Gender Roles

[Jarhyn]

Again, I can't really see "wrongness", as much as "not what you want"-ness. It's an interpretation of "wrong" to be sure, but it should be clear that it shouldn't be conflated with ethical wrongness. As you point out, to you it is subjective, created by the neurons in your own head and the way they ended up going together.

It certainly doesn't work as well at seeing three colors. It certainly doesn't work as well helping you see art, I'm sure.

Some things "don't work as well" for an individual but work well for a member of a social group (like specialized labor); some things don't work as well for a member of society, but do work well for an isolated individual.

I just think we should keep the word "wrong" at arms length from the discussion of gender, because all sorts of traits are going to be situationally useful, particularly with the way people interrelate to behavior surrounding the process of sexual reproduction, which has generated and located all manner of niches for things under the sun.

The problem here is that "wrong" has multiple meanings.

I'm using it as the antonym of nominal, but it can also refer to evil.

I very much doubt there's a social advantage to having the transgendered about, it's just something in the rube goldberg nature of genetics that activates the wrong combination of attributes. It is a problem for those who have it but it is not in any way evil--same as almost everything else where genetics hands us a problem. Given enough time it would be selected out by Darwin but that is a slow process and almost certainly moot as I expect reproduction to move into the lab long before any mildly negative gene eliminates itself. (And it is a negative gene by Darwin standards.)

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.

It's very questionable that individual is the proper entity level for analysis.

This is the entire reason for my post in the Sociology.

I would be willing to hazard that the much more profound differences from CIS individuals that are often noted specifically in the trans-heavy ranks of atypical folks tend towards a particular niche of human development.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

You cannot divorce selection pressure from the success contributed through sibling and community support effects.

We absolutely see selective pressure towards the individual's genes even when it is the individual's genes as held by a sibling.

Yet again, descriptions cannot prescribe. 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.

 

[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.

Some people posit that the expressions of homosexuality and transgenderism might increase as resource pressures increase. Which would be a mechanism that might be beneficial to the species as a whole, and is a lot more palatable that, say, what rabbits do when stressed for resources, which is eat their young.

Anything that hinders reproductive success is negative by Darwin standards. Genes exist to make copies of themselves.

 

[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.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

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".

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.

 

[bilby]

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.

Some people posit that the expressions of homosexuality and transgenderism might increase as resource pressures increase. Which would be a mechanism that might be beneficial to the species as a whole, and is a lot more palatable that, say, what rabbits do when stressed for resources, which is eat their young.

Anything that hinders reproductive success is negative by Darwin standards. Genes exist to make copies of themselves.

The reproductive success of a gene is not necessarily closely linked to the reproductive success of an individual cell, or even of an individual animal or plant, that contains a copy of that gene.

Reproductive success for a gene can, and often does, entail the support by individuals who do not reproduce, of those who do.

Obvious examples include the support of germ line cells by all the other cells in a multicellular organism, and the suppoert of the queen by the workers in ant or bee colonies.

In humans, a society (and hence its genes) can thrive without every individual (or even most individuals) becoming parents.

As the eponymous schoolmaster from the 1939 classic Goodbye, Mr Chips says on his deathbed: "I thought I heard you say it was a pity—pity I never had any children. But you're wrong. I have! Thousands of them, thousands of them...and all...boys."

The world is full of pigs, cows, dogs, sheep, goats, cats, and horses, many (even most) of whom are never given the opportunity to reproduce as individuals - and yet their genes are doing very well indeed.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Emily Lake]

One thing I fairly consistently note about you, Emily, and many others besides, is that you all seem to have a deep dislike for immigration, for people different from yourselves.

You're just completely, flat out wrong on this. You haven't "noted" that, you've imagined it and then assumed that your imagination is flawless. You haven't even imagined it based on anything I've actually said, you've imagined it because you have at some point decided that I'm an evil person, motivated solely by malice, and you've formed the entirety of your interactions with me around that false notion. You know fuck all about me, and the vast majority of what you've assumed is wrong.

 

[Emily Lake]

The trait sticks around for its own reasons.

Traits don't have reasons

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Some people posit that the expressions of homosexuality and transgenderism might increase as resource pressures increase. Which would be a mechanism that might be beneficial to the species as a whole, and is a lot more palatable that, say, what rabbits do when stressed for resources, which is eat their young.

Primates don't eat our own young. We murder rival males' young, and then just let the meat go to waste. Much more civilized.

Chimpanzees will eat those from rival tribes that they've just straight up murdered. Not very civilized at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Evolution is about reproductive success of individuals - that's how non-deleterious mutations make it into the species as a whole.

Cultures and societies don't "evolve". The use of the term "evolution" in reference to social organization is an analogy, not a reflection of an actual mechanism.

To some extent, we might extrapolate that some herd behaviors are advantageous from a survival perspective. And to a degree, that's true - when you've got a large herd of caribou, for example, then when a predator attacks, only some of the caribou in that herd get eaten. But that's not a species advantage, it's an individual advantage. At the end of the day, having a herd doesn't result in fewer caribou being eaten than if caribou were somewhat more solitary. There's not a meaningful difference in the rate of predation of caribou versus similarly size ruminants that don't form herds, like elk or moose.

On the other hand, however... when there are a hundred caribou, and Sally is one of them, then when a predator attacks there's a higher likelihood that the predator will eat a caribou that isn't Sally than if Sally were all alone and a predator attacked. Herd behavior in caribou isn't a survival advantage for the species - it's a survival advantage for individuals in the species because someone else gets dead.

 

[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".

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Evolution doesn't select.

 

[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.

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?

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

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.

 

[Emily Lake]

The reproductive success of a gene is not necessarily closely linked to the reproductive success of an individual cell, or even of an individual animal or plant, that contains a copy of that gene.

How is it that you think genes get passed on?