Gender Roles

[Emily Lake]

I would disagree. I can do a survey of all the weird trans folks I know, and more than 3/5ths are STEM.

There's something going on with the atypical and the comorbidity of gender issues, and this group as a specific outsized percentage tend towards being keenly capable at certain creative and intellectual tasks.

Is this actually being more capable, or STEM being more accepting of differences and more able to judge on concrete factors? If you don't fit in choosing a field that doesn't expect you to fit in would be a logical choice.

They sought out STEM careers, generally, often before they started transitioning (though some after).

My experience of this phenomena is relating to the fact that there's a certain "personality type" trans people tend towards.

I have a hard time putting a name on it other than "systemic intelligence", a paradigm or application of intelligence that hones in on how a system is functioning and how to keep it functioning or improving it's function.

Trans people just tend towards being HUGE nerds.

Lol, so you're working from the assumption that trans people are just totally smarter than everyone else? So much so that you feel obliged to give it a special name?

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes, Jarhyn, I'm quite aware of the SRY gene's role, and have talked about it repeatedly. The SRY gene is located on the Y chromosome, except in cases of genetic mutation that cause it to be translocated onto the X. Its the activation of the SRY gene that causes the bi-potential fetal reproductive tract to diverge down either a mullerian or a wolffian pathway.

The fact that sometimes something goes wrong does not invalidate that chromosomes are the means by which humans evolved sexual determination.

But note the implication--things can go wrong, producing a result that is other than the standard answer. This strongly suggests that other things can go wrong, producing other outcomes that don't match the standard answer--for example, running woman OS on man hardware. You are admitting one type of glitch is possible while rejecting the possibility of certain other ones.

And you're making the baseless assumption that there is such a thing as "woman OS" in the first place.

"Baseless"

I provided not one but TWO research links indicating that brains are distinguishable by a proxy of gender, and as neurology is concerned, form IS function.

You provided two studies that do not control of neural plasticity nor for the impact of hormones.

Like I said - go replicate that AI-with-a-Goal fMRI study on children under the age of three and I will give it a lot more consideration.

 

[Emily Lake]

True, but that implies intent. Evolution of genes operate on, best I can tell, nothing that can be characterized as "intent".

There are selection pressures, things that work and things that don't in various contexts, sure, bit that's not intent any more than gravity has in forming the earth or holding a river to its banks.

There are also straight up, no-holds-barred errors. There are mutations, there are transcription errors, there are division errors. Errors in the process are just that - errors.

No, they are difference!

You ascribe this with a particular concept, this emotional charge, which when assigned to the word "error" that does not exist in the usage of the word "error" when used in science and scientific terms. Yet again, you fail at an isomorphism to reality in this use.

In biology, with regards to a part of a process entering a different mode of operation the concept loses any connotation of "correct" or "incorrect", "right", or "wrong". It just simply is as it is.

So while a biologist uses the word "error" you do not hear "error" but instead "mistake".

You're the only person with an emotional hang-up over the term error. You're the only person applying some moralistic overtone to it.

 

[Emily Lake]

Evolution selects for reproductive success of the individual's genes.

Evolution doesn't select.

True only if you assume evolution may not be used in this form as euphemism for the contribution towards evolution as nature selects by dint of some things working in the context of "that which is" and some things not working.

This sentence doesn't make sense to me. Please try it again.

Also, nature doesn't select.

It is, as far as I am aware, a usable standing for 'the process of nature around evolution' and not widely understood as an unacceptable abbreviation of the idea.

Evolution is a mechanism, a process, a gigantic genetic pachinko machine. There is no goal, there is no objective. What we observe after the fact is an artifact of the process, it has no influence on the process itself at all.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would disagree. I can do a survey of all the weird trans folks I know, and more than 3/5ths are STEM.

There's something going on with the atypical and the comorbidity of gender issues, and this group as a specific outsized percentage tend towards being keenly capable at certain creative and intellectual tasks.

Is this actually being more capable, or STEM being more accepting of differences and more able to judge on concrete factors? If you don't fit in choosing a field that doesn't expect you to fit in would be a logical choice.

Or is it STEM having an overrepresentation of people with high-functioning autism... and people with autism being more prone to fixate on certain types of ideas, especially those that explain away their difficulty forming bonds with neurotypical people?

It has nothing to do with trying to "explain away" anything. It just happens that many trans people do very much more in and with their lives when they transition to doing that thing you keep talking about and abandoning the gender roles they were taught for the ones that they like.

Also, a change in hormones is VERY often beneficial to that process.

NOBODY I have ever met in the trans community is the same person before and after.

I could tell you about my friend R. R passed this year. I cried most of the funeral. Just sitting on a bench on a quiet corner just... Crying. The thing about 90% of the people at her funeral (and there were so many) said was that her transition was like a complete mutation of everything about her.

What everyone had experienced as a "quiet, mousey, sensitive boy" transformed into someone loud, passionate, outspoken, more than a little bit insane person with the most intense "goddess" emotional energy I have EVER experienced.

Losing her was like a star going out.

Maybe just maybe, have you considered that for many autistic people, this treatment works.

I would disagree. I can do a survey of all the weird trans folks I know, and more than 3/5ths are STEM.

There's something going on with the atypical and the comorbidity of gender issues, and this group as a specific outsized percentage tend towards being keenly capable at certain creative and intellectual tasks.

Is this actually being more capable, or STEM being more accepting of differences and more able to judge on concrete factors? If you don't fit in choosing a field that doesn't expect you to fit in would be a logical choice.

They sought out STEM careers, generally, often before they started transitioning (though some after).

My experience of this phenomena is relating to the fact that there's a certain "personality type" trans people tend towards.

I have a hard time putting a name on it other than "systemic intelligence", a paradigm or application of intelligence that hones in on how a system is functioning and how to keep it functioning or improving it's function.

Trans people just tend towards being HUGE nerds.

Lol, so you're working from the assumption that trans people are just totally smarter than everyone else? So much so that you feel obliged to give it a special name?

Many often are, for whatever reason. Maybe it's because we tend to be atypical, and are more willing to live outside the lines others draw for us to live inside of.

I think atypical people are downright corrosive to the forces of stagnation within a society.

Whether this makes them "all around" smarter I doubt it... But we do tend to feel more interest in using what we have for our own reasons.

 

[Jarhyn]

True, but that implies intent. Evolution of genes operate on, best I can tell, nothing that can be characterized as "intent".

There are selection pressures, things that work and things that don't in various contexts, sure, bit that's not intent any more than gravity has in forming the earth or holding a river to its banks.

There are also straight up, no-holds-barred errors. There are mutations, there are transcription errors, there are division errors. Errors in the process are just that - errors.

No, they are difference!

You ascribe this with a particular concept, this emotional charge, which when assigned to the word "error" that does not exist in the usage of the word "error" when used in science and scientific terms. Yet again, you fail at an isomorphism to reality in this use.

In biology, with regards to a part of a process entering a different mode of operation the concept loses any connotation of "correct" or "incorrect", "right", or "wrong". It just simply is as it is.

So while a biologist uses the word "error" you do not hear "error" but instead "mistake".

You're the only person with an emotional hang-up over the term error. You're the only person applying some moralistic overtone to it.

Says the person who just made a post to point out how "errors are errors".

Quit trying to downplay or scoff at your own usage and own it, why don't you?

I pointed out how people do have to be careful with the usage of error especially in discussions of suitability or correctness.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes, Jarhyn, I'm quite aware of the SRY gene's role, and have talked about it repeatedly. The SRY gene is located on the Y chromosome, except in cases of genetic mutation that cause it to be translocated onto the X. Its the activation of the SRY gene that causes the bi-potential fetal reproductive tract to diverge down either a mullerian or a wolffian pathway.

The fact that sometimes something goes wrong does not invalidate that chromosomes are the means by which humans evolved sexual determination.

But note the implication--things can go wrong, producing a result that is other than the standard answer. This strongly suggests that other things can go wrong, producing other outcomes that don't match the standard answer--for example, running woman OS on man hardware. You are admitting one type of glitch is possible while rejecting the possibility of certain other ones.

And you're making the baseless assumption that there is such a thing as "woman OS" in the first place.

"Baseless"

I provided not one but TWO research links indicating that brains are distinguishable by a proxy of gender, and as neurology is concerned, form IS function.

You provided two studies that do not control of neural plasticity nor for the impact of hormones.

Like I said - go replicate that AI-with-a-Goal fMRI study on children under the age of three and I will give it a lot more consideration.

LOL! So, the lack of control is to you an indication that you ought "harrumph" and say the equivalent of "so I shall believe it is not true" rather than "and so I shall reserve judgement until I can prove for myself it is as i believe".

My point is that it is absolutely not ridiculous insofar as the evidence we have supports my position. You may and have every right to say "you would expect to see such revealed with such study" but the way this whole "science" thing works is that for you to actually declare as you do with confidence, you would need that study you do not have.

 

[Emily Lake]

True, but that implies intent. Evolution of genes operate on, best I can tell, nothing that can be characterized as "intent".

There are selection pressures, things that work and things that don't in various contexts, sure, bit that's not intent any more than gravity has in forming the earth or holding a river to its banks.

There are also straight up, no-holds-barred errors. There are mutations, there are transcription errors, there are division errors. Errors in the process are just that - errors.

No, they are difference!

You ascribe this with a particular concept, this emotional charge, which when assigned to the word "error" that does not exist in the usage of the word "error" when used in science and scientific terms. Yet again, you fail at an isomorphism to reality in this use.

In biology, with regards to a part of a process entering a different mode of operation the concept loses any connotation of "correct" or "incorrect", "right", or "wrong". It just simply is as it is.

So while a biologist uses the word "error" you do not hear "error" but instead "mistake".

You're the only person with an emotional hang-up over the term error. You're the only person applying some moralistic overtone to it.

Says the person who just made a post to point out how "errors are errors".

Quit trying to downplay or scoff at your own usage and own it, why don't you?

Quit assuming your own emotional and moralistic perspective onto me.

 

[Jarhyn]

True, but that implies intent. Evolution of genes operate on, best I can tell, nothing that can be characterized as "intent".

There are selection pressures, things that work and things that don't in various contexts, sure, bit that's not intent any more than gravity has in forming the earth or holding a river to its banks.

There are also straight up, no-holds-barred errors. There are mutations, there are transcription errors, there are division errors. Errors in the process are just that - errors.

No, they are difference!

You ascribe this with a particular concept, this emotional charge, which when assigned to the word "error" that does not exist in the usage of the word "error" when used in science and scientific terms. Yet again, you fail at an isomorphism to reality in this use.

In biology, with regards to a part of a process entering a different mode of operation the concept loses any connotation of "correct" or "incorrect", "right", or "wrong". It just simply is as it is.

So while a biologist uses the word "error" you do not hear "error" but instead "mistake".

You're the only person with an emotional hang-up over the term error. You're the only person applying some moralistic overtone to it.

Says the person who just made a post to point out how "errors are errors".

Quit trying to downplay or scoff at your own usage and own it, why don't you?

Quit assuming your own emotional and moralistic perspective onto me.

I will be critical of exactly the usage I glean from a communication in public. If you meant something other than what I stated by "error" in the clear cultural context of "moralistic loading", then you have the obligation to disambiguate it.

You frequently fail to use the proper awakening of "is", and this chases usages where you clearly try to bolster your opinion with such strong language.

 

[Emily Lake]

LOL! So, the lack of control is to you an indication that you ought "harrumph" and say the equivalent of "so I shall believe it is not true" rather than "and so I shall reserve judgement until I can prove for myself it is as i believe".

My point is that it is absolutely not ridiculous insofar as the evidence we have supports my position. You may and have every right to say "you would expect to see such revealed with such study" but the way this whole "science" thing works is that for you to actually declare as you do with confidence, you would need that study you do not have.

If we go by what studies show... then we have lots of evidence that black brains are different from white brains.

Of course, in the majority of those studies, the people performing the study were specifically looking to prove that differences exist, so it's not particularly surprising that they found exactly what they were looking for, is it? Does that make their studies reliable or meaningful? Or does it make them a case of begging the question?

 

[Jarhyn]

LOL! So, the lack of control is to you an indication that you ought "harrumph" and say the equivalent of "so I shall believe it is not true" rather than "and so I shall reserve judgement until I can prove for myself it is as i believe".

My point is that it is absolutely not ridiculous insofar as the evidence we have supports my position. You may and have every right to say "you would expect to see such revealed with such study" but the way this whole "science" thing works is that for you to actually declare as you do with confidence, you would need that study you do not have.

If we go by what studies show... then we have lots of evidence that black brains are different from white brains.

Of course, in the majority of those studies, the people performing the study were specifically looking to prove that differences exist, so it's not particularly surprising that they found exactly what they were looking for, is it? Does that make their studies reliable or meaningful? Or does it make them a case of begging the question?

You are comparing bleeding edge research using well validated tools whose results are confirmed by humans with explicit scans by unbiased machinery to research done in what might as well be the dark ages.

This dishonest debate tactic is well poisoning, with the metaphorical well being all studies about gender and brains as poisoned by biased studies of a long time ago.

 

[Emily Lake]

True, but that implies intent. Evolution of genes operate on, best I can tell, nothing that can be characterized as "intent".

There are selection pressures, things that work and things that don't in various contexts, sure, bit that's not intent any more than gravity has in forming the earth or holding a river to its banks.

There are also straight up, no-holds-barred errors. There are mutations, there are transcription errors, there are division errors. Errors in the process are just that - errors.

No, they are difference!

You ascribe this with a particular concept, this emotional charge, which when assigned to the word "error" that does not exist in the usage of the word "error" when used in science and scientific terms. Yet again, you fail at an isomorphism to reality in this use.

In biology, with regards to a part of a process entering a different mode of operation the concept loses any connotation of "correct" or "incorrect", "right", or "wrong". It just simply is as it is.

So while a biologist uses the word "error" you do not hear "error" but instead "mistake".

You're the only person with an emotional hang-up over the term error. You're the only person applying some moralistic overtone to it.

Says the person who just made a post to point out how "errors are errors".

Quit trying to downplay or scoff at your own usage and own it, why don't you?

Quit assuming your own emotional and moralistic perspective onto me.

I will be critical of exactly the usage I glean from a communication in public. If you meant something other than what I stated by "error" in the clear cultural context of "moralistic loading", then you have the obligation to disambiguate it.

You frequently fail to use the proper awakening of "is", and this chases usages where you clearly try to bolster your opinion with such strong language.

Me: Well, the copier fucked up the copy.
You: No, it just copied it differently! It's just a different mode of operation that the copier is working on! You're just assuming that it's wrong! You're acting like there's something wrong with it, you need to avoid being so emotionally charged!
Me: No, it actually didn't do it right. Sometimes glitches happen.
You: Quit trying to downplay your usage!

Seriously, you should try taking your own emotion out of this. Errors happen within the reproductive process. Sometimes it's no big deal and there's no harm done. Sometimes there's so much harm that a miscarriage is triggered. And sometimes it's not quite enough of a big deal to stop the offspring from being born, but does end up reducing quality of life or functionality of the offspring. There's no judgement involved in this observation.

 

[Emily Lake]

LOL! So, the lack of control is to you an indication that you ought "harrumph" and say the equivalent of "so I shall believe it is not true" rather than "and so I shall reserve judgement until I can prove for myself it is as i believe".

My point is that it is absolutely not ridiculous insofar as the evidence we have supports my position. You may and have every right to say "you would expect to see such revealed with such study" but the way this whole "science" thing works is that for you to actually declare as you do with confidence, you would need that study you do not have.

If we go by what studies show... then we have lots of evidence that black brains are different from white brains.

Of course, in the majority of those studies, the people performing the study were specifically looking to prove that differences exist, so it's not particularly surprising that they found exactly what they were looking for, is it? Does that make their studies reliable or meaningful? Or does it make them a case of begging the question?

You are comparing bleeding edge research using well validated tools whose results are confirmed by humans with explicit scans by unbiased machinery to research done in what might as well be the dark ages.

You're assuming that the tools are well validated (AI is not) and that the results are confirmed by humans (they weren't, they were replicated by other machines) and that it was unbiased (AI is not unbiased).

And you just keep ignoring and glossing over the fact that 1) the AI was GIVEN A SPECIFIC GOAL and 2) the fMRI scans did not control for conditioning and learned behavior as it impacts the structure of the brain and 3) the fMRI scans did not control for the effect of hormones. Instead, you see a result that you like, and you therefore assume that the result is correct and accurate and innate.

You assume that the results of this study mean that males and females actually have innately different brains AND THAT this assumed innate difference in brains CAUSES differences in behavior that YOU ASSOCIATE with your own interpretation of gender identity.

This dishonest debate tactic is well poisoning, with the metaphorical well being all studies about gender and brains as poisoned by biased studies of a long time ago.

Meh. Your uncritical acceptance of a result because it confirms your bias is the springboard for the naturalistic fallacy being leveraged to enforce gender roles and sexist stereotypes.

 

[Jarhyn]

True, but that implies intent. Evolution of genes operate on, best I can tell, nothing that can be characterized as "intent".

There are selection pressures, things that work and things that don't in various contexts, sure, bit that's not intent any more than gravity has in forming the earth or holding a river to its banks.

There are also straight up, no-holds-barred errors. There are mutations, there are transcription errors, there are division errors. Errors in the process are just that - errors.

No, they are difference!

You ascribe this with a particular concept, this emotional charge, which when assigned to the word "error" that does not exist in the usage of the word "error" when used in science and scientific terms. Yet again, you fail at an isomorphism to reality in this use.

In biology, with regards to a part of a process entering a different mode of operation the concept loses any connotation of "correct" or "incorrect", "right", or "wrong". It just simply is as it is.

So while a biologist uses the word "error" you do not hear "error" but instead "mistake".

You're the only person with an emotional hang-up over the term error. You're the only person applying some moralistic overtone to it.

Says the person who just made a post to point out how "errors are errors".

Quit trying to downplay or scoff at your own usage and own it, why don't you?

Quit assuming your own emotional and moralistic perspective onto me.

I will be critical of exactly the usage I glean from a communication in public. If you meant something other than what I stated by "error" in the clear cultural context of "moralistic loading", then you have the obligation to disambiguate it.

You frequently fail to use the proper awakening of "is", and this chases usages where you clearly try to bolster your opinion with such strong language.

Me: Well, the copier fucked up the copy.
You: No, it just copied it differently! It's just a different mode of operation that the copier is working on! You're just assuming that it's wrong! You're acting like there's something wrong with it, you need to avoid being so emotionally charged!
Me: No, it actually didn't do it right. Sometimes glitches happen.
You: Quit trying to downplay your usage!

Seriously, you should try taking your own emotion out of this. Errors happen within the reproductive process. Sometimes it's no big deal and there's no harm done. Sometimes there's so much harm that a miscarriage is triggered. And sometimes it's not quite enough of a big deal to stop the offspring from being born, but does end up reducing quality of life or functionality of the offspring. There's no judgement involved in this observation.

It didn't do what you wanted it to do. Contextually, from your perspective, subjectively, it may be "wrong". But that objective fact about you does not translate into an objective fact of the universe any less trite than "Emily didn't like it".

Actually look at the words you are using. "Not right". "Error". How are you this blind to the emotions that come with the text you put online?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, it’s not a negative gene by Darwin standards. That’s now how evolution works.

It’s negative for reproductive success for the individual, but has clearly, obviously and demonstrably not impacted the species as a whole in any negative way. Our species is not really indanger of any decaying numbers from transgenderism being one of the expressions.

But Darwin standards are all about reproductive success for the individual. When did Darwin ever say the way evolution works is by selecting what's positive for the species as a whole? That interpretation of evolution appears to have been thought up later by people who were put off by the whole 19th-century "Nature red in tooth and claw" picture and wanted to restore 18th-century "Harmony of Nature" ideas.

No, Darwin does not say this. rather, Evolution selects for reproductive success of the individual's genes.

Darwin does not say anything. Darwin has been dead for 142 years. Darwin certainly did not say what you said. Darwin never heard of genes. Mendel was an unknown monk whose work wasn't rediscovered by the wider scientific community until 1900.

And I was using "Darwin" to refer to reproductive success, I wasn't actually referring to the person. Same as the Darwin Awards aren't from Darwin.

The gene-level view of evolution is modern; and while it's probably more accurate than Darwin's standard of individual reproductive success, it offers no support for the notion that evolution gives two hoots about impact on "the species as a whole".

We are simply the reproductive system of genes. Actions which lead to more copies of our genes will be favored over actions which lead to fewer copies. (Which means that in the long run we will end up selecting for a desire to have children. And in the absence of foolproof contraception, selecting for contraceptive carelessness.) However, you're wrong about two hoots--humans have many genes in common. Evolution will select for favoring your species over other species because you have more genes in common with other members of your species than with other species. This pressure is small, though, and will not act against speciation if the situation should arise. (Either by a sufficient division of the population, or by deliberate genetic editing.)

At best, you could make an argument that Darwin failed to properly describe who and what evolution selects for, but you can't really use that to deny that sometimes the selfish gene is selected occasionally because of indirect survival benefits provided by non-reproductive persons.

So who's denying it? Of course kin selection and inclusive fitness are real effects that Darwin lived too early to have known about; but that isn't the point. Rhea didn't make a "selfish gene" argument; she made a "good of the species" argument, which is a whole different ball of wax.

I think the point is that we are wired to be willing to take risks to save those with a fair amount of genetic similarity, especially when the one being saved has better future reproductive prospects than the person taking the risk. However, as with everything about us, the mapping is only approximate. There is good genetic reason to be willing to die to save one's children, there's pretty much no genetic reason to be willing to die to save one's partner.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, Jarhyn, I'm quite aware of the SRY gene's role, and have talked about it repeatedly. The SRY gene is located on the Y chromosome, except in cases of genetic mutation that cause it to be translocated onto the X. Its the activation of the SRY gene that causes the bi-potential fetal reproductive tract to diverge down either a mullerian or a wolffian pathway.

The fact that sometimes something goes wrong does not invalidate that chromosomes are the means by which humans evolved sexual determination.

But note the implication--things can go wrong, producing a result that is other than the standard answer. This strongly suggests that other things can go wrong, producing other outcomes that don't match the standard answer--for example, running woman OS on man hardware. You are admitting one type of glitch is possible while rejecting the possibility of certain other ones.

And you're making the baseless assumption that there is such a thing as "woman OS" in the first place.

If there wasn't a man OS and woman OS then there would be no possibility of a gender mismatch and the whole trans issue wouldn't exist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would disagree. I can do a survey of all the weird trans folks I know, and more than 3/5ths are STEM.

There's something going on with the atypical and the comorbidity of gender issues, and this group as a specific outsized percentage tend towards being keenly capable at certain creative and intellectual tasks.

Is this actually being more capable, or STEM being more accepting of differences and more able to judge on concrete factors? If you don't fit in choosing a field that doesn't expect you to fit in would be a logical choice.

They sought out STEM careers, generally, often before they started transitioning (though some after).

My experience of this phenomena is relating to the fact that there's a certain "personality type" trans people tend towards.

I have a hard time putting a name on it other than "systemic intelligence", a paradigm or application of intelligence that hones in on how a system is functioning and how to keep it functioning or improving it's function.

Trans people just tend towards being HUGE nerds.

I don't think you're proving your point here--they didn't fit in and so went towards fields where fitting in is less important. Computers let me be me.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But note the implication--things can go wrong, producing a result that is other than the standard answer. This strongly suggests that other things can go wrong, producing other outcomes that don't match the standard answer--for example, running woman OS on man hardware. You are admitting one type of glitch is possible while rejecting the possibility of certain other ones.

And you're making the baseless assumption that there is such a thing as "woman OS" in the first place.

If there wasn't a man OS and woman OS then there would be no possibility of a gender mismatch and the whole trans issue wouldn't exist.

My daughter just got the book The Wild Robot, and the robot is a female. And that made me think, how do you program a robot to be female?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Says the person who just made a post to point out how "errors are errors".

Quit trying to downplay or scoff at your own usage and own it, why don't you?

Quit assuming your own emotional and moralistic perspective onto me.

I will be critical of exactly the usage I glean from a communication in public. If you meant something other than what I stated by "error" in the clear cultural context of "moralistic loading", then you have the obligation to disambiguate it.

You frequently fail to use the proper awakening of "is", and this chases usages where you clearly try to bolster your opinion with such strong language.

Me: Well, the copier fucked up the copy.

That is a pretty awful metaphor there. For a person who is sensitive as to certain things, one would think you'd have stated that differently.

Errors happen within the reproductive process. Sometimes it's no big deal and there's no harm done. Sometimes there's so much harm that a miscarriage is triggered. And sometimes it's not quite enough of a big deal to stop the offspring from being born, but does end up reducing quality of life or functionality of the offspring. There's no judgement involved in this observation.

You've done quite a bit of judging. You feel that the female species is a trademarked brand and that any use of its likeliness without expressed written consent from you is wrong.

 

[Jarhyn]

But note the implication--things can go wrong, producing a result that is other than the standard answer. This strongly suggests that other things can go wrong, producing other outcomes that don't match the standard answer--for example, running woman OS on man hardware. You are admitting one type of glitch is possible while rejecting the possibility of certain other ones.

And you're making the baseless assumption that there is such a thing as "woman OS" in the first place.

If there wasn't a man OS and woman OS then there would be no possibility of a gender mismatch and the whole trans issue wouldn't exist.

My daughter just got the book The Wild Robot, and the robot is a female. And that made me think, how do you program a robot to be female?

Well, if I was going about it, it would be as I've described: in the linkage of behavioral executions to "femininity" to satisfaction of a potential set of "need objects", in the probability of the system generating "feminine validation" as a "need object", and adding in an increased probability of "plans that also satisfy said need object"; with regards to the "masculine" reflection, neglecting to insert those linkages.

I would explicitly link it to the concept under whatever "learned" natural vector the token "femininity" is associated with so that even if new tokens are assigned, the concept does not shift.

As a result, the robot would feel a need to feel feminine, have behaviors that fulfill that need, and would regularly have a reason/excuse to exercise behavior of such a flavor. This would be built into the very framework, an intrinsic aspect of who the robot is, generating constant pull towards whoever the social concept wanders.