around making decisions about people without justification. It's important demonstrate a purpose. Of course we face no such obligation. It's habit for me. Haunted by the idea of lobotomies I suppose. It's not like I don't know what you're getting at. I just know something else, too.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
26th December 2019, 05:12 | #245 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
|
26th December 2019, 14:53 | #246 |
|
TL;DR: bullying is harmful.
/patrick stewart mild shock
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
2nd January 2020, 23:32 | #247 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
|
3rd January 2020, 00:39 | #248 | |
|
Quote:
Also some phenotypes are expressed as mixed - born with both vagina and penis / born with penis and breasts, etc, etc (again, many variations, not necessarily linked to the expressed genetics, and often causing no issues with ability to procreate)
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية Last edited by crocos : 3rd January 2020 at 00:41. |
|
3rd January 2020, 00:44 | #249 |
|
Also sex != gender.
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية |
3rd January 2020, 00:49 | #250 |
|
However I will grant that it's only like 2-3% of the population that don't fall into your overly simplistic big breeding cell female small breeding cells male definition... which has nothing to do with a person's physical representation or genetics.
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية |
3rd January 2020, 02:01 | #251 | ||
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
If your body is programmed to produce the big gametes you are female; little gametes, male. There are no in-between-sized gametes; millions of years of competition eliminated them. Mammal sex is binary and immutable. This is a scientific fact as indisputable as the fact that the earth orbits the sun. Quote:
|
||
3rd January 2020, 12:43 | #252 |
|
Happy New Year Everyone!
re: that gyno getting fired. Experts are experts in what they are expert in. But need to learn to shutup instead of trying to leverage that expertise to say something the are _not_ expect on. expert in: vaginal stuff not expert in: crap working conditions in hospitals and the reasons for woman dropping out He should have be told to shutup about working conditions and kept his job. White woman tears are fucking evil and have cost time and $$$ on important and needed research on fixing people's ripped viginas. Pisses me off re: sex (not gender) Biological sex certainly tends to bimodal (eg using Ab's gametes theory to determine biological sex). However there are always outliers that don't fit the bimodal thing you decide to use the judge biological sex by. eg people can be born with neither large nor small gametes, or born with both. people can be born with only one X chromosome, or lots of them (XXY) problem is that too many people conflate gender with biological sex with societal sex, muddying the water making it confusing to figure out what's happening. No, the problem is that using a visual inspection to determine biological sex is wrong (ie intersex people). However if we moved to something else (eg gamets) what use will society have for that if someone who visually looks like one gender (including genitalia) has gamets of the opposite? |
3rd January 2020, 14:29 | #253 | ||
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
3rd January 2020, 15:41 | #254 |
|
We have stories about points, stories about waves, stories about fields, stories about gametes apparently. Useful stories we've constructed for specific purposes.
You've yet to share for what reason you're telling this story Ab.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
3rd January 2020, 16:19 | #255 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
I find all human interactions interesting. I’m also horrified that we live in an era in which “men are not women” is a controversial statement.
|
3rd January 2020, 20:39 | #256 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. Last edited by fixed_truth : 3rd January 2020 at 20:42. |
|
3rd January 2020, 21:24 | #257 | |
|
Quote:
EDIT: Seen your logical fallacy of coming from position of knowledge, trying to imply just because we don't have an immediate example to hand such a thing does not exist.
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية Last edited by crocos : 3rd January 2020 at 21:28. |
|
3rd January 2020, 22:32 | #258 | |
|
Quote:
However the statement is controversial when you're in a position of authority and you insist upon it. And there is a general expectation that people accept others regardless of their stories. Short omniscience you can't even be aware of all human interactions. What you're interested in is what you're about. Myself, I was raised being told what it means to be a man, and that's stuck in varying degrees. I had also seen some dramatic demonstrations, if my early behaviour is anything to go by. I know no matter how much I'm willing to accommodate other views I'll always have this early conceptualisation. I'm also in reaction to that, not everything I was told or saw reconciled with my own sense of self, the size of my... gametes notwithstanding. As such I'm somewhat indifferent to sex and gender. That being very easy for me given how closely my appearance and behaviour align with traditional roles.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
3rd January 2020, 22:38 | #259 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
Political feelings-based definitions come and go. Scientific definitions are those which are true regardless of how you feel about them. We are of course meat, but you know, baby steps. |
|
3rd January 2020, 22:49 | #260 |
|
That's... not how any of this works?
Nothing means anything "scientifically". There are many different ways to explore the meaning of "woman", no particular scientific model holds precedence over anything except within its domain. That people make good use of these models does not mean that are imposed on us all. And science improves. Science is improving. So am I hopefully, I certainly work at it.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
3rd January 2020, 22:59 | #261 |
|
Saying a scientific definition is true is pure nonsense. Scientific definitions are useful constructs that exist within an agreed frame of understanding. In absence of that frame nothing can be known to be true.
You're trying to somehow appeal to science as justification for your beliefs. Science offers you no refuge.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
3rd January 2020, 23:09 | #262 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
|
|
4th January 2020, 03:14 | #263 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
|
4th January 2020, 08:21 | #264 | |
|
Quote:
I wonder what’s going to happen when science eventually gets us to a stage where people can have a treatment to change whether they produce either the big gametes or the little gametes? Will these people who already feel like they’re a man or woman suddenly become what they already know they are? Or will the goal posts change?
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|
4th January 2020, 11:35 | #265 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
I think at that point we’d be totally free of our own biology. If you could have your source code rewritten at that depth you’d be able to eliminate ageing, extend your sight and hearing range, change your appearance, give yourself gills or wings, the whole Iain M Banks Culture smorgasbord.
|
4th January 2020, 12:11 | #266 |
|
Well, that's another whole thing. You've read Superintelligence, there were some compelling and frightening ideas in regards to what might happen when the technology to adjust the human genome so effectively becomes possible.
But it's still what we're talking about: how those in power use whatever tools available, including definitions, to keep their power.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
4th January 2020, 13:25 | #267 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
|
|
4th January 2020, 13:57 | #268 |
|
As for me, stories of gametes mean little. It seems an escalation from genitals. If we do indeed find examples of mixed gametes, those who are obsessed will escalate their investigation further still, hunting for an even more rigid definitions.
Because apparently that's how robust science works: working to prove what we know to be right as true.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
4th January 2020, 15:42 | #269 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Since the publication of “The Selfish Gene” in 1976 a gamete’s-eye view of the world has been a perspicacious one.
|
4th January 2020, 20:09 | #270 |
|
Care to say more?
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
4th January 2020, 20:39 | #271 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
I don’t have the skill to summarize the most influential scientific book of all time in the space of a forums post. Suffice it to say that after reading “The Selfish Gene” it feels crazy to NOT focus on gametes as the most important determinants in biology. If one accepts the science as described, the notion that human sex can have evolved to be anything other than 100% binary is nutty.
If you don’t accept the science you’d better publish your reasons fast, because people have been trying to find holes in the book’s thesis for 40 years and failing. Your career would be made. |
4th January 2020, 20:53 | #272 |
|
Yeah, people are nutty and they're allowed to be nutty. What, you think you're fuckin' Mr Sanity? I'm pretty sure you're more self aware than that.
People are getting fired because from their position of authority they are claiming otherwise. They're telling people from on high who and what they are. Ostensibly for a variety of reasons, including science, while conveniently shoring up their positions. When science gets the final word, we get eugenics.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
4th January 2020, 21:20 | #273 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Or an understanding of what distinguishes women from men. There are actual differences.
|
4th January 2020, 21:52 | #274 |
|
There are more differences and more similarities than we can know.
What we do know is about us as it is the phenomena. The difference we'll never know, especially because the phenomena is us, or at least a facet. The problem comes when we intend to impose what we think we know on others. The English way. Jervais and Rowling, lolz.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
5th January 2020, 00:48 | #275 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
What was it Voltaire said about not being allowed to criticize people?
|
5th January 2020, 11:11 | #276 |
|
Who is a doctor criticising when, from their privileged platform, they insist that a man is a man and a woman is a woman because of some doctory stuff they know?
Were Rowling and Jervais cancelled?
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
5th January 2020, 12:44 | #277 |
|
If I was to summarise the The Selfish Gene (read it 15 years ago) I would say the book is about making the case that the gene is the unit of natural selection and not the whole organism. Genes within an organism compete with each other at the expense of the other genes and the organism as a whole.
If we examined the chromosomes of 100 random blood samples we would be able to sort the samples into two groups. Reproduction would be possible inter group and not intra group. This a fact. Is it useful in society? This is debateable. The Selfish Gene makes the case that these selfish genes are responsible for a lot more of an organisms behaviour than we credit them for, including human behaviour, so it’s to the extreme of the "nature" end of the curve vs the nurture end. It’s been used as an excuse for bad behaviour like Darwin’s book. At times it’s useful to replace the nature/nurture labels with left and right (in a political sense) |
5th January 2020, 13:29 | #278 |
|
It does seem to be a linguistic issue. Sex isn't a social construction, gender is (putting aside neuroscience). What if the terms male & female could be for sex, and man & woman for gender?
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
5th January 2020, 13:39 | #279 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
|
|
5th January 2020, 13:49 | #280 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
I think new words would be better. Man and Woman mean “adult human male” and “adult human female”; the words are already sexed. |
|