• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

To notify a split thread.
In reality, the idea that some piece of data IS an integer is entirely imaginary. It's not an integer. It's bits. When you operate on bits with integer operations, the operations result in a particular outcome. When you choose to operate on those SAME bits with floating point operations... Different outcomes occur.
X25GF multiplied by 12HH33 equals?????

Yes, it's all bits inside the computer. But what you're essentially doing here is arguing that symbols written on paper with pen are really just molecules of ink at the end of the day, so the difference between a number and a letter is irrelevant, they're all just ink.

You've mistaken the stars reflected on the surface of the lake at night for the heavens.
 
In reality, the idea that some piece of data IS an integer is entirely imaginary. It's not an integer. It's bits. When you operate on bits with integer operations, the operations result in a particular outcome. When you choose to operate on those SAME bits with floating point operations... Different outcomes occur.
X25GF multiplied by 12HH33 equals?????

Yes, it's all bits inside the computer. But what you're essentially doing here is arguing that symbols written on paper with pen are really just molecules of ink at the end of the day, so the difference between a number and a letter is irrelevant, they're all just ink.

You've mistaken the stars reflected on the surface of the lake at night for the heavens.
X25GF multiplied by 12HH33 equals?????

See, this part right here means you grasped none of what I said.

You presented something so devoid of context that it is entirely meaningless and useless and wonder at the fact it is meaningless and useless due to lack of applicable context.

Then you go on further to embarrass yourself with the inability to parse the metaphor.

Perhaps it is you that mistake the reflection for the heavens, as I can clearly see that the mirror of meaning to those letters rests not in their own nature, but in ours.

Indeed the difference between a number and letter on paper is merely the positions of the molecules. There is no real meaning there, other than the meaning we decide to give them, and the way they modify such things as the way heat flows through the mess of stuff there. There is nothing beyond that that is "intrinsic" to the structure. All additional meaning that humans may seek is not in the paper, but rather in the human brains that are pointing their senses at it.

On the other hand, bits, molecules, particles, all of these things actually do have meaning to the contexts they are a part of. They have a structural reality, even if they lack an intrinsic meaning.
 
So the vast majority of transgender people who do not fall under these very rare physical conditions have ZERO reason to even talk about those conditions when talking about the gender spectrum. Their original bodies are smack in the middle of one of the bimodal humps.
They're not bimodal humps. Sex isn't bimodal in humans, it's binary. Just as it is in all mammals.
If you're in doubt, then ask yourself a simple question: what is being MEASURED on the x-axis which results in a bimodal distribution? And then ask the follow-up question: What underlying assumption have you made which placed to distinct populations into a single category when you measured them?
X axis is 100% female to 100% male. The intersexed make it not binary.
How does one measure "female"? What is the quantifiable basis being used? How female is your wife, or your mom? How male are you?
There are various attributes that can be male or female. I'm measuring them, someone who possesses all of the female attributes and none of the male I would call 100% female. The reality is that some people possess some male attributes and some female attributes. You are trying to force them into one state or the other based on the fact that nobody has been found right at the 50:50 point but I think it makes more sense if it's a range. Biology is mostly analog, not digital.
 
So the vast majority of transgender people who do not fall under these very rare physical conditions have ZERO reason to even talk about those conditions when talking about the gender spectrum. Their original bodies are smack in the middle of one of the bimodal humps.
They're not bimodal humps. Sex isn't bimodal in humans, it's binary. Just as it is in all mammals.
If you're in doubt, then ask yourself a simple question: what is being MEASURED on the x-axis which results in a bimodal distribution? And then ask the follow-up question: What underlying assumption have you made which placed to distinct populations into a single category when you measured them?
X axis is 100% female to 100% male. The intersexed make it not binary.
How does one measure "female"? What is the quantifiable basis being used? How female is your wife, or your mom? How male are you?
There are various attributes that can be male or female. I'm measuring them, someone who possesses all of the female attributes and none of the male I would call 100% female. The reality is that some people possess some male attributes and some female attributes. You are trying to force them into one state or the other based on the fact that nobody has been found right at the 50:50 point but I think it makes more sense if it's a range. Biology is mostly analog, not digital.
In order to have a bimodal distribution, one must have a single numerically measurable characteristic. Frequency is plotted on the y-axis. The x-axis is the quantitatively measurable element being plotted.

You and others keep insisting that sex is a bimodal distribution. I am asking a very straightforward question: what is being measured and plotted? What is the base unit of measurement?

Your response is a side-step of that. You're not answering. You're giving some vague handwaving nonsense about some un-named, unspecified "attributes". But unless you can specify exactly what you're measuring, the entire concept here is smoke and mirrors.

Here, I can give you an example. Body length in house pets is bimodal. If you were to measure the length of the body of a large sample of house pets, you'd get one peak at about 14 inches, and another much rounder peak at about 40 inches. The quantifiable measure in question is body length, the basis of measure is inches. The population is house pets.

Bonus points to anyone who can explain why there are two peaks, and what the ramifications to a reasonably intelligent person with an understanding of statistics ought to be.

So again... When you say that "sex" is bimodal... What is your population? What is the quantifiable measure? What is the basis of measure?
 
Last edited:
X25GF multiplied by 12HH33 equals?????
And you have to specify an encoding system to make sense of this. I can think of three sensible ones off the top of my head, you'll get different answers with each.
Either way, oversimplifying it to say "it's all just bits" is the same as saying "it's all just ink". Those are representations of things, not the things themselves. And the bits are representations that need to have additional information in order to use them. Bits, at their core, represent characters within a language system. Some characters are numbers, others are not numbers. Bits that represent the letter K, for example, aren't particularly useful or meaningful if you're trying to do math operations on them. There needs to be a commonly understood baseline of what the bit can be used for, doesn't it?

This is why I was dismissing Jarhyn's "oh it's all actually bits, and bits are *real* but the things those bits represent are totally imaginary" as essentially hogwash.
 
There are various attributes that can be male or female. I'm measuring them, someone who possesses all of the female attributes and none of the male I would call 100% female. The reality is that some people possess some male attributes and some female attributes. You are trying to force them into one state or the other based on the fact that nobody has been found right at the 50:50 point but I think it makes more sense if it's a range. Biology is mostly analog, not digital.
In order to have a bimodal distribution, one must have a single numerically measurable characteristic. Frequency is plotted on the y-axis. The x-axis is the quantitatively measurable element being plotted.
No. You can have the sum of binary items. To put it in gaming terms, 10d2 will show a basically normal distribution even though d2 is binary.

So again... When you say that "sex" is bimodal... What is your population? What is the quantifiable measure? What is the basis of measure?
There are various features that can be male or female. Off the top of my head: breasts/no breasts, testicles/no testicles, ovaries/no ovaries, uterus/no uterus, penis/no penis, prostate/no prostate, facial hair/no facial hair.
 
There are various attributes that can be male or female. I'm measuring them, someone who possesses all of the female attributes and none of the male I would call 100% female. The reality is that some people possess some male attributes and some female attributes. You are trying to force them into one state or the other based on the fact that nobody has been found right at the 50:50 point but I think it makes more sense if it's a range. Biology is mostly analog, not digital.
In order to have a bimodal distribution, one must have a single numerically measurable characteristic. Frequency is plotted on the y-axis. The x-axis is the quantitatively measurable element being plotted.
No. You can have the sum of binary items. To put it in gaming terms, 10d2 will show a basically normal distribution even though d2 is binary.

So again... When you say that "sex" is bimodal... What is your population? What is the quantifiable measure? What is the basis of measure?
There are various features that can be male or female. Off the top of my head: breasts/no breasts, testicles/no testicles, ovaries/no ovaries, uterus/no uterus, penis/no penis, prostate/no prostate, facial hair/no facial hair.
Exactly. The same DNA expresses different phenotypes based on different circumstances. None of those outcomes fail to be "part of what is created by the genotype". It's just "what happens with these genetics given this context".

Neither are truly, really, "male or female", beyond ovarian and testicular tissue, and only because male and female were picked specifically by the function of sperm and egg production.

The category is created from a selection of the population, which is arbitrary. Essentializing it is exactly what fucks kids who fall further from the modes of the bimodal distribution up and pushes them towards going all in towards the normal despite the fact that in reality, they would be more happier the subject of gender, sex, and hormones as A-la-carte.

If you want to make an argument beyond prejudice, you will have to discuss material realities, not your imagination, as regards individual persons.
Gendery souls are not material reality. Gender identity is not material reality.
The you should be capable of admitting that the materials of hormones and sperms and upbringings are not "testosterone" or "capable of ejaculating" or "taught to be shitty and violent towards 'women'", then you have no material basis for saying someone born with a penis and balls has a "male gendery soul".

Which is my point. Once that little girl running track is all grown up, you have no argument against her being in the space.

But, I will also disagree with your claim.

There are proven fine structure differences in the tensor processes of the human brain between the majority of people who produce eggs, and the majority of people who produce sperms, that are reflected in the brains of trans people according to their professed gender.

These fine structure differences define who we are on a basic level.

If you were to imagine every belief you hold, whether created by biology or upbringing as a "sentence spoken boldly by a part of your mind" this difference may be the difference of a single word spoken on a vital and deep seated belief.

Somewhere in your mind there is a sentence speaking the words: "I am a ____"

That single fine structure difference can, and most likely does, mean the difference between "woman" and "man" when translated from the tensor vector form to spoken syntax.

It's ridiculous that a yone would be so foolish as to not understand how meaningful even a single transistor switch or neural switch group is to a system based on grammar structures.
 
A point I recently ran into: forcing people to use bathrooms that match their biology rather than appearance is going to result in some very male-looking people in women's rooms. Is that really want you wanted?!
 
A point I recently ran into: forcing people to use bathrooms that match their biology rather than appearance is going to result in some very male-looking people in women's rooms. Is that really want you wanted?!
Don't even get me started about what my niece is going to go through. Her choice, and I think it makes her one of the most beautiful people in the world, is to let her beard actually grow.

She's not trans, although she IS ace.
 
A point I recently ran into: forcing people to use bathrooms that match their biology rather than appearance is going to result in some very male-looking people in women's rooms. Is that really want you wanted?!
Not really. It's going to result in vanishingly few male-looking people using women's restrooms... and a handful of obvious women who have obviously had mastectomies and have obviously taken testosterone.

Even with a beard, most transmen still clock as female. Elliot Page is still very obviously female... even with the muscle density, mastectomy scars, anorexia, and clear signs of depression. Even Buck Angel reads as female when you see him in the presence of actual males.
 
To understand biological sex, look at the brain, not the body - Gifted Article

n the past decade, there has been some fascinating research on the brains of transgender people. What is most remarkable about this work is not that trans women’s brains have been found to resemble those of cisgender women, or that trans men’s brains resemble those of cis men. What the research has found is that the brains of trans people are unique: neither female nor male, exactly, but something distinct.


But what does that mean, a male brain, or a female brain, or even a transgender one? It’s a fraught topic, because brains are a collection of characteristics, rather than a binary classification of either/or. There are researchers who would tell you that brains are not more gendered than, say, kidneys or lungs. Gina Rippon, in her 2019 book “The Gendered Brain,” warns against bunk science that declares brains to be male or female — it’s “neurosexism,” a fancy way of justifying the belief that women’s brains are inferior to men’s.

And yet scientists continue to study the brain in hopes of understanding whether a sense of the gendered self can, at least in part, be the result of neurology. A study described by author Francine Russo in Scientific American examined the brains of 39 prepubertal and 41 adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria. The experiment examined how these children responded to androstadienone, a pungent substance similar to pheromones, that is known to cause a different response in the brains of men and women. The study found that adolescent boys and girls who described themselves as trans responded like the peers of their perceived gender. (The results were less clear with prepubescent children.)
A lot more in the link.
 
To understand biological sex, look at the brain, not the body - Gifted Article

n the past decade, there has been some fascinating research on the brains of transgender people. What is most remarkable about this work is not that trans women’s brains have been found to resemble those of cisgender women, or that trans men’s brains resemble those of cis men. What the research has found is that the brains of trans people are unique: neither female nor male, exactly, but something distinct.


But what does that mean, a male brain, or a female brain, or even a transgender one? It’s a fraught topic, because brains are a collection of characteristics, rather than a binary classification of either/or. There are researchers who would tell you that brains are not more gendered than, say, kidneys or lungs. Gina Rippon, in her 2019 book “The Gendered Brain,” warns against bunk science that declares brains to be male or female — it’s “neurosexism,” a fancy way of justifying the belief that women’s brains are inferior to men’s.

And yet scientists continue to study the brain in hopes of understanding whether a sense of the gendered self can, at least in part, be the result of neurology. A study described by author Francine Russo in Scientific American examined the brains of 39 prepubertal and 41 adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria. The experiment examined how these children responded to androstadienone, a pungent substance similar to pheromones, that is known to cause a different response in the brains of men and women. The study found that adolescent boys and girls who described themselves as trans responded like the peers of their perceived gender. (The results were less clear with prepubescent children.)
A lot more in the link.
I think the conversation here is about two distinct concerns: who people are, and what people can do.

As a utilitarian, personally, I think the primary concern as is relevant here is "what people can do" rather than "who people are", and "who people are" is the secondary question.

Its really pretty fucked up to treat some people as "pre-criminals", though I think decisions made to take certain drugs known to cause public issues might allow regulation of spaces, regardless of whether the decision is made passively or actively, or even when it is not really a decision at all. Driving drunk is not allowed, for example, even if the cause of drunkenness is "auto-brewer's gut".

Alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines, AND testosterone all can be identified as causal contributors to publicly disruptive behaviors.

We don't allow public drunkenness, for example, even if the person who is drunk in public can control their behavior fairly well.

Testosterone is a much less behaviorally influential chemical, and is a chemical that takes rather long lengths of effort to remove from someone's life, assuming that they even want to. It's something that generally, we have as a society and species to make peace with (though suppression of testosterone through receptor antagonism via Spironolactone doesn't seem to impact spermatogenesis strongly unless estrogen is also supplied).

To me it seems like we could probably improve our species overall by allowing and even encouraging folks to reduce the mental and bodily effects of testosterone by at least some degree, but given how disappointingly many folks seem to think "less testosterone affect" makes someone a "failed" man, I don't see that happening any time soon.

To me it makes it apparent that the primary motivator behind the strong propaganda of "manly" men seems to be the deeply buried understanding that if they don't "sell" males on being a part of that club, it would end very badly for those who remained.
 
To understand biological sex, look at the brain, not the body - Gifted Article

n the past decade, there has been some fascinating research on the brains of transgender people. What is most remarkable about this work is not that trans women’s brains have been found to resemble those of cisgender women, or that trans men’s brains resemble those of cis men. What the research has found is that the brains of trans people are unique: neither female nor male, exactly, but something distinct.


But what does that mean, a male brain, or a female brain, or even a transgender one? It’s a fraught topic, because brains are a collection of characteristics, rather than a binary classification of either/or. There are researchers who would tell you that brains are not more gendered than, say, kidneys or lungs. Gina Rippon, in her 2019 book “The Gendered Brain,” warns against bunk science that declares brains to be male or female — it’s “neurosexism,” a fancy way of justifying the belief that women’s brains are inferior to men’s.

And yet scientists continue to study the brain in hopes of understanding whether a sense of the gendered self can, at least in part, be the result of neurology. A study described by author Francine Russo in Scientific American examined the brains of 39 prepubertal and 41 adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria. The experiment examined how these children responded to androstadienone, a pungent substance similar to pheromones, that is known to cause a different response in the brains of men and women. The study found that adolescent boys and girls who described themselves as trans responded like the peers of their perceived gender. (The results were less clear with prepubescent children.)
A lot more in the link.
I think it's worth noting that an Opinion piece, written by someone with a background in English and no background in Science... maybe doesn't carry a whole lot of weight in terms of impacts.

I'd also point out that it might be worth considering whether the responses to a pheromone are a result of actually being transgender, or whether it could be a result of being homosexual. Is the sexually dimorphic result due to the sexual responses rather than identity responses? There are several bits of semi-scientific research that have been done that do not disambiguate between gender identity and sexual orientation. And there are quite a few fully-scientific studies that have demonstrated the impact of sexual orientation on dimorphic behaviors.

This is salient, because it's incredibly common for homosexual youths to feel intense dysphoria during the early years of puberty. Most of those youths see their dysphoria resolve as they become aware of (and accepting of) their orientation.
 
To me it seems like we could probably improve our species overall by allowing and even encouraging folks to reduce the mental and bodily effects of testosterone by at least some degree
This has rather extreme impacts for the continuance of the species, don't you think?
 
To me it seems like we could probably improve our species overall by allowing and even encouraging folks to reduce the mental and bodily effects of testosterone by at least some degree
This has rather extreme impacts for the continuance of the species, don't you think?
No, it doesn't, because Spironolactone, the primary chemical that is used in the US to achieve that end, does not seem to significantly impact spermatogenesis.

Spermatogenesis is a process which produces testosterone and testosterogenesis (or whatever it is called) involves spermatogenesis (when considering testicular processes in particular). This has led to the discovery that introducing testosterone for hypogonadal males actually causes spermatogenesis to fail, because the availability of testosterone inhibits continued production. The mere antagonism of serum testosterone will not inhibit spermatogenesis, in the absence of estrogen. At most it has been shown to cause partial sex drive inhibition.

And you can see my opinions on what needs to happen with global population in that thread, if you wish to debate whether we need so many babies.
 
And you can see my opinions on what needs to happen with global population in that thread, if you wish to debate whether we need so many babies.
Population control via eugenics FTW!
Encourage people to take Spiro consensually

==

"Eugenics"
:rolleyes:


There's a thread for this. Use it, please.
 
Back
Top Bottom