Gender Roles

[Jokodo]

Interestingly, the human pattern of sexual dimorphism its really the odd one out among apes. It's ridiculously exaggerated in traits that are (presumably) mostly the product of sexual selection, like our patterns of body and facial hair, our females' permanently enlarged breasts, or the ridiculously prolonged penis (almost to the point of being impractical) in our males. At the very same time, it is extremely reduced in other traits that tend to be more the product of natural selection, such as body size and dentition. The male-female average body size ratio varies somewhat by population, but it tends to be around 1.1 with s good overlap - the gorilla's and orangutan's are well above 1.5 and no overlap to speak of -, and a trained dentist with years of experience looking at thousands of human jaws will almost certainly have an easier time quickly assigning an adult chimpanzee jaw to one sex or the other with high accuracy after being shown one typical example of each, than for the human jaws she is so familiar with.

This might suggest that "gender roles", or if you will sex-biased behavioral poles of attraction, have been less divergent throughout much of our history than in other apes. Alternatively or concomittantly, it could be a side effect of human males being under strong selection pressure for lowered testosterone levels or sensitivity in order not to jeopardize our cooperative social structure through (even more) unpredictable bouts of aggression.

The exaggerated penis and breast and the beards could well have evolved in response to the lower overall body dimorphism as signals other apes don't need half a much.

 

[Jokodo]

This might be the most generic, abstract, philosophical formulation if my main objection to some of the things being said be eg @Emily Lake , @TomC , and to an extent @Bomb#20 : concepts and labels for arbitrary ranges over a group of similar things are useful, and being able to formulate them is an important part of human cognition. We wouldn't be what we are without that ability. They are however useful for specific purposes only. Treating them as objective truths is a category error, and concluding they are useful for all purposes when they have proven so for one is a non sequitur par excellence. The acknowledgment that they are ultimately arbitrary and/or gradual is what ultimately distinguishes, for example, the modern concept of species from the creationists' "kinds", but that doesn't mean that the species is a useless concept.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ok, then I hope you an answer this: At what point in the evolution of reindeer did females having antlers stop being a disorder?

This is the kind of argument that makes this discussion, IMHO, not worth bothering with.
Tom

This is exactly the kind of question you need to be able to answer if you want to categorically declare atypical combinations of sex traits as "disorders" and pretend that's a scientifically informed position.

Unless you're a creationist.

No, I don't have to be a creationist to recognize a bad argument.
Tom

You have to understand evolution to see why it's a good argument, though

This might be the most generic, abstract, philosophical formulation if my main objection to some of the things being said be eg @Emily Lake , @TomC , and to an extent @Bomb#20 : concepts and labels for arbitrary ranges over a group of similar things are useful, and being able to formulate them is an important part of human cognition. We wouldn't be what we are without that ability. They are however useful for specific purposes only. Treating them as objective truths is a category error, and concluding they are useful for all purposes when they have proven so for one is a non sequitur par excellence. The acknowledgment that they are ultimately arbitrary and/or gradual is what ultimately distinguishes, for example, the modern concept of species from the creationists' "kinds", but that doesn't mean that the species is a useless concept.

Except that as you can observe, the ultimate result of pointing this out (and I have pointed this out like clockwork in past threads) is the emphatic claim that they did nothing of any such kind.

As you can see, when I point out that Emily needs to stop inappropriately pathologizing she outright claims she doesn't pathologize, and claims I'm "humpty dumptying" language in a clear gaslighting attempt.

Instead she sees what effect her rhetorical language has and assumes she is right because it convinces (some) people. It sounds reasonable, and relies on subtle and strategic category errors, conflations so deft you might not notice them, and the ultimate and essential equivocation of a condition into a "disorder" so as to attempt to disregard individual autonomy.

Ultimately, this all boils down to one question: should people have timely control to decide which developmental path to access or avoid?

I have been the target of consistent rhetorical abuse just for ASKING that question. I have been directly called insane for even suggesting that "a developmental path considered acceptable for one is a developmental path considerable for all."

I would very much like to actually explore this as a concept with YOU mostly because I know that unlike some people here you might be capable of examining the concept.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This might be the most generic, abstract, philosophical formulation if my main objection to some of the things being said be eg @Emily Lake , @TomC , and to an extent @Bomb#20 : concepts and labels for arbitrary ranges over a group of similar things are useful, and being able to formulate them is an important part of human cognition. We wouldn't be what we are without that ability. They are however useful for specific purposes only. Treating them as objective truths is a category error, and concluding they are useful for all purposes when they have proven so for one is a non sequitur par excellence. The acknowledgment that they are ultimately arbitrary and/or gradual is what ultimately distinguishes, for example, the modern concept of species from the creationists' "kinds", but that doesn't mean that the species is a useless concept.

I have been lurking off and on. What definition of sex is Emily using now?

 

[TomC]

I have been lurking off and on. What definition of sex is Emily using now?

The same one everyone else does virtually all the time.
The problem is usually Jarhyn redesigning words to suit their agenda.
Tom

 

[Jokodo]

I have been lurking off and on. What definition of sex is Emily using now?

The same one everyone else does virtually all the time.
The problem is usually Jarhyn redesigning words to suit their agenda.
Tom

I have no idea why you would think that the average woman who chooses to go to the sauna on ladies night over mixed night would care about gametes more than about genitals and overall appearance. I'm pretty sure that's a false claim.

 

[TomC]

I have been lurking off and on. What definition of sex is Emily using now?

The same one everyone else does virtually all the time.
The problem is usually Jarhyn redesigning words to suit their agenda.
Tom

I have no idea why you would think that the average woman who chooses to go to the sauna on ladies night over mixed night would care about gametes more than about genitals and overall appearance. I'm pretty sure that's a false claim.

The false, but all too typical, claim is that I (or Emily) think that. That's just you misrepresenting the discussion.
Tom

 

[Jokodo]

I have been lurking off and on. What definition of sex is Emily using now?

The same one everyone else does virtually all the time.
The problem is usually Jarhyn redesigning words to suit their agenda.
Tom

I have no idea why you would think that the average woman who chooses to go to the sauna on ladies night over mixed night would care about gametes more than about genitals and overall appearance. I'm pretty sure that's a false claim.

The false, but all too typical, claim is that I (or Emily) think that. That's just you misrepresenting the discussion.
Tom

Oh, I'm aware that you probably don't really believe that, i assume you have that much common sense. It does however logically follow from combining Emily's definition and your claim that "everyone else [uses it] virtually all the time". Your feeble attempts to define the edge cases that disprove your definition's universal applicability out of existence aren't empirical science, they belong to the realm of religion.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I have been lurking off and on. What definition of sex is Emily using now?

The same one everyone else does virtually all the time.

That isn't true. I just want the definition, pretty please.

 

[TomC]

I have been lurking off and on. What definition of sex is Emily using now?

The same one everyone else does virtually all the time.

That isn't true. I just want the definition, pretty please.

Do you?
One of the most aggravating aspects of this discussion is the unwillingness of certain participants to accept anything that doesn't match their ideology.
How about this. You give me your definition and Emily and I will critique it.
Pretty please
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I have been lurking off and on. What definition of sex is Emily using now?

The same one everyone else does virtually all the time.

That isn't true. I just want the definition, pretty please.

Do you?
One of the most aggravating aspects of this discussion is the unwillingness of certain participants to accept anything that doesn't match their ideology.
How about this. You give me your definition and Emily and I will critique it.
Pretty please
Tom

I am not the one claiming to have a definition that demonstrates binary-ness. Emily probably already gave it in the thread. So you are doing a disservice to technical discussion, creating a fight for no reason.

 

[Jokodo]

I have been lurking off and on. What definition of sex is Emily using now?

The same one everyone else does virtually all the time.

That isn't true. I just want the definition, pretty please.

Do you?
One of the most aggravating aspects of this discussion is the unwillingness of certain participants to accept anything that doesn't match their ideology.

One is those participants even looks at you from your bathroom mirror every morning.

 

[Bomb#20]

I have been lurking off and on. What definition of sex is Emily using now?

The same one everyone else does virtually all the time.
The problem is usually Jarhyn redesigning words to suit their agenda.
Tom

I have no idea why you would think that the average woman who chooses to go to the sauna on ladies night over mixed night would care about gametes more than about genitals and overall appearance. I'm pretty sure that's a false claim.

The false, but all too typical, claim is that I (or Emily) think that. That's just you misrepresenting the discussion.
Tom

Oh, I'm aware that you probably don't really believe that, i assume you have that much common sense. It does however logically follow from combining Emily's definition and your claim that "everyone else [uses it] virtually all the time".

Show your work.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What's the definition she is using?

 

[Bomb#20]

I have been lurking off and on. What definition of sex is Emily using now?

Same one she's been using all along.

 

[TomC]

What's the definition she is using?

The complex and nuanced one.
Ranging from everyday reality to scientific esoterica.
I don't think anyone is going to reproduce it for you, but it's right there in her posts.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

...
Instead she sees what effect her rhetorical language has and assumes she is right because it convinces (some) people. It sounds reasonable, and relies on subtle and strategic category errors, conflations so deft you might not notice them, and the ultimate and essential equivocation of a condition into a "disorder" so as to attempt to disregard individual autonomy.
...
I have been the target of consistent rhetorical abuse just for ASKING that question. I have been directly called insane for even suggesting that "a developmental path considered acceptable for one is a developmental path considerable for all."
...

Holy lack-of-self-knowledge, Batman!

Labeling what you're arguing for "a developmental path considered acceptable for one is a developmental path considerable for all." is a reformulation of the dispute that relies critically on strategic category errors, conflations so deft you might not notice them, and the ultimate and essential equivocation of a condition into an entirely different condition so as to attempt to disregard the inability of children to give informed consent. Not all that subtle, though, and not so deft that others won't notice them.

 

[Bomb#20]

What's the definition she is using?

The complex and nuanced one.
Ranging from everyday reality to scientific esoterica.
I don't think anyone is going to reproduce it for you, but it's right there in her posts.
Tom

He doesn't need anyone to reproduce it for him. If he doesn't already know what it is, why would he have insinuated that she changed it?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You are making assumptions about me. Where is the definition?

 

[TomC]

You are making assumptions about me. Where is the definition?

In this and several other threads.

The assumption I was making was that you had an interest. I'm no longer making that assumption.
Tom