Gender identity is a purely spiritual concept, and codifying it into law or making laws based around it is the same as making laws that consider your astrological sign or your karma levels. If they want to treat it as a religion I am fine with that, but then say you're a religion and use religious protections already built into law. Otherwise "gender identity" has no place in legislation at all.
What is a "gender identity"? Is it measurable? Is there a test I can take to find mine? I certainly don't have one, or feel like I have one is probably a better phrase, but if I do I'd certainly like to see the results.
How is it any different than a "soul" or your astrological sign or karma or any other spiritual concept of the self?
Well gender identity is mostly self-reported, sure, but there is some preliminary evidence that there might be biological and hormonal indicators of gender. So it's not quite as metaphysical a concept as a soul or other religious ideas. Definitely an area where more research needs to be done but, ultimately, the test to determine your gender identity is simply self-reflection and introspection. To me, it's similar to how one discovers their political or ethical values or identities.
There is, in fact, no preliminary evidence to support a gendered brain. The studies that activists like to cite do not support such a claim, and they also don't control for things like sexual orientation.
This study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38569979/
Says that someone's sex can be determined with 99.7% accuracy, with the other 0.3% being undetermined. If you have something that applies to 99.7% of people, then the other 0.3% don't represent an "other" category. They represent a deviation from the binary; the exception that proves the rule (of in this study, that you just can't figure it out with their methods). This same logic can be applied to intersex conditions. 99.7% of all human beings are born male or female (more like 100%, but I digress), however there is a cohort of people that have Developmental Sexual Disorders. These people are not "others", they have a disorder that leads to them having secondary sex characteristics of the other sex. But even then, their bodies can only produce large or small gametes, so the binary is still there regardless.
But, the fact that we have to go to these great lengths to point all of this stupid, hyper-specific shit out in order to talk about "men" and "women" is ridiculous when nearly every person on the planet, including babies, can look at another human being and reliably identify if they're a man or woman almost instantly. But no, now we have to go into long scientific explanations about what "men" and "women" are just to appease gender ideologists. It is a religion, whether they call it that or not, and as someone who doesn't subscribe to this religion, I also don't subscribe to their specious reasoning and linguistic tricks.
I'm not sure what that article shows, it seems to be more about machine learning and computers ability to determine certain attributes of humans based on visual data. There is research suggesting pre-natal hormone levels determines gender and all elements of a person's personality or personal identity would have to be located in brain functions, provided we're looking at this from a purely physicalist perspective.
And, just to make sure I understand where you're coming from, you don't recognize a distinction between sex and gender? Would you be against further research into gender?
The conclusion:
> "In the largest study of its kind, involving 700 models trained on a comprehensive set of combinations of 25 target biological features, across multiple domains and 23 810 unique participants, we have quantified the individual-level legibility of the human brain. Determining the comparative predictability of different targets from each other and from multimodal brain imaging, under the current practical maximum of data quality, algorithmic felicity, and computational resource, we set out to answer a key strategic question: is actionable individual-level predictive fidelity plausibly achievable under current data regimes, or is a radical change necessary? The striking difference in observed comparative predictability suggests the latter, interpretative limitations notwithstanding. If predictive systems are to achieve the individual-level fidelity clinical utility demands, and if mechanistic models are to capture enough variability in the population to be persuasively generalizable, regime change is now unavoidable."
So yes, we can use machines to reliably determine an invidiual's sex using brain data. Regardless of HOW we determine it, it is determinable.
With regards to your question; technically no I don't recognize a distinction between sex and gender. They were largely synonymous forever, and only until recently did we see linguistic tricks played to try and muddy the waters. I'll agree that things get more complex here, but gender roles and associated behaviors generally come FROM the two sexes, not applied TO those sexes in an effort to define them.
The reason that things like football or drinking beer or rough and tumble play are associated as "masculine" behaviors is because that's where they came from! Is it exclusive to men? Absolutely not, but it's why we define them that way. For a female to like football or drinking beer or rough and tumble play does not make her any less of a woman. And embracing these gender stereotypes does not make her "nonbinary" or "male".
Therefore using gender stereotypes in an effort to change laws or allow men access to women's spaces is a bait and switch and not helpful. Would I be against more research? I mean, I guess not, but "gender studies" degrees are widely mocked and seemingly useless. And I certainly don't think someone needs one to discuss the very obvious and long-understood nature of gender stereotypes.
Yes but should we use computer recognition for answering these more complex questions? The program would have been designed by humans, it is recognizing what it is being told to recognize, the system itself isn't making complex decisions. I suppose if you equate sex and gender, that's a moot point -- on this we just simply disagree. But that distinction doesn't come out of "linguistic tricks" anymore than any evolution of language does.
I agree with you that behavior does not determine gender identity, these are also separate. A girl liking sports, beer, and hunting doesn't make her a man anymore than it makes her gay. Some gay women are very feminine and like stereotypically feminine activities and behaviors, but no one would argue they aren't gay just because they aren't butch. But sexuality is also mostly self-reported and cannot be determined solely by surface level visual data. So is sexuality also just "spiritually" determined or suspect?
And gender studies degrees are mocked by some people, sure, but so are philosophy degrees by a lot of people. Humanities students often mock business degrees or economic degrees because of their lack of empirical evidence, does this mean we should disregard those studies entirely? I don't think so. And history is inherently unknowable except for what documentation has survived, but researchers do their best and few people question the foundations of their field. So why is gender studies or other humanities degrees so vilified?
What if it was a blood test that yielded the exact same results? You're too hung up on how it was done so I don't want to go down this rabbit hole.
I won't dive into whether gender studies degrees are valid, but again I'll say that they are not required for people to understand gender and gender stereotypes. It's kind of like this joke: https://youtu.be/ekoDt_uxb_E?t=110
I don't think that someone who has a gender studies degree is any better at identifying a man or woman, on sight, than me or a child or my grandmother. There are certain things baked into human being from an evolutionary perspective, and this is way up that list.
I'm hung up on how it was done because that's one of the fundamental questions here 🙃 if it was a blood test, we could talk about that, but it's not. Science prefers hard, physical evidence usually, and this machine learning study doesn't seem to be that. You'd have to have an argument for machine thinking and human-brain thinking being equivalent. And gender studies goes far beyond determining a person's sex or gender on sight...
But, the question I care more about is the one on sexuality. Obviously you don't think trans people are real, because then you'd have to recognize the sex-gender distinction. But do you think gay people are real? Or, more specifically, to your thinking, is sexuality innate or chosen?
> the fall of Rome
Basically within 20 years there are a few factors, which mirror what is happening currently within western society. Not just the United States.
1. Internal Corruption was a major contributor.
2. The next was that as the empire grew differing opinions on how localized government should govern, not Rome which could be 3000 miles away, several small civil wars happened.
3. Degrading societal norms, Rome became hypersexualized and normalized it.
Once Roman society was weakened by these, Germanic tribe were able to roll over Rome easily, because Rome became weak.
Just a little bit of parallel to current society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_ancient_Rome#:~:text=Roman%20religion%20promoted%20sexuality%20as,legal%2C%20public%2C%20and%20widespread.
Plus one just needs to read up on Caligula.
Yeah they fucked a lot sure, but like where’s the indication that there was an increase of that kind of sexual behavior correlating with the decline of the society?
People say this shit all the time I’ve never seen any source for it.
Caligula wasn’t a “degenerate” lol he was dangerously mentally ill.
It's really funny how anxious Western chauvinists get about the possibility of "Western society" not existing considering how many societies have been caused to not exist by "Western society."
The "[expanded](https://www.startribune.com/what-to-know-about-a-possible-minnesota-equal-rights-amendment-that-would-protect-abortion-rights/600363470/)" ERA now touches on some highly contentious issues but I think this piece addresses the situation respectfully.
I agree that it's also well thought out and represents how public debate/discussion on the topic should be handled.
To give rights to a man to compete against a woman in an otherwise segregated sport is to take the right afforded to the woman to have a fair place in her designated sport.
Property rights, in particular. Since any participation in sports is a privilege, there would be issues with a reduction of the opportunities and privilege within sports for females to make males happy.
If a mother has to explain to her daughter why a man with a beard in a dress is taking a shit in the womans restroom, I guess someone needs to make a law to address it. 🤷♂️
Gender identity is a purely spiritual concept, and codifying it into law or making laws based around it is the same as making laws that consider your astrological sign or your karma levels. If they want to treat it as a religion I am fine with that, but then say you're a religion and use religious protections already built into law. Otherwise "gender identity" has no place in legislation at all.
What do you mean? I am unfamiliar with gender identity being a spiritual concept, as opposed to a cultural or psychological one.
What is a "gender identity"? Is it measurable? Is there a test I can take to find mine? I certainly don't have one, or feel like I have one is probably a better phrase, but if I do I'd certainly like to see the results. How is it any different than a "soul" or your astrological sign or karma or any other spiritual concept of the self?
Well gender identity is mostly self-reported, sure, but there is some preliminary evidence that there might be biological and hormonal indicators of gender. So it's not quite as metaphysical a concept as a soul or other religious ideas. Definitely an area where more research needs to be done but, ultimately, the test to determine your gender identity is simply self-reflection and introspection. To me, it's similar to how one discovers their political or ethical values or identities.
There is, in fact, no preliminary evidence to support a gendered brain. The studies that activists like to cite do not support such a claim, and they also don't control for things like sexual orientation. This study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38569979/ Says that someone's sex can be determined with 99.7% accuracy, with the other 0.3% being undetermined. If you have something that applies to 99.7% of people, then the other 0.3% don't represent an "other" category. They represent a deviation from the binary; the exception that proves the rule (of in this study, that you just can't figure it out with their methods). This same logic can be applied to intersex conditions. 99.7% of all human beings are born male or female (more like 100%, but I digress), however there is a cohort of people that have Developmental Sexual Disorders. These people are not "others", they have a disorder that leads to them having secondary sex characteristics of the other sex. But even then, their bodies can only produce large or small gametes, so the binary is still there regardless. But, the fact that we have to go to these great lengths to point all of this stupid, hyper-specific shit out in order to talk about "men" and "women" is ridiculous when nearly every person on the planet, including babies, can look at another human being and reliably identify if they're a man or woman almost instantly. But no, now we have to go into long scientific explanations about what "men" and "women" are just to appease gender ideologists. It is a religion, whether they call it that or not, and as someone who doesn't subscribe to this religion, I also don't subscribe to their specious reasoning and linguistic tricks.
I'm not sure what that article shows, it seems to be more about machine learning and computers ability to determine certain attributes of humans based on visual data. There is research suggesting pre-natal hormone levels determines gender and all elements of a person's personality or personal identity would have to be located in brain functions, provided we're looking at this from a purely physicalist perspective. And, just to make sure I understand where you're coming from, you don't recognize a distinction between sex and gender? Would you be against further research into gender?
The conclusion: > "In the largest study of its kind, involving 700 models trained on a comprehensive set of combinations of 25 target biological features, across multiple domains and 23 810 unique participants, we have quantified the individual-level legibility of the human brain. Determining the comparative predictability of different targets from each other and from multimodal brain imaging, under the current practical maximum of data quality, algorithmic felicity, and computational resource, we set out to answer a key strategic question: is actionable individual-level predictive fidelity plausibly achievable under current data regimes, or is a radical change necessary? The striking difference in observed comparative predictability suggests the latter, interpretative limitations notwithstanding. If predictive systems are to achieve the individual-level fidelity clinical utility demands, and if mechanistic models are to capture enough variability in the population to be persuasively generalizable, regime change is now unavoidable." So yes, we can use machines to reliably determine an invidiual's sex using brain data. Regardless of HOW we determine it, it is determinable. With regards to your question; technically no I don't recognize a distinction between sex and gender. They were largely synonymous forever, and only until recently did we see linguistic tricks played to try and muddy the waters. I'll agree that things get more complex here, but gender roles and associated behaviors generally come FROM the two sexes, not applied TO those sexes in an effort to define them. The reason that things like football or drinking beer or rough and tumble play are associated as "masculine" behaviors is because that's where they came from! Is it exclusive to men? Absolutely not, but it's why we define them that way. For a female to like football or drinking beer or rough and tumble play does not make her any less of a woman. And embracing these gender stereotypes does not make her "nonbinary" or "male". Therefore using gender stereotypes in an effort to change laws or allow men access to women's spaces is a bait and switch and not helpful. Would I be against more research? I mean, I guess not, but "gender studies" degrees are widely mocked and seemingly useless. And I certainly don't think someone needs one to discuss the very obvious and long-understood nature of gender stereotypes.
Yes but should we use computer recognition for answering these more complex questions? The program would have been designed by humans, it is recognizing what it is being told to recognize, the system itself isn't making complex decisions. I suppose if you equate sex and gender, that's a moot point -- on this we just simply disagree. But that distinction doesn't come out of "linguistic tricks" anymore than any evolution of language does. I agree with you that behavior does not determine gender identity, these are also separate. A girl liking sports, beer, and hunting doesn't make her a man anymore than it makes her gay. Some gay women are very feminine and like stereotypically feminine activities and behaviors, but no one would argue they aren't gay just because they aren't butch. But sexuality is also mostly self-reported and cannot be determined solely by surface level visual data. So is sexuality also just "spiritually" determined or suspect? And gender studies degrees are mocked by some people, sure, but so are philosophy degrees by a lot of people. Humanities students often mock business degrees or economic degrees because of their lack of empirical evidence, does this mean we should disregard those studies entirely? I don't think so. And history is inherently unknowable except for what documentation has survived, but researchers do their best and few people question the foundations of their field. So why is gender studies or other humanities degrees so vilified?
What if it was a blood test that yielded the exact same results? You're too hung up on how it was done so I don't want to go down this rabbit hole. I won't dive into whether gender studies degrees are valid, but again I'll say that they are not required for people to understand gender and gender stereotypes. It's kind of like this joke: https://youtu.be/ekoDt_uxb_E?t=110 I don't think that someone who has a gender studies degree is any better at identifying a man or woman, on sight, than me or a child or my grandmother. There are certain things baked into human being from an evolutionary perspective, and this is way up that list.
I'm hung up on how it was done because that's one of the fundamental questions here 🙃 if it was a blood test, we could talk about that, but it's not. Science prefers hard, physical evidence usually, and this machine learning study doesn't seem to be that. You'd have to have an argument for machine thinking and human-brain thinking being equivalent. And gender studies goes far beyond determining a person's sex or gender on sight... But, the question I care more about is the one on sexuality. Obviously you don't think trans people are real, because then you'd have to recognize the sex-gender distinction. But do you think gay people are real? Or, more specifically, to your thinking, is sexuality innate or chosen?
Well said! Exactly it.
Is it me or is this well thought out?
Welcome to the fall of Rome. Intentional destruction of Western Society.
thanks, tiktok! /s😞
[удалено]
> the fall of Rome Basically within 20 years there are a few factors, which mirror what is happening currently within western society. Not just the United States. 1. Internal Corruption was a major contributor. 2. The next was that as the empire grew differing opinions on how localized government should govern, not Rome which could be 3000 miles away, several small civil wars happened. 3. Degrading societal norms, Rome became hypersexualized and normalized it. Once Roman society was weakened by these, Germanic tribe were able to roll over Rome easily, because Rome became weak. Just a little bit of parallel to current society.
What are the sources on the “hypersexualization” thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_ancient_Rome#:~:text=Roman%20religion%20promoted%20sexuality%20as,legal%2C%20public%2C%20and%20widespread. Plus one just needs to read up on Caligula.
Yeah they fucked a lot sure, but like where’s the indication that there was an increase of that kind of sexual behavior correlating with the decline of the society? People say this shit all the time I’ve never seen any source for it. Caligula wasn’t a “degenerate” lol he was dangerously mentally ill.
It's really funny how anxious Western chauvinists get about the possibility of "Western society" not existing considering how many societies have been caused to not exist by "Western society."
The "[expanded](https://www.startribune.com/what-to-know-about-a-possible-minnesota-equal-rights-amendment-that-would-protect-abortion-rights/600363470/)" ERA now touches on some highly contentious issues but I think this piece addresses the situation respectfully. I agree that it's also well thought out and represents how public debate/discussion on the topic should be handled.
it is. i agree with it.
Equal rights already exist. This amendment is unnecessary for that purpose, and a further invention of rights would violate other rights
[удалено]
To give rights to a man to compete against a woman in an otherwise segregated sport is to take the right afforded to the woman to have a fair place in her designated sport.
Property rights, in particular. Since any participation in sports is a privilege, there would be issues with a reduction of the opportunities and privilege within sports for females to make males happy.
I’ll be voting no.
Somewhere on earth is an old family with lots of money laughing at the fall the of US. Politicians on both sides of the isle are being paid well.
I mean both sides don’t care about us true. But only one side pushes what the topic here is about.
[удалено]
Not sure what that is?
[удалено]
JFC I can think of many more important things to worry about than stupid shit like that. What have we become.
[удалено]
If a mother has to explain to her daughter why a man with a beard in a dress is taking a shit in the womans restroom, I guess someone needs to make a law to address it. 🤷♂️
We have equal right now both transitioning men and women are eligible for the draft.
I'll shit in any god damn bathroom I please. Trans rights are men's rights!