The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[Emily Lake]

But there's an entirely different discussion that happens when we're talking about sex and gender, in which the brain suddenly becomes an integral part of the discussion. We end up discussing how men's and women's brains are different. And we end up talking about how they're innately behaviorally different.

The discussion on the likely neurological root of gender identity does not necessitate discussing behavioural differences in men and women through a lens of differentiated brain structures. While your milage may vary, ordinarily I no longer find the discussion of the former tends to lead to discussion of the latter. It need not. In this thread, I am not sure that it has.

Apologies krypton, I'm failing to parse this. I'm certain that it makes perfect sense. I'm just stumbling somewhere. Can you say this again with smaller words, please?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

But there's an entirely different discussion that happens when we're talking about sex and gender, in which the brain suddenly becomes an integral part of the discussion. We end up discussing how men's and women's brains are different. And we end up talking about how they're innately behaviorally different.

The discussion on the likely neurological root of gender identity does not necessitate discussing behavioural differences in men and women through a lens of differentiated brain structures. While your milage may vary, ordinarily I no longer find the discussion of the former tends to lead to discussion of the latter. It need not. In this thread, I am not sure that it has.

Apologies krypton, I'm failing to parse this. I'm certain that it makes perfect sense. I'm just stumbling somewhere. Can you say this again with smaller words, please?

So, there are conversations which vaguely go "Due to x structure in the brain, we see that women have evolved to be nurturing and kind and best-suited for taking care of children, while men have evolved for a protector, leader and warrior role' or some such nonsense.

And that is markedly different from a conversation on whether or not gender identity has a significant neurological component. Neurology is often discussed with regard to gender identity, and the relationship of the brains of transgender people to those of cisgender men and women.

A discussion on the second doesn't need to (and I'd say really shouldn't) include or lead to a discussion of the first.

 

[Toni]

So you’d be ok with soda fountains or bars or restaurants not serving black people? Mexicans? Catholics? Irish? Gay people

That is just such an over-reaction to what I said and does not follow from it. As such I just find it completely baffling that you even felt the need to include it. Wtf, basically.

Your second paragraph gets slightly more into the nuance and detail of a particular type of situation.

My first paragraph was basically MY WTF in response to your post. You made a*very* broad general statement that has often been used precisely to refuse service to black people, Jewish people, Catholics, Italians and so on.

Language and nuance are important.

 

[ruby sparks]

In this thread, no I haven't explicitly seen that argument being made. It is, however, an outcome of those arguments.

Can I just stop you there. How is it simply 'an outcome of those arguments' or indeed 'ends up supporting the continued disadvantages for women'?

Surely you mean, 'risks being one or both of those things'? Which I would agree with.

Sorry, but I'm still not in favour of an embargo on such things on that basis, especially when there is as yet no obvious sign here at least of the implications you are concerned about, and quite possibly I am not in favour of the relevant facts being avoided beyond this discussion either. It seems anti-scientific and anti-rational skepticism to me. I acknowledge the risks you validly mention, obviously.

 

[ruby sparks]

So, there are conversations which vaguely go "Due to x structure in the brain, we see that women have evolved to be nurturing and kind and best-suited for taking care of children.

It doesn’t even have to be ‘brain structure’ as such. For example, if one subset has more oxytocin in their system more often than another, especially when their own infants are around, would that not likely contribute to them being for example more nurturing?

It would be surprising, I think, if the subset who bear and initially nourish the offspring had not evolved suitably, as for any species.

 

[ruby sparks]

Nor do I see how such topics, analyses and considerations necessarily work in men’s favour, especially not now that I’ve read the (excellent) book ‘Demonic Males’ by Richard Wrangham. Worth a google, imo. More anthropology and primatology than biology or neuroscience, to be fair.

Obviously, we should take into account both nature and nurture, and the ways they interact, regarding such things as brain plasticity for example.

And we obviously have to distinguish between generalities and individuals.

ETA: I realise this recent strand of the discussion is more about sex/gender in general, and is arguably away from the OP topic specifically.

 

[Emily Lake]

Apologies krypton, I'm failing to parse this. I'm certain that it makes perfect sense. I'm just stumbling somewhere. Can you say this again with smaller words, please?

So, there are conversations which vaguely go "Due to x structure in the brain, we see that women have evolved to be nurturing and kind and best-suited for taking care of children, while men have evolved for a protector, leader and warrior role' or some such nonsense.

And that is markedly different from a conversation on whether or not gender identity has a significant neurological component. Neurology is often discussed with regard to gender identity, and the relationship of the brains of transgender people to those of cisgender men and women.

A discussion on the second doesn't need to (and I'd say really shouldn't) include or lead to a discussion of the first.

Thank you - that made sense!

 

[Metaphor]

Ok so, speculation, hypotheticals and mind-reading aside, based on and regarding the facts of the case being discussed, you had no strong reason to ‘go off on one’ or conclude what you did.

Good god. There was no mind reading. The Sikh woman made it clear that she did not serve male-bodied people, which includes cis-males and trans women. Do you think it is unreasonable to conclude that she did not serve men, when she openly admitted to such?

It's been a while since I looked at the details around that case, but IIRC, part of the issue was also that she is forbidden by her religion from touching the bodies of other men.

It very well might have been, but it doesn't need to be part of her religion for me to "allow" her to discriminate against men. If she wants to not service men, a sufficient reason is any reason or no reason at all. A sufficient reason is she just does not want to.

I don't know if you were around at the time, but years ago on this board there was debate around sex workers who refused black clients. There was a camp of people (I don't remember the individual names) on this board who thought sex workers must not discriminate by race, and, when I brought up discrimination by sex, they extended the analogy--sex workers must not disriminate by sex either.

E.g. - if you are a male sex worker and you allow your dick to be sucked by women, you must also allow it to be sucked by men. If you are a male sex worker and you offer penetrative anal sex to women, you must also offer it to men. (And vice versa of course: a male sex worker who would ordinarily only service men has to service women, though since he doesn't offer penis-in-vagina sex to men, he doesn't have to offer it to women. Such nuance!)

There are lunatic left positions that keep surprising me on this board, but I have to say that was a highlight.

 

[Emily Lake]

In this thread, no I haven't explicitly seen that argument being made. It is, however, an outcome of those arguments.

Can I just stop you there. How is it simply 'an outcome of those arguments' or indeed 'ends up supporting the continued disadvantages for women'?

Surely you mean, 'risks being one or both of those things'? Which I would agree with.

Sorry, but I'm still not in favour of an embargo on such things on that basis, especially when there is as yet no obvious sign here at least of the implications you are concerned about, and quite possibly I am not in favour of the relevant facts being avoided beyond this discussion either. It seems anti-scientific and anti-rational skepticism to me. I acknowledge the risks you validly mention, obviously.

For the overwhelming majority of history, women have been treated as subordinate to men. In many parts of the world, they still are, and explicitly so. As women began seeking equal rights, they were met with substantial justification for why they shouldn't have equal rights, or why differential rights were appropriate. Even once we got the right to vote and were hypothetically treated equally, gender bias remains. There are many people alive in the US right now, today, who believe that women are simply more suited for caregiving jobs than for leadership roles. The believe, and argue, that women have evolved a nurturing psychology, and they're naturally more empathetic and easy going. They believe, and argue, that men have evolved to be more aggressive, dominant, and decisive. This, they argue, is a big reason why there are more women nurses than there are women doctors. This, they argue, is why there are more men in STEM fields, and in executive positions, and in politics. Because it's the natural outcome of men and women being biologically different.

Because their brains are different.

Because this viewpoint, this belief, and this argument exists already, and because this viewpoint presents an actual barrier for women today... that is why I say that the argument from "different brains" leads to the continuance of a deeply rooted social disparity. It need not be intentional, but that is part of the outcome.

In the same way, if someone were well-intentioned and genuinely just fascinated by brains, and proceeded to come out with evidence and arguments showing that black people and white people have different brains, that would be used to support the continuance of racial bias and disparity. The difference that I have observed, is that someone brings up scientific support for their argument that black people and white people have different brains, their agenda is immediately questioned and there is consideration given to the impact of that support, as well as skepticism about whether or not that difference is meaningful in any legitimate fashion.

I haven't observed that same questioning and skepticism when the argument is that men's brains and women's brains are different.

 

[Metaphor]

I think all of us are smart enough and pragmatic enough to recognize that there are actual physical differences between men and women. I don't think any of us a re dumb enough to pretend that those differences don't exist.

There are feminists dumb enough to insist that the cause of all of those differences is social. Years ago at work, a feminist told me men were taller than women because parents give more protein to sons compared to daughters. That's it. The difference in height was 100% discrimination. She was a Judith Butler acolyte.

Thankfully she moved to another job somewhere else and some other team is suffering her delusions and not me.

But there's an entirely different discussion that happens when we're talking about sex and gender, in which the brain suddenly becomes an integral part of the discussion. We end up discussing how men's and women's brains are different. And we end up talking about how they're innately behaviorally different. And nobody bats an eye at the implication of that approach. Nobody seems to step back and say "hold on a minute... that concept ends up supporting the continued disadvantages for women, because now we're treating it as biological and scientific differences rather than social constructs".

Why wouldn't men's and women's brains be different, on average? Humans are a sexually dimorphic species.

 

[Metaphor]

In this thread, no I haven't explicitly seen that argument being made. It is, however, an outcome of those arguments.

Can I just stop you there. How is it simply 'an outcome of those arguments' or indeed 'ends up supporting the continued disadvantages for women'?

Surely you mean, 'risks being one or both of those things'? Which I would agree with.

Sorry, but I'm still not in favour of an embargo on such things on that basis, especially when there is as yet no obvious sign here at least of the implications you are concerned about, and quite possibly I am not in favour of the relevant facts being avoided beyond this discussion either. It seems anti-scientific and anti-rational skepticism to me. I acknowledge the risks you validly mention, obviously.

For the overwhelming majority of history, women have been treated as subordinate to men. In many parts of the world, they still are, and explicitly so. As women began seeking equal rights, they were met with substantial justification for why they shouldn't have equal rights, or why differential rights were appropriate. Even once we got the right to vote and were hypothetically treated equally, gender bias remains. There are many people alive in the US right now, today, who believe that women are simply more suited for caregiving jobs than for leadership roles. The believe, and argue, that women have evolved a nurturing psychology, and they're naturally more empathetic and easy going. They believe, and argue, that men have evolved to be more aggressive, dominant, and decisive. This, they argue, is a big reason why there are more women nurses than there are women doctors. This, they argue, is why there are more men in STEM fields, and in executive positions, and in politics. Because it's the natural outcome of men and women being biologically different.

Because their brains are different.

Because this viewpoint, this belief, and this argument exists already, and because this viewpoint presents an actual barrier for women today... that is why I say that the argument from "different brains" leads to the continuance of a deeply rooted social disparity. It need not be intentional, but that is part of the outcome.

In the same way, if someone were well-intentioned and genuinely just fascinated by brains, and proceeded to come out with evidence and arguments showing that black people and white people have different brains, that would be used to support the continuance of racial bias and disparity. The difference that I have observed, is that someone brings up scientific support for their argument that black people and white people have different brains, their agenda is immediately questioned and there is consideration given to the impact of that support, as well as skepticism about whether or not that difference is meaningful in any legitimate fashion.

I haven't observed that same questioning and skepticism when the argument is that men's brains and women's brains are different.

So, people should shut down any inquiry into male-female brain differences in the same way that any inquiry into racial brain differences is shut down? You find the shutting down of inquiry a good thing?

 

[Emily Lake]

So, people should shut down any inquiry into male-female brain differences in the same way that any inquiry into racial brain differences is shut down? You find the shutting down of inquiry a good thing?

No, but they should approach it with a fair bit of skepticism, and should certainly include "So the fuck what?" There should definitely be some discussion of whether such difference are in any way relevant or meaningful, or if they're being used in order to fuel an agenda.

 

[ruby sparks]

In this thread, no I haven't explicitly seen that argument being made. It is, however, an outcome of those arguments.

Can I just stop you there. How is it simply 'an outcome of those arguments' or indeed 'ends up supporting the continued disadvantages for women'?

Surely you mean, 'risks being one or both of those things'? Which I would agree with.

Sorry, but I'm still not in favour of an embargo on such things on that basis, especially when there is as yet no obvious sign here at least of the implications you are concerned about, and quite possibly I am not in favour of the relevant facts being avoided beyond this discussion either. It seems anti-scientific and anti-rational skepticism to me. I acknowledge the risks you validly mention, obviously.

For the overwhelming majority of history, women have been treated as subordinate to men. In many parts of the world, they still are, and explicitly so. As women began seeking equal rights, they were met with substantial justification for why they shouldn't have equal rights, or why differential rights were appropriate. Even once we got the right to vote and were hypothetically treated equally, gender bias remains. There are many people alive in the US right now, today, who believe that women are simply more suited for caregiving jobs than for leadership roles. The believe, and argue, that women have evolved a nurturing psychology, and they're naturally more empathetic and easy going. They believe, and argue, that men have evolved to be more aggressive, dominant, and decisive. This, they argue, is a big reason why there are more women nurses than there are women doctors. This, they argue, is why there are more men in STEM fields, and in executive positions, and in politics. Because it's the natural outcome of men and women being biologically different.

Because their brains are different.

Because this viewpoint, this belief, and this argument exists already, and because this viewpoint presents an actual barrier for women today... that is why I say that the argument from "different brains" leads to the continuance of a deeply rooted social disparity. It need not be intentional, but that is part of the outcome.

In the same way, if someone were well-intentioned and genuinely just fascinated by brains, and proceeded to come out with evidence and arguments showing that black people and white people have different brains, that would be used to support the continuance of racial bias and disparity. The difference that I have observed, is that someone brings up scientific support for their argument that black people and white people have different brains, their agenda is immediately questioned and there is consideration given to the impact of that support, as well as skepticism about whether or not that difference is meaningful in any legitimate fashion.

I haven't observed that same questioning and skepticism when the argument is that men's brains and women's brains are different.

Well, an interesting question would then be, are there more differences between genders than between races? If the answer was yes, that could explain some of what you say you observe.

Although I’m not sure I can say I have observed it. I believe I’ve often seen questioning of both, for similar reasons in each case.

And you really don’t need to repeatedly explain about the disadvantages that women have faced (and to a lesser extent still often do). I already accept that, and would say what I’ve been saying with that acceptance in mind, so I think you might be missing my point, which is that even in light of that, and in light of the possible risks that the facts will be misused by some, still don’t think it’s a good basis for avoiding talking about differences and their effects if they do exist, for reasons given.

And also, I think you’re in danger of turning the thread into a discussion about issues facing cis-gendered women.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But vanishingly rare intersex conditions do not make sex not binary, nor do they mean humans can change their sex.

Also, intersex conditions have zilch to do with transgender issues. The vast majority of trans identified people do not and never have had, intersex conditions.

If the chance of intersex is not 0.000% then it's not binary.

Besides, the issue is whether there's some sort of gender to the brain that can be different than the anatomy.

No. Intersex is a disorder of development and the existence of intersex conditions does not violate the underlying reality of a sex binary in mammals.

This makes no sense. You acknowledge that intersex can happen, yet then turn around and deny it. Binary means there are only two possible states, no middle ground.

Please count these two numbers: 1, 1.5, 2.

 

[Metaphor]

So, people should shut down any inquiry into male-female brain differences in the same way that any inquiry into racial brain differences is shut down? You find the shutting down of inquiry a good thing?

No, but they should approach it with a fair bit of skepticism, and should certainly include "So the fuck what?" There should definitely be some discussion of whether such difference are in any way relevant or meaningful, or if they're being used in order to fuel an agenda.

Relevant or meaningful according to whom? Who gets to determine that?

I think a lot of research into sex and gender is done solely in order to fuel an agenda--a feminist narrative. For example, this study that concluded that black women are 'missing' from scientific textbooks.

Well, I don't dispute what they found. I dispute that it is relevant or that anything should be done about it. You cannot change history, and you ought not favour some accomplishments over others just because of minority status of the person who was responsible.

So, I don't want to shut down such research. I don't think it's not 'legitimate' or 'relevant'. But I will debate the implications.

 

[Metaphor]

No. Intersex is a disorder of development and the existence of intersex conditions does not violate the underlying reality of a sex binary in mammals.

This makes no sense. You acknowledge that intersex can happen, yet then turn around and deny it. Binary means there are only two possible states, no middle ground.

Please count these two numbers: 1, 1.5, 2.

I think you are too focused on the computer science and mathematical definition of binary and ignore the biological meaning of sex being binary.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/scientistsspeak/

There is a difference, however, between the statements that there are only two sexes (true) and that everyone can be neatly categorised as either male or female (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a “spectrum” or a “social construct.” Not everyone needs to be discretely assignable to one or the other sex in order for biological sex to be functionally binary. To assume otherwise—to confuse secondary sexual traits with biological sex itself—is a category error.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think you are too focused on the computer science and mathematical definition of binary and ignore the biological meaning of sex being binary.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/scientistsspeak/

There is a difference, however, between the statements that there are only two sexes (true) and that everyone can be neatly categorised as either male or female (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a “spectrum” or a “social construct.” Not everyone needs to be discretely assignable to one or the other sex in order for biological sex to be functionally binary. To assume otherwise—to confuse secondary sexual traits with biological sex itself—is a category error.

Intersex is not a third sex. Rather, what it's saying is that sex is a range with the vast majority of data points being at one end or the other.

 

[Arctish]

I think you are too focused on the computer science and mathematical definition of binary and ignore the biological meaning of sex being binary.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/scientistsspeak/

There is a difference, however, between the statements that there are only two sexes (true) and that everyone can be neatly categorised as either male or female (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a “spectrum” or a “social construct.” Not everyone needs to be discretely assignable to one or the other sex in order for biological sex to be functionally binary. To assume otherwise—to confuse secondary sexual traits with biological sex itself—is a category error.

Intersex is not a third sex. Rather, what it's saying is that sex is a range with the vast majority of data points being at one end or the other.

One of he linked articles in this thread included some really interesting examples, like the 70 year old man, a father of 2, who was found to have a uterus when he underwent hernia surgery. He looked like a man, thought of himself as a man, was sexually active and fertile as a man, and yet had what some folks think is the ultimate defining characteristic of a woman.

The findings of science and the lived experiences of our fellow humans are showing us that the simplistic categorization of people into 2 sexes and 2 genders doesn't accurately describe reality. It's time for an update.

 

[Metaphor]

Intersex is not a third sex. Rather, what it's saying is that sex is a range with the vast majority of data points being at one end or the other.

One of he linked articles in this thread included some really interesting examples, like the 70 year old man, a father of 2, who was found to have a uterus when he underwent hernia surgery. He looked like a man, thought of himself as a man, was sexually active and fertile as a man, and yet had what some folks think is the ultimate defining characteristic of a woman.

The findings of science and the lived experiences of our fellow humans are showing us that the simplistic categorization of people into 2 sexes and 2 genders doesn't accurately describe reality. It's time for an update.

There can be infinite genders, because gender is a feeling in your head. Gender is entirely uninteresting to discuss because you may as well be discussing somebody's favourite colour, and how that can anywhere in the RGB spectrum or colours never seen before or "I have no concept of colour".

Sex in mammals is functionally binary. The 70 year old man who fathered children with his sperm was a man. Perhaps he is chimeric and absorbed a female twin while he was in the womb himself.

But sex is still and has always been functionally binary in mammals.

 

[Metaphor]

And just a reminder...

What is a woman?