Biden begins erasing girls on day one: transgender executive order

[Jarhyn]

But once those kids go through puberty, gender based physical differences become huge. For vast majority of people.
You can't let a tiny fraction of intersexed individuals dictate matters for the rest of humanity.

sure is a good thing, then that NOBODY IS ASKING FOR THAT except in your clearly deluded thought process.

My arguments, my position, stand on the (perhaps novel) idea that there are absolutely people alive today born with a penis who have not been significantly influenced in this way by testosterone.

Also, research on the subject of just how "huge" those differences are, especially after some passage of time, is not in strong evidence. You can't really even make these claims in the first place.

Being social != socialism. Socialism is an ideology that states that means of production should be communally owned.

naw dude, that's communism. Though I don't mind that you can't tell the difference. Also, society has changed a lot, academics has moved a lot, since Marx hit the scene.

Jesus was a socialist.

1. This is an atheist forum. What do we care what Jesus might have been?
2. Socialism proper arose only after the Industrial revolution. Calling Jesus a socialist is thus an anachronism. It also requires cherry-picking verses. For an counterexample, in the Parable of the Talents seeking profit is seen as good.

1. I don't care, but lion does. The question is why do you care that I bring it up? In fact, this is not an atheist forum. It is a discussion board for free thought these days (not even rationalism, on which grounds I would argue certain posters wouldn't be welcome if we enforced).

2. Socialism is as old as society. That one guy wrote a lot about it at the time of the industrial revolution. That Jesus, or marx, or any of the great socialist thinkers didn't have a great grasp on the subject isn't really my problem. It doesn't change the fact that, for Lion, given that he literally claims to worship Jesus, he fails to do the most important thing Jesus actually asked for.

 

[Ahab]

I do agree with the EO. I don't agree with your assessment of what it entails.
It is extremely important to try and eliminate sexual discrimination in our society.

Interesting. I'd also very much like to end sex discrimination in our society. I'm not particularly convinced that replacing "sex" with "gender identity" is going to accomplish that, however.

I would agree. Although I am strongly in favor of eliminating discriminatory practices aimed at LGBTQ folks, I disagree with some of their philosophical positions. I am really looking forward to reading Kathleen Stock's new book "Material Girls".

I like this little summary of the differing positions regarding gender that was posted on twitter:

The patriarchal position: Sex exists, sex determines gender
The feminist position: Sex exists, sex does not determine gender, gender is a construct
Trans position: Gender identity exists, sex does not exist, gender identity determines sex.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would agree. Although I am strongly in favor of eliminating discriminatory practices aimed at LGBTQ folks, I disagree with some of their philosophical positions. I am really looking forward to reading Kathleen Stock's new book "Material Girls".

I like this little summary of the differing positions regarding gender that was posted on twitter:

The patriarchal position: Sex exists, sex determines gender
The feminist position: Sex exists, sex does not determine gender, gender is a construct
Trans position: Gender identity exists, sex does not exist, gender identity determines sex.

Except that is not the "trans position" and is a straw man.

More "gender identity exists, and 'sex' is neither necessary nor sufficient to the condition, nor is it necessary nor sufficient for any other general societal purpose."

It is not that sex does not exist (though it absolutely does not exist as Emily conceives of it); merely that it is entirely trivial to the vast majority of everyone's lives, a mere proxy for any of the things we actually care about and one whose inappropriate use creates unwarranted discrimination

We oppose not the existence of "sex", but it's application in inappropriate contexts (which is MOST contexts).

 

[Emily Lake]

When someone ends up with all the brain bits you yourself would call "female" and that brain is exposed to all the hormones that make it feel and continue to become more of what you would call "female", that means that all the "person" parts of the human are what you would call "female".

"Ladybrain" is bullshit. There is no such thing as a "female" brain. The pituitary gland triggers the release of either female or male hormones during puberty, and governs those hormones throughout one's life. The hormones themselves are directly linked to the production of gametes. If a person has male gametes, the pituitary-driven onset of puberty isn't going to cause them to produce estrogen and progesterone washes, no matter how much they might wish it to be so.

I call that person a female (insofar as YOUR definitions would be concerned) regardless of the parts that I can't see. They don't make any difference to me, mere trivia at best and invasion of privacy more like. They would bbe what you would call "female" even if they were just their brain in a jar, especially so, even.

If they were just a brain in a jar, you cannot determine the sex of the person without taking a genetic sample and looking - literally - at whether their chromosomes are XX or XY. Otherwise, there is no material or statistically significant difference in the brains of males and females.

Female here is conflated across measures of granularity, that you wish to insist a person is male because penis, or because XX. That doesn't work in reality, it only works when you are being sloppy, using one term to proxy many terms for various discrete systems.

No, you are incorrect. Disorders of sexual development across multiple systems can occur, but those are disorders. There aren't "measures of granularity" involved in whether a person is male or female.

 

[Emily Lake]

My arguments, my position, stand on the (perhaps novel) idea that there are absolutely people alive today born with a penis who have not been significantly influenced in this way by testosterone.

How about some examples? Are you talking about pre-pubescent children?

 

[Jarhyn]

"Ladybrain" is bullshit. There is no such thing as a "female" brain. The pituitary gland triggers the release of either female or male hormones during puberty, and governs those hormones throughout one's life. The hormones themselves are directly linked to the production of gametes. If a person has male gametes, the pituitary-driven onset of puberty isn't going to cause them to produce estrogen and progesterone washes, no matter how much they might wish it to be so.

there are literally studies about antibody brain feminization driven from maternal conditions. There are MRI studies done comparing brain function between gay people and "normal women", there are the same for trans people they find bimodal differences in function. You are wrong. Your argument dies there.

 

[Emily Lake]

More "gender identity exists, and 'sex' is neither necessary nor sufficient to the condition, nor is it necessary nor sufficient for any other general societal purpose."

What does this even mean?

It is not that sex does not exist (though it absolutely does not exist as Emily conceives of it); merely that it is entirely trivial to the vast majority of everyone's lives, a mere proxy for any of the things we actually care about and one whose inappropriate use creates unwarranted discrimination

OMG, no, it is NOT trivial to the majority of people's lives! Where do you get off making such a declaration? Biology has a massive effect on people, and for females it's an enormous element of the social disadvantage that we face!

Let me go ahead and be clear, and not as civil as I normally by attempt to be.

MALES don't care about biological sex and the implications thereof. MALES feel that it is unimportant. Most females do not think that their biology doesn't matter. That biology is the source of the discrimination against and oppression of females throughout history. Holy cow, do you even pay attention to the rest of the world? DO you think that genital mutilation is based on gender identity? Do you think that retributive rape as punishment is based on fucking "gender expression"? Do you think that selective abortion of female fetuses because of their goddamned sex is because of their fucking brains? Do you think that the outright abuse of and dehumanization of females throughout a good chunk of the islamic world is based on socially-created gender? No, it's all based on FUCKING REPRODUCTIVE FUCKING BIOLOGY which is a real and very meaningful thing!

We oppose not the existence of "sex", but it's application in inappropriate contexts (which is MOST contexts).

Sure, just like race is completely inappropriate in most contexts too. Let's go ahead and start a massive activist program to suppress discussion of race and the importance that race plays in society. Sound good to you? I can't see that there's anything wrong or problematic with that idea, can you?

Just because a thing that you do not experience is not important to you does not in any way mean that it is not important to those who do experience it.

 

[Emily Lake]

"Ladybrain" is bullshit. There is no such thing as a "female" brain. The pituitary gland triggers the release of either female or male hormones during puberty, and governs those hormones throughout one's life. The hormones themselves are directly linked to the production of gametes. If a person has male gametes, the pituitary-driven onset of puberty isn't going to cause them to produce estrogen and progesterone washes, no matter how much they might wish it to be so.

there are literally studies about antibody brain feminization driven from maternal conditions. There are MRI studies done comparing brain function between gay people and "normal women", there are the same for trans people they find bimodal differences in function. You are wrong. Your argument dies there.

And if you actually understood those studies, instead of cherry picking what you want to believe, you would understand that the differences are extremely minor and are non-determinative. The differences are qualitative and descriptive differences, which are insufficient to identify whether a given brain is male or female absent other information.

Furthermore, the specific studies that you reference are looking at gay men versus heterosexual women, and are identifying the effect of sexual arousal as it relates to the sex of the target. They confirm sexual orientation, they say nothing at all about gender identity.

 

[J842P]

"Ladybrain" is bullshit. There is no such thing as a "female" brain. The pituitary gland triggers the release of either female or male hormones during puberty, and governs those hormones throughout one's life. The hormones themselves are directly linked to the production of gametes. If a person has male gametes, the pituitary-driven onset of puberty isn't going to cause them to produce estrogen and progesterone washes, no matter how much they might wish it to be so.


If they were just a brain in a jar, you cannot determine the sex of the person without taking a genetic sample and looking - literally - at whether their chromosomes are XX or XY. Otherwise, there is no material or statistically significant difference in the brains of males and females.

Female here is conflated across measures of granularity, that you wish to insist a person is male because penis, or because XX. That doesn't work in reality, it only works when you are being sloppy, using one term to proxy many terms for various discrete systems.

No, you are incorrect. Disorders of sexual development across multiple systems can occur, but those are disorders. There aren't "measures of granularity" involved in whether a person is male or female.

This is incorrect. You can pretty accurately determine if a brain belonged to a female or a male. There are statistically significant, gross anatomical differences across both populations, things like relative densities of grey matter (apparently it can be lateralized), and women tend to have greater myelination. Although, these aren't major differences, and would probably not be a great predictor on their own (although maybe a constellation of these could get you a good predictor). But there is the famous and aptly-named sexually dimorphic nucleus, which would be pretty reliable on it's own.

From a psychological perspective, at least with the Big Five model, there are minor, although reliable and statistically significant differences in personalities between the population of male and female. Although, none of them are very good at being a predictor.

 

[Jarhyn]

What does this even mean?


OMG, no, it is NOT trivial to the majority of people's lives! Where do you get off making such a declaration? Biology has a massive effect on people, and for females it's an enormous element of the social disadvantage that we face!

Let me go ahead and be clear, and not as civil as I normally by attempt to be.

MALES don't care about biological sex and the implications thereof. MALES feel that it is unimportant. Most females do not think that their biology doesn't matter. That biology is the source of the discrimination against and oppression of females throughout history. Holy cow, do you even pay attention to the rest of the world? DO you think that genital mutilation is based on gender identity? Do you think that retributive rape as punishment is based on fucking "gender expression"? Do you think that selective abortion of female fetuses because of their goddamned sex is because of their fucking brains? Do you think that the outright abuse of and dehumanization of females throughout a good chunk of the islamic world is based on socially-created gender? No, it's all based on FUCKING REPRODUCTIVE FUCKING BIOLOGY which is a real and very meaningful thing!

We oppose not the existence of "sex", but it's application in inappropriate contexts (which is MOST contexts).

Sure, just like race is completely inappropriate in most contexts too. Let's go ahead and start a massive activist program to suppress discussion of race and the importance that race plays in society. Sound good to you? I can't see that there's anything wrong or problematic with that idea, can you?

Just because a thing that you do not experience is not important to you does not in any way mean that it is not important to those who do experience it.

You don't even fucking understand the biology. You have made no attempt to accept the implications of its messiness.

The biology that determines ultimately who people are, what shape their bodies take, what manners in which they act are the brains they have and the hormones they are exposed to, together.

You deny the very real fact that brains develop in gendered ways separately from hormone exposure epochs, and so I see very little reason to even continue engaging you.

You wish to be willfully ignorant of the facts of biology, that the biology is not your genitals, but your hormones, your brain, and how those interact.

The things and ways in which people experience is central here. I don't experience the world with my dick. You don't experience the world with your vagina.

I study, as a point of fact, how "seemingly minor" differences in how connectivities happen have HUGE impacts on what the system expresses. What you seem to not care about is in fact central to who we are.

 

[Emily Lake]

This is incorrect. You can pretty accurately determine if a brain belonged to a female or a male. There are statistically significant, gross anatomical differences across both populations, things like relative densities of grey matter (apparently it can be lateralized), and women tend to have greater myelination. Although, these aren't major differences, and would probably not be a great predictor on their own (although maybe a constellation of these could get you a good predictor). But there is the famous and aptly-named sexually dimorphic nucleus, which would be pretty reliable on it's own.

From a psychological perspective, at least with the Big Five model, there are minor, although reliable and statistically significant differences in personalities between the population of male and female. Although, none of them are very good at being a predictor.

The red and the blue sentences are contradictions. There are NOT gross anatomical differences in the brain between males and females. The majority of the differences observed are correlated with the size of the skull, and if that is controlled for, the differences are non-significant. Furthermore, the "tend to" that you reference is, as I said, non-predictive. It's like saying that males tend to be taller than females. If you've got a 7" person, they're highly likely to be male, and if you've got a 5" adult person, their highly likely to be female. But if you've got someone between 5"5 and 5"10 it's anybody's guess. The observed differences in brain structure are bimodal, but with a significant overlap in their distributions. Hence - nonpredictive.

Beyond that, the observed differences are in adults, on small samples, and within single cultural groups, and there is no way to determine how much of those differences are the result of conditioning. Elasticity isn't controlled for, and in the handful of very small samples of infant brains, there is no observable difference.

THE SDN governs sexual orientation and sexuality, not gender identity.

The "ladybrain" hypothesis holds as much water as studies demonstrating that black people have lower IQs. They simply aren't very good studies and are driven by agendas seeking a specific answer.

 

[Emily Lake]

You don't even fucking understand the biology. You have made no attempt to accept the implications of its messiness.

The biology that determines ultimately who people are, what shape their bodies take, what manners in which they act are the brains they have and the hormones they are exposed to, together.

You deny the very real fact that brains develop in gendered ways separately from hormone exposure epochs, and so I see very little reason to even continue engaging you.

You wish to be willfully ignorant of the facts of biology, that the biology is not your genitals, but your hormones, your brain, and how those interact.

The things and ways in which people experience is central here. I don't experience the world with my dick. You don't experience the world with your vagina.

I study, as a point of fact, how "seemingly minor" differences in how connectivities happen have HUGE impacts on what the system expresses. What you seem to not care about is in fact central to who we are.

Your post is woo.

The implications are actually pretty well understood and incredibly well documented. Or do you somehow think that humans are manifestly different from every other mammal on the planet, and that our sexually dimorphic evolution and development is magically different because reasons? Maybe, mind-body duality reasons? God-gifted soul reasons?

 

[Jarhyn]

You don't even fucking understand the biology. You have made no attempt to accept the implications of its messiness.

The biology that determines ultimately who people are, what shape their bodies take, what manners in which they act are the brains they have and the hormones they are exposed to, together.

You deny the very real fact that brains develop in gendered ways separately from hormone exposure epochs, and so I see very little reason to even continue engaging you.

You wish to be willfully ignorant of the facts of biology, that the biology is not your genitals, but your hormones, your brain, and how those interact.

The things and ways in which people experience is central here. I don't experience the world with my dick. You don't experience the world with your vagina.

I study, as a point of fact, how "seemingly minor" differences in how connectivities happen have HUGE impacts on what the system expresses. What you seem to not care about is in fact central to who we are.

Your post is woo.

The implications are actually pretty well understood and incredibly well documented. Or do you somehow think that humans are manifestly different from every other mammal on the planet, and that our sexually dimorphic evolution and development is magically different because reasons? Maybe, mind-body duality reasons? God-gifted soul reasons?

The fact is, you wish to deny that who we are is a function of specific connectivities of neurons. It is this way across species, across every thing on this planet that has a brain, whose behavior is a function of neurological action.

For everyone here who has studied machine learning and neural networks, you seem quite the fool, I am sure.

Our brains are as sexually dimorphic as our genitals.

The fact that J8 uses bad and messy language to show how they don't seem that different, or 100% aligned to expectations aligned from their apparent differences in macro-structure does not change the fact that microstructure determines behavior when it comes to brains. Whole brain regions tend towards wholely different sizes. These differences are as significant (more, in fact) than the differences in single bits in a silicon system: 0x01000010 is very different from 0x10000010. One single charge of difference is the difference between 2, and ~1 billion.

You may look at two nearly identical, except for perhaps a single bit, sections of memory. "Virtually indistinguishable" you may say. But if I release both these binaries to identical processors, I will potentially get vastly different results. Perhaps an entirely different state machine will execute!

Biological systems are just as sensitive to small differences, nearly imperceptible ones.

 

[J842P]

This is incorrect. You can pretty accurately determine if a brain belonged to a female or a male. There are statistically significant, gross anatomical differences across both populations, things like relative densities of grey matter (apparently it can be lateralized), and women tend to have greater myelination. Although, these aren't major differences, and would probably not be a great predictor on their own (although maybe a constellation of these could get you a good predictor). But there is the famous and aptly-named sexually dimorphic nucleus, which would be pretty reliable on it's own.

From a psychological perspective, at least with the Big Five model, there are minor, although reliable and statistically significant differences in personalities between the population of male and female. Although, none of them are very good at being a predictor.

The red and the blue sentences are contradictions. There are NOT gross anatomical differences in the brain between males and females. The majority of the differences observed are correlated with the size of the skull, and if that is controlled for, the differences are non-significant. Furthermore, the "tend to" that you reference is, as I said, non-predictive. It's like saying that males tend to be taller than females. If you've got a 7" person, they're highly likely to be male, and if you've got a 5" adult person, their highly likely to be female. But if you've got someone between 5"5 and 5"10 it's anybody's guess. The observed differences in brain structure are bimodal, but with a significant overlap in their distributions. Hence - nonpredictive.

Beyond that, the observed differences are in adults, on small samples, and within single cultural groups, and there is no way to determine how much of those differences are the result of conditioning. Elasticity isn't controlled for, and in the handful of very small samples of infant brains, there is no observable difference.

THE SDN governs sexual orientation and sexuality, not gender identity.

The "ladybrain" hypothesis holds as much water as studies demonstrating that black people have lower IQs. They simply aren't very good studies and are driven by agendas seeking a specific answer.

Those are not contradictions, you are just ignoring what I'm writing. I said that any particular difference in say, cell-body density in some given nucleus isn't predictive by itself, but that you can establish a fairly good predictor if you use multiple locations. This is the same as the personality differences, while any single one of the big five would not give you a very accurate predictor, all together you can get much better accuracy (all though not as good with personality, because there is overall much more overlap).

And regardless, let's say you still couldn't, you can use the SDN very accurately on its own to distinguish between male and female brains.

Yes, the size of the brain is correlated with the overall size of the person, and the average difference in brain size is not significant when you factor in body mass. That doesn't affect the differences in cell-body density over various regions, or in myelination.

I realize now, though, and this is my fault, that I was interpreting your comment as meaning you cannot distinguish between male and female brains, not between, "gendered" brains, or whatever Jarhyn is talking about.

 

[Jarhyn]

This is incorrect. You can pretty accurately determine if a brain belonged to a female or a male. There are statistically significant, gross anatomical differences across both populations, things like relative densities of grey matter (apparently it can be lateralized), and women tend to have greater myelination. Although, these aren't major differences, and would probably not be a great predictor on their own (although maybe a constellation of these could get you a good predictor). But there is the famous and aptly-named sexually dimorphic nucleus, which would be pretty reliable on it's own.

From a psychological perspective, at least with the Big Five model, there are minor, although reliable and statistically significant differences in personalities between the population of male and female. Although, none of them are very good at being a predictor.

The red and the blue sentences are contradictions. There are NOT gross anatomical differences in the brain between males and females. The majority of the differences observed are correlated with the size of the skull, and if that is controlled for, the differences are non-significant. Furthermore, the "tend to" that you reference is, as I said, non-predictive. It's like saying that males tend to be taller than females. If you've got a 7" person, they're highly likely to be male, and if you've got a 5" adult person, their highly likely to be female. But if you've got someone between 5"5 and 5"10 it's anybody's guess. The observed differences in brain structure are bimodal, but with a significant overlap in their distributions. Hence - nonpredictive.

Beyond that, the observed differences are in adults, on small samples, and within single cultural groups, and there is no way to determine how much of those differences are the result of conditioning. Elasticity isn't controlled for, and in the handful of very small samples of infant brains, there is no observable difference.

THE SDN governs sexual orientation and sexuality, not gender identity.

The "ladybrain" hypothesis holds as much water as studies demonstrating that black people have lower IQs. They simply aren't very good studies and are driven by agendas seeking a specific answer.

Those are not contradictions, you are just ignoring what I'm writing. I said that any particular difference in say, cell-body density in some given nucleus isn't predictive by itself, but that you can establish a fairly good predictor if you use multiple locations. This is the same as the personality differences, while any single one of the big five would not give you a very accurate predictor, all together you can get much better accuracy (all though not as good with personality, because there is overall much more overlap).

And regardless, let's say you still couldn't, you can use the SDN very accurately on its own to distinguish between male and female brains.

Yes, the size of the brain is correlated with the overall size of the person, and the average difference in brain size is not significant when you factor in body mass. That doesn't affect the differences in cell-body density over various regions, or in myelination.

I realize now, though, and this is my fault, that I was interpreting your comment as meaning you cannot distinguish between male and female brains, not between, "gendered" brains, or whatever Jarhyn is talking about.

I am talking about brains and the fact that they are different. There is, in the topic of brains, very little to note of difference between "gendered" and "sexed" linguistically when talking about brains. My point is that they are not absolutely linked to chromosomes.

The differences seen between "male and female brains" that you describe could be observed between two individuals both born with penises and grown from XY genetics. Which is to say, one of these persons is not what could reasonably be called "male" as the primary intent of the word indicates (entirely). They are instead invisibly intersexed (invisible insofar as you can't just look and see it) and this implies that the anatomy, behavior, and hormonal compatibility described by the brain may be to varying levels discordant, and that this is a function of brain development. That gender starts in the brain and consummates with puberty bringing in secondary characteristics via hormone exposure.

 

[J842P]

You don't even fucking understand the biology. You have made no attempt to accept the implications of its messiness.

The biology that determines ultimately who people are, what shape their bodies take, what manners in which they act are the brains they have and the hormones they are exposed to, together.

You deny the very real fact that brains develop in gendered ways separately from hormone exposure epochs, and so I see very little reason to even continue engaging you.

You wish to be willfully ignorant of the facts of biology, that the biology is not your genitals, but your hormones, your brain, and how those interact.

The things and ways in which people experience is central here. I don't experience the world with my dick. You don't experience the world with your vagina.

I study, as a point of fact, how "seemingly minor" differences in how connectivities happen have HUGE impacts on what the system expresses. What you seem to not care about is in fact central to who we are.

Your post is woo.

The implications are actually pretty well understood and incredibly well documented. Or do you somehow think that humans are manifestly different from every other mammal on the planet, and that our sexually dimorphic evolution and development is magically different because reasons? Maybe, mind-body duality reasons? God-gifted soul reasons?

The fact is, you wish to deny that who we are is a function of specific connectivities of neurons. It is this way across species, across every thing on this planet that has a brain, whose behavior is a function of neurological action.

For everyone here who has studied machine learning and neural networks, you seem quite the fool, I am sure.

Our brains are as sexually dimorphic as our genitals.

The fact that J8 uses bad and messy language to show how they don't seem that different, or 100% aligned to expectations aligned from their apparent differences in macro-structure does not change the fact that microstructure determines behavior when it comes to brains. Whole brain regions tend towards wholely different sizes. These differences are as significant (more, in fact) than the differences in single bits in a silicon system: 0x01000010 is very different from 0x10000010. One single charge of difference is the difference between 2, and ~1 billion.

You may look at two nearly identical, except for perhaps a single bit, sections of memory. "Virtually indistinguishable" you may say. But if I release both these binaries to identical processors, I will potentially get vastly different results. Perhaps an entirely different state machine will execute!

Biological systems are just as sensitive to small differences, nearly imperceptible ones.

Pray tell, what "bad messy" language did I use?

Also, biological neuronal "hardware" is sort of famous for it's robustness to small changes compared to digital hardware...


EDIT:

Our brains are as sexually dimorphic as our genitals.

Bull shit.

 

[J842P]

The differences seen between "male and female brains" that you describe could be observed between two individuals both born with penises and grown from XY genetics. Which is to say, one of these persons is not what could reasonably be called "male" as the primary intent of the word indicates (entirely). They are instead invisibly intersexed (invisible insofar as you can't just look and see it) and this implies that the anatomy, behavior, and hormonal compatibility described by the brain may be to varying levels discordant, and that this is a function of brain development. That gender starts in the brain and consummates with puberty bringing in secondary characteristics via hormone exposure.

This is a claim you are making. I am not aware of any solid evidence of that claim.

 

[Jarhyn]

The differences seen between "male and female brains" that you describe could be observed between two individuals both born with penises and grown from XY genetics. Which is to say, one of these persons is not what could reasonably be called "male" as the primary intent of the word indicates (entirely). They are instead invisibly intersexed (invisible insofar as you can't just look and see it) and this implies that the anatomy, behavior, and hormonal compatibility described by the brain may be to varying levels discordant, and that this is a function of brain development. That gender starts in the brain and consummates with puberty bringing in secondary characteristics via hormone exposure.

This is a claim you are making. I am not aware of any solid evidence of that claim.

You have actual, visible, verifiable evidence that people can be born with discordant genitals. You have actual visible evidence that people can be born without brains at all. You have evidence that people can be born with with penises and ovaries both. You have seen evidence that people can be born with mirrored anatomies. You have seen evidence that people can be born in all manner of bizarre ways, including as whole mixtures of two completely different gamete pairs (chimerization). Yet you do not think that this is, perhaps, evidence that less visible combinations of dimorphic discordance exist? LOL!

 

[Emily Lake]

The fact is, you wish to deny that who we are is a function of specific connectivities of neurons. It is this way across species, across every thing on this planet that has a brain, whose behavior is a function of neurological action.

No, I don't deny that. What I challenge is whether the perception of your brain is in any way accurate or objectively reasonable. One might argue that a schizophrenic is who he is because of the specific connectivities of his neurons... but that still doesn't make the reptilians hunting him real.

Brains are consummate liars.

For everyone here who has studied machine learning and neural networks, you seem quite the fool, I am sure.

Umm... hey now what? I have studied a modicum of machine learning and predictive modeling. What that has to do with whether or not any given person's internal and subjective perception of themselves is real or meaningful, I couldn't tell you.

Our brains are as sexually dimorphic as our genitals.

No, they are not. However, if you can provide some solid research to back this up, I'll at least stop laughing. Our brains are about as sexually dimorphic as our livers are.

The fact that J8 uses bad and messy language to show how they don't seem that different, or 100% aligned to expectations aligned from their apparent differences in macro-structure does not change the fact that microstructure determines behavior when it comes to brains. Whole brain regions tend towards wholely different sizes. These differences are as significant (more, in fact) than the differences in single bits in a silicon system: 0x01000010 is very different from 0x10000010. One single charge of difference is the difference between 2, and ~1 billion.

You may look at two nearly identical, except for perhaps a single bit, sections of memory. "Virtually indistinguishable" you may say. But if I release both these binaries to identical processors, I will potentially get vastly different results. Perhaps an entirely different state machine will execute!

Biological systems are just as sensitive to small differences, nearly imperceptible ones.

Speculation and woo.

 

[Emily Lake]

Those are not contradictions, you are just ignoring what I'm writing. I said that any particular difference in say, cell-body density in some given nucleus isn't predictive by itself, but that you can establish a fairly good predictor if you use multiple locations. This is the same as the personality differences, while any single one of the big five would not give you a very accurate predictor, all together you can get much better accuracy (all though not as good with personality, because there is overall much more overlap).

And regardless, let's say you still couldn't, you can use the SDN very accurately on its own to distinguish between male and female brains.

Yes, the size of the brain is correlated with the overall size of the person, and the average difference in brain size is not significant when you factor in body mass. That doesn't affect the differences in cell-body density over various regions, or in myelination.

Yes, SDN will give you a reasonable indicator of the sex of the person. I maintain, however, that even taken in whole the other differences in the brain between males and females are not *intrinsic* differences, but are more likely to be the result of conditioning and elasticity over time. If you have a source suggesting otherwise, I'd love to see it. What I've seen so far, however, is akin to identifying a statistically significant difference in the mean of two distributions of 0.05... when the standard deviation of those distributions are on the order of 75. Thus, the inclusion of terms like "material" and "meaningful" and "predictive". Aside from SDN, to my knowledge, there is no way to look at a brain in a bowl and say "That is a female brain" or "that is a male brain" with any reasonable degree of accuracy. It's essentially a coin-flip.

And as previously mentioned, SDN is highly correlated with sex, to the extent that most humans are heterosexual. My understanding (which is limited of course), is that the SDN of gay men is very very similar to that of heterosexual women, and vice-versa. That is to say, SDN is a very good predictor of sexual orientation and attraction. It works as a reasonable predictor of sex only because most humans are heterosexual.

I realize now, though, and this is my fault, that I was interpreting your comment as meaning you cannot distinguish between male and female brains, not between, "gendered" brains, or whatever Jarhyn is talking about.

Yes, more to that point. Jarhyn's claim is essentially that transwomen have "female brains", which is scientifically and biologically baloney.