Utopia Talk / Politics / Nim: Stephen Pinker on Gender

Seb Member	Tue Dec 13 17:52:57 Nim: "At the time I started writing this book it seemed clear to me that any between sex differences in thinking abilities were due to socialization practices, artifacts, and mistakes in the research. After reviewing a pile of journal articles that stood several feet high, and numerous books and book chapters that dwarfed the stack of journal articles, I changed my mind. The literature on sex differences in cognitive abilities is filled with inconsistent findings, contradictory theories, and emotional claims that are unsupported by the research. Yet despite all the noise in the data, clear and consistent messages could be heard. There are real and in some cases sizable sex differences with respect to some cognitive abilities. Socialization practices are undoubtedly important, but there is also good evidence that biological sex differences play a role in establishing and maintaining cognitive sex differences, a conclusion I wasn't prepared to make when I began reviewing the relevant literature." This is a million miles away from your extreme position that Sex determines gender though strict biological mechanisms like brain structure, and that transgression of gender norms is caused by a congenital defect such as "being born with half a penis".
Forwyn Member	Tue Dec 13 18:33:14 "Like Autism then?" No, not like Autism. Official diagnoses have skyrocketed for Autism, while rates of diagnosed gender dysphoria have not risen significantly. "Or is it because people didn't recognise it as a condition," Moreso that the definition has drastically expanded to include adolescents and children as young as pre-K levels, and instead of acknowledging that the vast majority of these cases are phases and cries for attention that pass, a label without an official diagnosis is given, boys are dressed and treated as girls and vice versa, and by the time leftist parents get them to the doctor years later, true dysphoria has developed, time to start hormone treatments, and the kid commits suicide by 20.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 13 22:54:44 Forwyn: Yes, it's all leftist brainwashing.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 14 00:26:25 No seb, I will will clarify for you, I AM arguing the Steven Pinker position. Any bounds that I overstep, I will correct. Do you think WTB agrees with Steven Pinker? Because he does not, he is arguing the other extreme.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Dec 14 00:42:11 Youre going to have to go much deeper than you think to correct notions like homosexuals being created "wrong" and getting "worse"
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 14 01:06:09 If you think that I have worded anything too strongly or said something with too much certainty, I will remind you of who I was having the discussion with. A person whose hero was an AIDS denier, who has the most peculiar view on what science is and what scientist believe, what evolution really says and so and so forth. Your "addition" to the discussion can be summarized like this. 1. demanding answers for things I did not claim 2. fire off a rapid succession of question you KNOW I nor anyone else can answers, question that will be the basis of future master thesis and doctorates. So because we don't know everything we know nothing, right? An old creationist tactics. 3. Question already asked and answered. 4. You conclude that what I am saying is "cargo cult + my own prejudice". The only reply to such lunacy can be go fuck yourself. So I repeat, I am NOT nor have I ever said that biology is everything, it would fly in the face of all that we know of evolution. The argument is the same as Steven Pinker, biology matters and in some instances it matters a great deal. So I point to specific things we have meassured. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bTKRkmwtGY This is a 2 hour debate between Pinker and someone who WTB probably agrees with 9 out 10 points. You decided for yourselves where you land. I will say this, if I have misunderstood WTBs position then I will gladly retract it and rejoice over our agreement. Nothing is ever so clear that people can not talk past each other, my command of English is not on par with you or WTB and there are limits to the medium we are using. This is not a cop-out, because I am willing to clarify things when people ask me. Knowing these things, you shouldn't have such a fucking hard time resisting the urge to call people bigots every time you think they have slipped up. Too much to ask? I have since learned that "hermaphrodite" has fallen out of use, it is called intersex. I think these PC shifts are ridiculous really, but I also do not wish to offend people so intersex it is.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 14 01:10:08 >>Youre going to have to go much deeper than you think to correct notions like homosexuals being created "wrong" and getting "worse"<< lol, we were talking about transsexuals, I answered the question in regards to transsexuals, your follow up question is how things get worse for homosexuals? This is another "you denied ever having heard the question". here is me explaining this for you in the other thread. "If you are born with a penis and inside your mind you feel like you should have a vagina, the social structures around our sexual dimorphism and stigma that might exist, will make your life worse."
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 14 01:13:14 You deny that social stigma and culture can make the life of a transsexual worse?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 14 01:14:05 See you this evening.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Dec 14 01:36:57 Nimatxo: lol, we were talking about transsexuals, I answered the question in regards to transsexuals, Here you are saying "Gender identity exists in the brain, so by that definition, if it is a health issue (it is) then it can only be a mental health issue" which in no way specifies transsexuals and "almost exlusivly everyone born confused about which sex they belong had something go wrong during fetal development" I saw no disclaimer of homosexuals and you may have noticed that seb reacted in a similar manner to meetc. Nimatzo iChihuaha Wed Dec 14 01:13:14 You deny that social stigma and culture can make the life of a transsexual worse? Here is me saying the exact opposite after you said the fundamental problem is a physical error in the person (also apropos your comment: “demanding answers for things I did not claim”): " A human doesnt feel bad at all about having a penis and liking other boys until he learns and realizes how that behavior is mocked and shunned and condemned, at which point the child easily realizes that he's gonna keep his mouth shut about what felt so normal to him previously until he learned how society sees it.” zzzzzzzzzzz
williamthebastard Member	Wed Dec 14 02:00:40 havent got a clue about what either of those persons believe in, watched for a couple of minutes, didnt get a particularly comprehensive understanding, looks like someone may be emphasizing the map of mount everest above the actual mountain, though, especially with regards to "computational theory of mind". He seems to be what is often termed a positivist.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Dec 14 02:15:17 But since reviews of that interview are that both sides argued equally well and the debate remains open - and as we all know, the whole matter is still very cloudy although natural science has very definitely moved away from genetic positivism to agreeing on various social factors having a much greater influence than natural science previoously believed - why is it you've decided that he's right?
williamthebastard Member	Wed Dec 14 02:19:05 But this stuff at http://youtu.be/-Hb3oe7-PJ8?t=1351 gods sake, that was basic stuff in Platos day
williamthebastard Member	Wed Dec 14 02:41:26 a cursory flick through the video shows that theres plenty of stuff that this guy and nimatso disagree on. Im not sure he would be supporting nimatzos claims at all if he were posting here.
Forwyn Member	Wed Dec 14 05:02:27 "Yes, it's all leftist brainwashing." Actually, yes. A healthy middle ground should be sought between right-wing lunatics who think you can shock the gay away, and left-wing lunatics who think Cat-kin dysphoria should be coddled and encouraged in 5 year olds. Maybe we'll get there. For now, only one side of the lunacy is rightfully disparaged.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 14 05:13:00 "I saw no disclaimer of homosexuals" So I need to disclaimer that I am not talking about homsexuals, when I am talking about transexuals? LOL You do understand the difference between sexual identity and sexual preference right? They both exist in the brain, but they are not the same things. "A human doesnt feel bad at all about having a penis and liking other boys" This is you again trying to obfuscate, mixing preference and identity. If you feel like you are trapped inside the wrong sex, it is a health issue, yes. You will need to either accept it or get over it, which in many cases require proper counseling (see studies on young people) or undergo surgery to correct something. If you feel like sucking dick, you can simply go out a find some fresh dick to suck. "stuff that this guy and nimatso disagree on." Probably many things I disagree with Steve Pinker, non that are relevant to this topic. I will say it in clear text, I believe what Steve Pinker is saying, anything more would require huge investments in time and a shift in career for me. "why is it you've decided that he's right?" I decided that genes matter and that sometimes they matter a great deal because I have an undergrad understanding of genetics and how evolution works, which is all you need. Steve Pinker is responding to the previous decades of lunacy about people being born as a "blank slate". He is not preaching for me WTB, he is preaching for you. Which is why the claim he makes is simply that the effect genes have on behavior is greater than zero and then goes on to preempt all the social and political fear that people lik you might have with the implications.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 14 05:32:33 Your position on biology and TOE in a nutshell: "even if all these things are true, we should ignore them because they can be used to cause evil" That is my summary of a couple hundreds of posts with you. My approach is fundamentally different, at some level I simply don't care what evil knowledge *can* cause, all I know is that without it I am helpless to fight any kind of evil. Tragically funny, how both you and seb react, in light of all the warnings Steven Pinker received from his colleagues before writing the book. "equality does not mean sameness" Steven Pinker
williamthebastard Member	Wed Dec 14 05:37:15 "This is you again trying to obfuscate, mixing preference and identity." No, this is you manufacturing identities.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Dec 14 05:39:16 "equality does not mean sameness" Certainly doesnt. it doesnt even mean equality as you understand the term, imo. The guesses you've made at my, foucaults, nietztches perspectives are wholly incorrect each time, you have a 4-chan understanding of your imagined opponents.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 14 05:40:57 I nor anyone knows the full extent that genes play a role in shaping our lives. Genes are effected by the environment, not only via selection but environmental factors that can turn on/off reduce/increase expression etc. There is an entire field dedicated to studying this. The nature vs nurture debate almost always becomes absurd, because it is not a matter of A or B, it is a false dichotomy, it all matters. The difference is that no respectable biologist/geneticist would ever claim that genes are all that matter, while pretty much all the social sciences reject the idea that genes matter at all, to quote a Norwegian social "scientist" I heard in a documentary "there is no room for genes".
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 14 05:58:48 "you have a 4-chan understanding of your imagined opponents." And you think you understand my position? The difference between me and you in this regard is that I have several times (that you probably did not read per admission) left the door wide open that we might talk past each other, that there can be confusion. You on the other hand have to fight an urge to not degenerate me and every word I write, compare me with other people you hate, insinuate that I am a bigot. It can never be that we just disagree or at worst that I am just wrong, no, I am bigot, mostly because of the IMPLICATIONS which allegedly can serve evil peoples needs. If I am wrong I stand correct, if I am misunderstood I will clarify, but it seems that in our discussions on UP there is no room to misunderstanding anyone. I can accept those "terms" with some of the people here, I expect something different from others. So both you and seb, I am tired of this shit. If you can not distinguish between me and pillz/sam adams/hot rod on gender/Islam/feminism etc all these "hot" topics, go fuck yourselves. *everything I said applies to me as well, I try hard not to be that guy, but sometimes I am that guy.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 14 12:37:26 Nim: I neither know nor care what WtB is arguing. I was taking specially you to task on two key points you made: 1. Non traditional gender behaviour is, as you put it, a disorder. "Gender identity exists in the brain, so by that definition, if it is a health issue (it is) then it can only be a mental health issue." "almost exlusivly everyone born confused about which sex they belong had something go wrong during fetal development, they have half a penis half a vagina or something like that." In your defence, you cited Stephen Pinker, who says: "Socialization practices are undoubtedly important, but there is also good evidence that biological sex differences play a role in establishing and maintaining cognitive sex differences" This is very, very different from the argument you present (whether that was your intent or not) which appears to be saying that: 1. Gender is primarily and deterministically set by sex. 2. Therefore, any non-traditional gender behaviour or identification must therefore be physiological defect. For one thing, Stephen Pinker is talking only about specific and measurable cognition in limited areas (he lists the six later in the debate) - and gender identity goes way beyond those and attempting to attribute complex behaviours to those six limited faculties is bizarre to say the ieast. And for another thing, he is saying that at most biology plays a role, while acknowledging socialisation as being a major driver. You cannot run away from such brazen inconsistencies - you must address them.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 14 12:43:11 And, you made those points DIRECTLY to me in response to my discussion with Aeros: Seb Member Mon Dec 12 07:22:45 Aeros: There is absolutely no evidence that this is a mental health issue. Just because you don't like people's behaviour, you don't get to declare it a pathology. Or alternative, we might declare intolerance a pathology. Nimatzo iChihuaha Mon Dec 12 11:52:04 "There is absolutely no evidence that this is a mental health issue." Gender identity exists in the brain, so by that definition, if it is a health issue (it is) then it can only be a mental health issue. Nimatzo iChihuaha Mon Dec 12 12:00:05 "confused gender and sex." Explain the difference? Seb Member Mon Dec 12 15:37:01 Nim: Are you seriously saying that gender identity is a mental illness? What elements of pathology can you identify it vs eccentricity? It makes other people feel uncomfortable - perhaps it's their brains you should be looking at? Sex is biological - expressed through phenotype and genetic in basis. Gender is cultural and social behaviours and characteristics associated with biological sex - e.g. masculinity, femininity. Someone who object to an individual choosing their own gender is at best being rude. It essentially boils down to "You shouldn't behave that way". I kinda think that when one wishes to control others behaviour, they first ought to be able to prove harm. At best, it's just cripplingly rude and gauche. Nimatzo iChihuaha Mon Dec 12 23:48:12 So basically "gender" is sexual differences in behavior and psychology? Female and male bodies and brains are different. We are a sexually dimorphic species, the cultures we have created and added behavior also center around a binary. Is there a third sex? Probably not the way you think, ****almost exlusivly everyone born confused about which sex they belong had something go wrong during fetal development, they have half a penis half a vagina or something like that.**** We understand fairly well the pathology behind it. The thing you call gender i.e sexually dimorphic behavior is deeply connected to biology, they are not seperate and isolated things. Those people exist and they might not identify with the binary, most of the time they do, so there is one more option, non of the above, that should be part of our understanding. -- Re that last point, yes, there are people who identify as asexual and intersexual.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 14 12:53:34 In short, nobody has claimed that biology has no impact. However, there is absolutely no evidence to show that biology uniquely determines gender identity. Nor if there were, is that necessarily an indication that such genetic causes would qualify as a pathology rather than natural variation. Indeed, the "harm" that tends to arise in these situations is "not being able to fit into society", which is normally elements in society rejecting such individuals for not conforming. A harmless non-conformism to social norms is a really bad basis for deeming a behaviour to be pathological. Now, if you are just arguing biology plays a role - I'm sure it does. But it would be a brave individual to say that gender roles are predominantly a natural consequence of biology, given that so many cultures have had dramatically different concepts over time and space; with gender roles changing in a periods of decades at times - far faster than evolution could work and without the necessary gene transfer. Predominantly, gender is a cultural artefact that involves interpretation (which may not be accurate) of sex differences. And in any statistical population, yes, you will get outliers. But the fundamental point is if biology doesn't uniquely specify gender, and gender is a social construct, then it's very hard to assert that an individual identifying as a gender that is not typically associated with their sex must defacto be suffering a pathology.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 14 14:52:25 >>Someone who object to an individual choosing their own gender is at best being rude.<< In general I believe that people should have the right to do pretty much whatever they want as long as they do not harm others. But to me "gender" is just a point of confusion. From this discussion I understand it to be a social construct that is separate from sex? Ok, keep your gender. What I am talking about is heritable sexual differences in behavior. >>Are you seriously saying that gender identity is a mental illness?<< I am saying that if are confused over the male/female part of your human identity you have a disorder. Everything is not "just a variation", whatever that variation is must viewed in relation to the effects it has on the individuals well being. All the evidence seems to indicate that transexuality is bad for your well being. In part because of social norms, stigma and basically what a hard time the 99.9% can have in accepting when someone transitions from male to female. You think this is only a matter of social acceptance and something we can correct for, fair? I (not Pinker) am saying part of the reason is one of nature/evolution. Humans have heritable behavioral patterns rooted in the male/female part of our biology that makes it hard for them to accept or fully understand the type of fluidity the word gender has. So things like 87(?) pronouns will be met with resistance, because the idea misaligns so horribly with the biological duality of sexual procreation, a strong and primitive part of our nature. How is this different from how we became accepting of homosexuality? Homosexuality is fairly simple to grasp and understand, once you get over the religious crap or "yuck" factor, the sum of all parts is still 2. Not so much with the gender debate, it is taxing, complex and very hard to understand. People avoid emotionally complex problems (you know it, but google it) and if you try force them, they become defensive. Keep in mind that confusion in sexua The separation between male and female matters for behavior, not so much because male/female differences are so fascinatingly different, but because it is such a basic difference. The "natural" differences are not on the scale of genes, but chromosomes, the details overlap >a lot<, but the big picture is different. >>Gender is cultural and social behaviors and characteristics associated with biological sex - e.g. masculinity, femininity.<< There are studies that identify cultural universals in sex differences as Pinker mentions. >>At best, it's just cripplingly rude and gauche<< People have a right to be offended, but most of these question can be answered empirically. I am not saying I have given them all, but that it is a matter of knowledge. I am interested in increasing well being if that means killing all trannies, but god I will do it! No not really, that was a joke. I am interested in increasing well being and social acceptance, but the debates have become absurd and there is an >enormous< blind spot in the social/political problem solving game for human nature, yes how our biology interferes/effects our social behavioral pattern. The looming shadow of things like eugenics and other turn of the century thinking lingering has driven us to never look for biological difference in behavior. And we walk away with an incomplete picture of what is going, trying to solve things we do not want to understand.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 15 07:53:20 My first response is not something Steven Pinker has said, at least that I know of. But given how well you seem to understand the literature, I am amazed that you are unaware that sexual identity disorder is a thing. There are valid discussion and questions/criticisms and perhaps one day we science the disorder away (I find that unlikely). But is also begs us to question what "disorder" means and why there should be stigma attached to something you have had no control over. But reason is not what motivates your response to me. Your summary in the other thread about where my ideas are coming from, "cargo cult + bigotry" is utter horseshit. Your choice of words puts into question the sincerity in your questions and criticism. They are not asked out of any genuine curiosity, but out of contempt. Remember, when we discussed Islam, I was islamophobic and bigoted. Since then I believe we have approached each other somewhat on that issue. Feminism, well there I am sexist, though in your defence we did not go very deep, some of how that discussion would have evolved, can by found in these threads though. Do you see a pattern? I don't speculated on the motivations of people I have discussions with, so that I can tie them down to some contemptible attribute. Unless they time and time again explicitly tell me their motivation. A sincere question for you, what motivates you to think that I am bigoted towards muslims/women/LGBTQ? Surely you have some reason other than that you think I am engaging in unscientific behavior? You do accept that I could be severely uninformed and yet not be a bigot? It seems this possibility never crosses your mind. To me it is fairly clear that any "discussion" on certain topics with you (and WTB) will never be conducted in good faith. It will always be an up hill battle for me. I have to argue my position (which I find stimulating and interesting) but also increasingly as the discussions go on, explain to you why I am not all the things you think I am or that what motives my words are not rooted in bigotry. I do not find that part interesting at all, it makes me tired.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Dec 15 09:31:14 "But is also begs us to question what "disorder" means and why there should be stigma attached to something you have had no control over" It certainly does, which leads you to foucault and a vast field that you should look into a little.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 15 10:03:47 It seems I managed to come that conclusion equipped "only" with my bigoted cargo cult thinking and Darwinism. Biological determinism to the degree that it is true can be liberating. If for instance someone becomes a murderer or rapist because of their genes, then things like revenge and anger make less and less sense. It doesn't remove the need to deal with the issue of murder legally or practically, but it does put into question other practices motivated by anger and revenge.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 15 11:12:29 I have to be honest with you WTB, I will most likely never read any of Focault's books. I mean I have known of him for a while through references made, so I read up about him and have a superficial understanding (more on that later) of his ideas. I even watched his discussion with Noam Chomsky, I don't understand French, but I can read body language, my god the most uncomfortable debate I have ever seen. I have heard Chomsky, describe him as "a nice guy but might as well be from another planet". I disagree with Chomsky on things, but he is coherent, he does not obfuscate and I understand him. He is the foremost authority in linguistics. If he could not grasp Foucault, then I don't think I could either.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 15 12:32:58 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8BRdwgPChQ Interesting 7 mins between two feminists.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Dec 15 13:26:35 In that debate, Chomsky refuses to accept foucaults theory that we likely do not have (in his opinion) a basic instinct for goodness, iirc. "Biological determinism to the degree that it is true can be liberating." In foucaults history of madness, you could read about how excentric and odd "madmen", the "fool on the hill", the village idiot, the cackling crony living on the edge of the village, these people were often seen as being in touch otherworldly knowledge through their madness and were not an odd part of society. The advent of classifying things as pathologies meant that these people were shut off completely from sociey and institutionalized for being diagnozed as pathologically abberant errors. One can quite easily argue about the humanity of these actions, as foucault did.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Dec 15 13:33:46 But you really should drop the nonsense argument that youre right and people like seb and I refuse to accept facts because we find them uncomfortable. Its nonsense. In fact, chomsky rejects foucault for doing exactly thwt, choosing uncomfortable "facts", too uncomfortable for chomsky who refuses to believe we dont have innate "goodness"
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 15 14:54:25 >>The advent of classifying things as pathologies meant that these people were shut off completely from sociey and institutionalized for being diagnozed as pathologically abberant errors.<< And in the advent of car driving we did not understand safety that well, lot's of people needlessly died. We improve. Obviously stigmatizing people who are not well is not a good thing, we improve. >>and were not an odd part of society<< That was a very broad group of people, that to me seems to include anything from schizophrenics to some queer looking guy who talks funny. Did people with mental disorders fair better prior to the advent of medicine? I think for the vast majority of those people, their lives are better today than it would have been without modern medicine. There probably exists a minority for whom life has gotten worse for. So we have not fully understood everything, but we do understand some things and often enough to know where to look for the answers. This seems to me to be an issue of refinement. A cold is not as bad as cancer and it would be irrational to treat them with the same severity. The same can be applied to mental disorders and a spectrum from the worst things to the most benign things. I think "pathology" has more nuance and depth than I think you are implying. "In that debate, Chomsky refuses to accept foucaults theory that we likely do not have (in his opinion) a basic instinct for goodness" It depends how you fine "basic instinct for goodness", if we are talking about objective moral truths, I find the arguments Sam Harris has made on the science of morality convincing. When viewed through the broad scope of physical and mental well being, there are right and wrong answers.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Dec 15 14:58:51 "A cold is not as bad as cancer and it would be irrational to treat them with the same severity" Gods sake, I wouldnt know where to begin with you with all your horrendously incorrect assumptions, thats the problem.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 15 15:17:16 That is definitely a great disadvantage when one is trying to explain something! You should try though and perhaps we will improve. If you feel like you can't without loosing your patience, then perhaps we should let it rest. lol I have had to work late to make up for our threads this week.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 15 15:20:23 Maybe someone has explained what you are trying to say better? Perhaps they recorded it and put it on youtube. I gave you a 2 hour video. I will willing to invest 2 hours for you, just because I like you so much.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 15 15:55:35 Nim: "What I am talking about is heritable sexual differences in behavior." I see. And pronouns are a heritable sexual difference in behavior? As is dress? I don't think so. If you choose to identify someone exclusively by their sex, can I choose to, say, identify you purely by race. E.g refer to you the Swedish Iranian - that's just rude right? "I am saying that if are confused over the male/female part of your human identity you have a disorder" Hold on, you are now arguing that when people talk about their gender identity they must be referring uniquely to biological sex - and you think *they* are the ones that are confused? "All the evidence seems to indicate that transexuality is bad for your well being. In part because of social norms, stigma and basically what a hard time the 99.9% can have in accepting when someone transitions from male to female." Without being trite, being a Jew in Nazi Germany was bad for welbeing because of social norms and stigma and general lack of social acceptance... I wouldn't describe being a Jew a pathology. "Humans have heritable behavioral patterns rooted in the male/female part of our biology" Then why don't all men behave the same and all women behave the same and why do societies over time have such variations in the social roles they ascribe men and women and why do some have concepts of third genders? I'm sorry but while nobody can disagree that there are two distributions of behaviours that can be linked to sex; it is in no way as deterministic as you are painting. There are women that have clusters of attributes that would typically be associated with male and vice versa. These people are not defective, and should they also choose to identify as such - who are you or anyone else to say "no, only sex!" It's a vestige from a time where sex did actually specify your role in society and therefore e.g. therefore women shouldn't drive. In a world where you've decided to move away from such coercive limitations why on earth would you get upset about a man or a woman identifying as the opposite or neither - and further even if you were as gauche as to insist that gender and pronouns should reflect biology (can anyone explain to me what genetically makes "mesa" feminine?) rather than culture and that failure to do so is a pathology, then hey, we can fix shortsightedness with corrective surgery, so why not sex phenotypes where they do not match gender identity?
Seb Member	Thu Dec 15 16:01:12 Also ships. Well known that they have two x chromosomes and a vagina.
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Dec 15 16:09:47 The funniest part about this entire discussion (and there are many) is that we have a male who is proud of sitting on his couch with his little rat dog and crying during movies talking about male behavioral norms...
Seb Member	Thu Dec 15 17:03:49 Dude, you said that all people who identify transexual were born with defects like half a penis, and when I said the literature does not support that, or the tight coupling of gender and sex, you cited Stephen Pinker. Sorry, yeah, when you make shit up like saying transexuals are mostly born with half a penis - yeah that's cargo cult science. Making up pseudo scientific stuff to butress an argument that isn't coming from facts. Sorry if that offends you, but as you argue, we cannot deviate from reality simply to avoid offence. You've quietly backed down from mentioning this again or addressing it - a quick retraction would be better than blustery claims that I'm unduly criticising you. I've not said your bigoted. Just factually wrong. To my knowledge, not being scientific isn't the same as bigotry, and you need no motivation other than sloppy reasoning to engage cargo cult science.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 15 22:26:28 Re Dysphoria: "There is evidence suggesting that people who identify with a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth may do so not just due to psychological or behavioral causes, but also biological ones related to their genetics or exposure to hormones before birth.[1]" "The American Psychiatric Association, publisher of the DSM-5, states that "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition." This directly contradicts the idea that gender non conformity is *either* a pathology in itself or exclusively has its roots in some kind of congenital defect.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 15 22:45:15 *clarification: When I say this, "Hold on, you are now arguing that when people talk about their gender identity they must be referring uniquely to biological sex - and you think *they* are the ones that are confused?" I want to make clear. The individuals are not confused about their identify. They identify as they identify, gender being cultural and identity being personal in free societies. You are the one confused by someone not identifying their gender to conform with their sex. To explain why this is clearly a confusion on your part, consider a genuine hermaphrodite - clearly they could identify as either, neither or both female and male. It would not be for others to impose that, do you agree? They should be identified by others as they wish, and the pronoun they wish. If they didn't choose either male or female, "It" is fairly rude as a pronoun. And in terms of gender role, they could clearly choose what they wanted. And if them, why not others? Or is such flexibility a privilege only afforded to hermaphrodites? And if so are you going to ask any transgender person to expose their genitals to check? Or just provide DNA samples? Basically, as soon as you dive into thinking about this, you end up having to reconcile individual liberty vs some fairly random arbitrary rules being imposed on people who actually are asking for nothing more than for people to recognise their personal identity. In a society based on equality, recognising personal identity isn't a big ask as it should confer neither benefit or burden.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Dec 16 00:57:27 You dont even have to start going through history or other cultures to see other gender roles, just compare the differences between the social classes in the same country - golf means poofter in working class land while being perfectly manly in trumps world, real men dont fucking wear kensington high street perfume in coalminer land, thats for queers, and so it goes for food, music, art, entertainment and on and on
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 16 01:47:46 >>I see. And pronouns are a heritable sexual difference in behavior? As is dress?<< Have I given you a reason to think that I believe words and cloth/fabrics are heritable sex difference? I am trying to differentiate between the words you call "gender" and "gender identity" and heritable sexual difference. Gender(identity) is meaningless to me at this point, because it seems to mean ANYTHING and I have yet to come across something in it that can not be described by the words "culture" or identity. Many different things make up an identity such as some of the things you mentioned, male/female as I described are just very primitive and early difference and they have culturally universal aspects. >>Without being trite, being a Jew in Nazi Germany was bad for welbeing because of social norms and stigma and general lack of social acceptance<< Yes such a thing can be argued, that being a Jew in nazi Germany was not good for your health, it was an evolutionary disadvantage. There is a genetic aspect of being a Jew. But this ties to what I already explained, I do not think the resistance to 57 pronouns and inability to fully comprehend the fluidity of sexual identity the way it is being pushed is a matter only of social acceptance. It is I believe a matter rooted in the dual nature of our sexuality. People do not fucking get it because it goes against basic and primitive understanding that became part our biology 10s if not 100s of millions of years ago. Having said that I think it can be argued coherently that Jew hatred is fundamentally rooted in tribalism which is rooted in biology, the way any form of xenophobia is on some level. but it was made far worse by cultural and social factors. Indeed if you want to solve xenophobia, you can not disregard the biological factors that contribute to it. This doesn't mean we should institutionalize people are commit genocide. It does mean that if I am right, you will never solve the acceptance issue assuming that the stigma/bigotry is only rooted in social structures. Is that clear enough? >>There are women that have clusters of attributes that would typically be associated with male and vice versa.<< Which I do not deny. But there is still a clear spectrum of behavior people vs object preference, that is a very simple difference. This does not excuse sexist behavior towards a male nurses or a female engineers or imply that one is better than the other. >>and further even if you were as gauche as to insist that gender and pronouns should reflect biology<< Should? Didn't I just tell you that fundamentally I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want? Just because there IS a pathology or something IS biological, why on earth would that mean that that IS how it should be? Perhaps you think we should all move out of the cities and go back to our hunter gatherer past? Everything I am saying is said from the POV of trying to understand how things work. You think I am prejudice for even thinking that a person who is confused about the male/female could be an biological error. Maybe that says more about you than it says about me? >>would you get upset about a man or a woman identifying as the opposite or neither<< Why do you think I am upset over this? The only person I have been upset with at any point in this discussion is you. In fact I have questioned what "disorder" means and why there should be any stigma attached to it to begin with. I don't think people can be blamed What I and other get upset over in this debate is when states and institutions try to force people to talk a certain way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8BRdwgPChQ This is 7 minutes from a second wave feminist, I pretty much agree with most being said here, with regards to the whole "gender" debate. There is without a cultural aspect to it that has gone absurd and that can be harmful. >>In a society based on equality, recognising personal identity isn't a big ask as it should confer neither benefit or burden.<< Let me ask you something, do you treat blind people/cancer patient or even addicts with contempt? Does their condition having a pathology the fact that we all agree that they are sick and in need of help diminish your empathy or make you believe they should be treated unequally compared to "healthy" people? I am not saying confusion over sexual identity is as clear cut as that or even on the same level, but your position that "pathology", the mere idea that something could be a biological "error" can only lead to prejudice. It is utter crap and more of the same. YOU ARE RACIST FOR SAYING THIS!!! How is that Brexit going for you seb? Do you think you will ever learn? Now I consider myself fairly patient and secure so I wont be voting SD any time soon because people like you push me over "the edge", but many do, many people feel assaulted in way they probably can not even describe. I think the complexity of the gender debate can be compared to how difficult it can be for people to understand quantum mechanics, even the people who understand it! To the degree that you accept "biology" as important for behavior you seem to completely miss the point that those biological difference have REAL political and social implications. That they matter for peoples every day lives, it codes our behavior and it informs our decisions. I think once you get over the stigma you insist must be attached to disorder/sick/not well/non conforming we can have a more productive discussion. Until then I can only be a bigot for thinking biology matters if one is trying to solve human problems in the political/social arena.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 16 01:50:56 Perhaps you think *that I believe* we should all move out of the cities and go back to our hunter gatherer past? *correction*
williamthebastard Member	Fri Dec 16 02:05:04 “I am trying to differentiate between the words you call "gender" and "gender identity" and heritable sexual difference. Gender(identity) is meaningless to me at this point, because it seems to mean ANYTHING and I have yet to come across something in it that can not be described by the words "culture" or identity.”  ” Maybe youre stumbling over much more things that are contructions and not genetic determinations as you’ve previously thought. "Having said that I think it can be argued coherently that Jew hatred is fundamentally rooted in tribalism which is rooted in biology, the way any form of xenophobia is on some level. " So backwards. Youre doing the old sam adams thing of mixing up correlation and causality. We use anything to define our group, it can be another school, another village etc etc. Biology is just one of the clues we might use to define group, although no one thought in terms of biology until a few hundred years ago. This is why the term racism has come to include much more than biology, because biology proved to not be the only thing going on here after all. “This doesn't mean we should institutionalize people are commit genocide. It does mean that if I am right, you will never solve the acceptance issue assuming that the stigma/bigotry is only rooted in social structures. Is that clear enough? “ ” Don’t even know how to respond to this. “Everything I am saying is said from the POV of trying to understand how things work. You think I am prejudice for even thinking that a person who is confused about the male/female could be an biological error. Maybe that says more about you than it says about me?” You keep using unfounded bigotry as the premise, the starting point, of various arguments, “since homosexuality means there’s something wrong with you, we can conclude…” -type logic.” “>>Without being trite, being a Jew in Nazi Germany was bad for welbeing because of social norms and stigma and general lack of social acceptance<<  Yes such a thing can be argued, that being a Jew in nazi Germany was not good for your health, it was an evolutionary disadvantage.”” Don’t even know how to respond to this. Would make a terrible argument.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Dec 16 02:06:37 "Jew hatred is fundamentally rooted in tribalism which is rooted in biology" Jew hatred specifically relates to their religion, historically, which christianity hated for a long time.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Dec 16 02:20:52 "Having said that I think it can be argued coherently that Jew hatred is fundamentally rooted in tribalism which is rooted in biology, the way any form of xenophobia is on some level. " This is such a salient example of how your starting point in everything is that everything begins in tangible biology that can be empiricall proven under a microscope. But its all wrong, wrong starting point leads in the wrong direction.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 16 02:23:27 >>Wrath of Orion Member Thu Dec 15 16:09:47 The funniest part about this entire discussion (and there are many) is that we have a male who is proud of sitting on his couch with his little rat dog and crying during movies talking about male behavioral norms...<< Because emotions and finding small cute animals adorable is something biologically unique to females? Is that what you think I believe? Anyway your observation is indeed funny given the image people seem to have of me in this thread. The crying Iranian, chihuahua owner who spends some of his past time instructing his (at times imbecilic) brother in laws that men who wear make up are not "weird" and that homosexuality is not "unnatural" as they would call it. Trying to teach them acceptance and plurality, which they need, growing up without a father and in one the cities worst neighborhoods, bumping into other imbecilic men. It is tragically funny.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Dec 16 02:36:48 "Having said that I think it can be argued coherently that Jew hatred is fundamentally rooted in tribalism which is rooted in biology" I think it was Beauvoir who said that its enough for 3 strangers to share the same train compartment for them to begin semi-huddling together and suspiciousy viewing the rest of the passengers on the train as outsiders.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 16 02:54:28 >>Maybe youre stumbling over much more things that are contructions and not genetic determinations as you’ve previously thought.<< Many question that need to be figured out. Yes and if I will go where the preponderance of evidence leads. >>Biology is just one of the clues we might use to define group<< Right and one we constantly disregard, overlook or ignore when trying to provide answers and solutions to political and social problems. That was my point. >>Don’t even know how to respond to this.<< Then don't. Not even with these kinds of "responses", useless to try and agitate each other by remarks insinuating "you are so stupid I can't explain this". If you have a hard time explaining something there is a high chance that you do not understand it well enough yourself. Does not make me stupid, if anything it means you are the stupid one. >>This is such a salient example of how your starting point in everything is that everything begins in tangible biology that can be empiricall proven under a microscope<< My starting point is that everything can be explained and if it can't be explained that I do not know what the fuck you are talking about, and neither do you. If the explaining is done through a microscope, CAT scan or in the logical laboratory of the brain (tools for explaining shit) varies from case to case. I though I was clear when I said "*I* believe that an argument can be made". We have all agreed that nature and nurture is not a question of either or in many cases, pretty much 90% of the things we are discussing here is a combination of both, racism included. It is the same argument I have made when it comes radicalization among Muslims. The dismissal of some people that it could never be one of ideology, it is always explained through economy, social factors, colonialism, war etc. etc. no one can ever blow themselves up simply because they really believe in martyrdom and heaven and to the degree that they are true they are dismissed as trivial. I believe they have substantially more impact that trivial. All it does is provides an incomplete picture and false narrative, Islam has become a race and words like race and sex are just and -ism away from horrible behavior.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 16 02:58:18 >>I think it was Beauvoir who said that its enough for 3 strangers to share the same train compartment for them to begin semi-huddling together and suspiciousy viewing the rest of the passengers on the train as outsiders.<< And why could this not be explained with evolutionary psychology or genetics? But you are guranteed to misunderstand that question as this can be explained with biology and that is the entire explanation. The separation of nature and nurture would unravel the entire biological field, the entire theory is dependent on both.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Dec 16 02:59:43 >>Biology is just one of the clues we might use to define group<< Right and one we constantly disregard, overlook or ignore when trying to provide answers and solutions to political and social problems. That was my point." Your point was that this is rooted on biology. The biology premise is incorrect and scientistic. "My starting point is that everything can be explained and if it can't be explained that I do not know what the fuck you are talking about, and neither do you." This is where youre so lost in the zeitgiest of your era, scientism, aka as cartesian anxiety etc etc. You can see how wrong you are in the above example when you think fear of the other is rooted in biology. "It is the same argument I have made when it comes radicalization among Muslims. The dismissal of some people that it could never be one of ideology" Noone ever says this. They say its not the ideology of moderate or average muslims. So youre disproving an argument you yourself make up to defeat.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 16 03:01:31 And now I have to work late again!
williamthebastard Member	Fri Dec 16 03:02:38 >>I think it was Beauvoir who said that its enough for 3 strangers to share the same train compartment for them to begin semi-huddling together and suspiciousy viewing the rest of the passengers on the train as outsiders.<< And why could this not be explained with evolutionary psychology or genetics?" Im not sure what you mean. Do you mean its biological to fear the other? Its about as biological as fearing mice. Its the easiest, quickest decision for many to make, but its not the only biologically necessary one at all, and its certainly not the smartest one.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Dec 16 03:27:20 What is the difference in truth content between unfounded beliefs in biological determinism and unfounded beliefs in religious determinism?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 16 04:22:48 Applications of Evolutionary Psychology in Marketing Google that and see what you find. The field is increasingly used with positive results in marketing. I believe you would agree that this is a cause for concern, considering how these things can and are abused. >>and its certainly not the smartest one.<< We totally agree, biological urges are not necessarily optimal for our well being or societies in general. I would argue that irrational fears are a product of our evolution. Our ancestors have been rewarded (with survival) precisely because of their propensity to overreact to perceived dangers. The cost of overreacting stands in relation to not reacting to a real danger quickly enough getting killed. Pragmatism and reason about if that creature is going to eat me or not, could mean death and as such served very little purpose for survival. All these things matter still today, millions of years of evolution is not erased by 2000 years of philosophy and politics. That must inform our understanding when we deal with things like all the horrible isms. You can not point a finger and dismiss people and attribute these isms to them if the are drawn to them based on biological aspect that they themselves can not explain. It makes as much sense to deal with these people with antagonism as it makes sense to discriminate gay people. Now I agree that intolerance where ever it may be rooted, is difficult to "tolerate" (don't read between the lines here, it is just a technical term) the way we should tolerate things like homosexuality. And yet if things are biologically determined and we view the consequences as unpleasant, we need to understand them so we can deal with them the best way. People like Sam Adams can be correct about certain facts and problems, but still provide the solutions of a sociopath. I think Intentions matter and sometimes, they are all that matters.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 16 04:29:11 >>What is the difference in truth content between unfounded beliefs in biological determinism and unfounded beliefs in religious determinism?<< The difference is that unfounded scientific questions can be killed and relegated to history, while religious idiocy can linger on despite any evidence that is provided. It also matters what the specific claim is, an unfounded (error) scientific idea can provide an increase in knowledge even when it is wrong. But in general a falsehood is a falsehood no matter where it comes from.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Dec 16 04:31:04 for gods sake, "Applications of Evolutionary Psychology in Marketing" is dumbed down pop science extracted from more serious fields and from their context. ">>and its certainly not the smartest one.<< We totally agree, biological urges" We totally do not agree. What do you mean by urge? Drive? Instinct? xenophobia is not an instinct any more than being afraid of left handed people ie a drive or mice or spiders or cats or crowds or open spaces. its a clumsy, rudimentary decision based on lack of, or incorrect, information. "Our ancestors have been rewarded (with survival) " Youre back to that unfounded notion that survival is what its all about, the one you deny having or ever having heard of. "Our ancestors have been rewarded (with survival) precisely because of their propensity to overreact to perceived dangers. The cost of overreacting stands in relation to not reacting to a real danger quickly enough getting killed." The cost of bad decisions concerning perceived dangers based in what you think of as biologically deterministic can be gas chambers. but why are you mixing in ethics in this?
williamthebastard Member	Fri Dec 16 05:18:48 That a coalminer from yorkshire and an, in his opinion effeminate aristocrat from Kent, both have very different ideas, based in class, about what is manly or unmanly is an example of a whole script of gender acts that cannot possibly be hormonally or biologically rooted in determinism.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 16 05:25:15 You don't agree that all (clarification) biologically rooted behavior is not necessarily in our best interest? >>xenophobia is not an instinct<< Fight or flight when confronted with something foreign, has something to do with biology. Yes. >>its a clumsy, rudimentary decision based on lack of, or incorrect, information.<< Yes and so this leads me to again say, we agree. Like I explained it is better to run/kill and survive based on bad information than to die from your pragmatism. >>Youre back to that unfounded notion that survival is what its all about, the one you deny having or ever having heard of.<< Because something has evolutionary served a purpose, which survival has and does, it doesn't mean that this is the entire picture or what life is all about or should be about. This seems to be a point I have a difficult time getting across and resolve. >>The cost of bad decisions concerning perceived dangers based in what you think of as biologically deterministic can be gas chambers. but why are you mixing in ethics in this?<< I don't know if I get the first part. The last part, I don't that I have mixed it in, ethical concerns are always there, for me at least.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Dec 16 05:26:57 "Fight or flight when confronted with something foreign, has something to do with biology. Yes. " Big difference to being the root. ">>its a clumsy, rudimentary decision based on lack of, or incorrect, information.<< Yes and so this leads me to again say, we agree." a clumsy, rudimentary decision based on lack of, or incorrect, information is not a biologically determnistic cause.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 16 05:30:34 >>both have very different ideas, based in class, about what is manly or unmanly is an example of a whole script of gender acts that cannot possibly be hormonally or biologically rooted in determinism.<< Can not possibly? It is like me saying, this could not possible be rooted in culture. Now I am not saying that this hypothetical scenario must be based in hormones or biology. But hypothetically, did someone check their hormones and biology? Did we correct our study for heritability? It seems that such questions are often avoided, precisely because of ethical concerns.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Dec 16 05:31:44 "Can not possibly? It is like me saying, this could not possible be rooted in culture. " Youre proposing social classes have different gender practices due to being biologically dofferent? Wow.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 16 05:49:32 >>a clumsy, rudimentary decision based on lack of, or incorrect, information is not a biologically determnistic cause.<< Well then we disagree. Individuals who in our evolutionary past overreacted to dangers, lived to produce offspring because if even if they were wrong, they still lived and presumably produced offspring likely to exhibit the same behavior. Now those who were pragmatic towards the supposed danger, many of them died. And yes some of them survived and discovered new and great things possibly leading to more offspring and prosperity and perhaps It is all part of who we are. So the selection bias is not so much against the curious and pragmatic people as it is for the rudimentary and clumsy, it allows for the trait to persist and spread.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Dec 16 05:54:58 We also disagree on the fact that proposing different social classes have different gender practices based in a different biology, an extremely, shall we say, controversial claim, is an equally valid to argument to proposing that different social classes have different gender practices based in social practices, an extremely non-controversial claim that is considered basic obviousness in science, and a number of other things. ">>a clumsy, rudimentary decision based on lack of, or incorrect, information is not a biologically determnistic cause.<< Well then we disagree. Individuals who in our evolutionary past overreacted to dangers, lived to produce offspring because if even if they were wrong, they still lived " Again, utterly no base. People who overreacted to dangers might just as well have run off the edge of cliffs - if theres anything crisis management experts recommend, its not panicking. Not to mention that when members of the same organism have wildly different reactions, the reaction is probably not biologically deterministic.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Dec 16 06:00:25 But tell me more about this thing about different social classes having different gender practices based in different biology? That sounds like very exciting, cutting edge stuff
williamthebastard Member	Fri Dec 16 06:05:48 Because, basically, you just equated a common scientific theory with the plot of an H. G. Wells science fiction movie.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Dec 16 06:33:09 "Individuals who in our evolutionary past overreacted to dangers, lived to produce offspring because if even if they were wrong" I shudder to think how highly strung we must be to be the product of incrementally increasing over reactions to danger for a 100,000 years. Then again, maybe that explains a lot of things.
Wrath of Orion Member	Fri Dec 16 15:03:51 "Because emotions and finding small cute animals adorable is something biologically unique to females? Is that what you think I believe? Anyway your observation is indeed funny given the image people seem to have of me in this thread. The crying Iranian, chihuahua owner who spends some of his past time instructing his (at times imbecilic) brother in laws that men who wear make up are not "weird" and that homosexuality is not "unnatural" as they would call it. Trying to teach them acceptance and plurality, which they need, growing up without a father and in one the cities worst neighborhoods, bumping into other imbecilic men. It is tragically funny." Thank you for essentially proving my point. lmfao
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Dec 17 05:16:53 >>proposing different social classes have different gender practices based in a different biology, an extremely, shall we say, controversial claim<< There is nothing going on in human affairs where genes and biology do not matter. From our cultures and emotions to our sciences, senses and arts, these are all things that exist inside biological brains, understood through biological senses. It takes place within the constraints and limits of our biological bodies. >>Again, utterly no base. People who overreacted to dangers might just as well have run off the edge of cliffs<< So this would be another selection, individuals who panic and run to their death, don't grow up to have offspring. >>Not to mention that when members of the same organism have wildly different reactions, the reaction is probably not biologically deterministic.<< This would probably make sense, if we all had the same genes, but since members of any group of organisms have different genes, it makes no sense to expect the same behaviors from everyone. >>Because, basically, you just equated a common scientific theory with the plot of an H. G. Wells science fiction movie.<< Yes yes, you understand my position perfectly I have a 4chan understanding of yours. >>100,000 years. Then again, maybe that explains a lot of things.<< Evolution and life has been around for a couple of year (at least) longer than that. You think everything we are today evolved during the final 100 000 years of modern humans? Of course you don't. So what do you mean? Life in the evolutionary rat race is ruthless, perfect for producing "high strung" individuals. Humans are the only species to have removed themselves from the food chain, completely. We did that by pretty much killing or containing everything that posed a threat to us. If I am wrong, I want you to clarify here, I don't want to misrepresent your views. You do not believe that biological difference matter for behavior or that to the extent that they do these effects are trivial. I think you put a heavy emphasis on social constructionism.
williamthebastard Member	Sat Dec 17 05:26:59 >>Because, basically, you just equated a common scientific theory with the plot of an H. G. Wells science fiction movie.<< Yes yes, you understand my position perfectly I have a 4chan understanding of yours. " You equated a sci fi plot with basic beginners 101 scientific theory, and now youre trying to dismiss that with me not understanding you. Read here: "You said: ""Can not possibly? It is like me saying, this could not possible be rooted in culture. " Im not even going to try further.
williamthebastard Member	Sat Dec 17 05:41:07 Saying its even possible that social classes have different gender pratices due to different biology is so ridiculous (extremely fascist, too) I have to assume that you're way too lost in this positivism, I-only-believe-what-I-can-fuck-or-kill, viewpoint for any debate on such matters to be interesting.
williamthebastard Member	Sat Dec 17 05:47:21 You need to immediately give up all pretences of believing in a meritoratic system given that you believe that it might be completely impossible (class migration is completely imposible if class is biological).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Dec 17 06:08:16 >>Im not even going to try further.<< Then don't!!!! I think I have given you time and patience. All this act from your part, raising your hands in frustration because you fail to get your point across, lol what the fuck is that? Let's be fucking honest WTB, how much time have you spent trying to clarify what you mean? Correct things that I might have misunderstood about your position and what you are saying? Bare minimum, I just asked you a DIRECT question about my view on your position, no reply from you, no feedback. A dialogue is never better than the people engaging in it, the effort that is put in to it. Anyway, I will never give on you, I will be here. We don't have to agree, and even if my summary of your position is correct I have no bad feelings towards you, I don't think you are an idiot, a moral degenerate or an enabler. I think you are a good person with a different POV, at worst you are mistaken, at best misunderstood by me or a mix of both. Live long a prosper V_
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Dec 17 06:18:17 >>(class migration is completely imposible if class is biological)<< Only if someone believes that genes are all that matter, does not understand that environments effect expression of genes, you know the accumulated human understanding of biology. If we disregard all that then yes. Providing a biological explanation does not exclude the nurture end of the spectrum, biological determinism does not necessarily imply biological fatalism.
Seb Member	Sat Dec 17 17:22:41 Nim: Sorry, been on a long car trip and now I see a wall of WtB posts. Is it rude to assume the conversation has moved on? As I said, I didn't say you were bigoted - prejudice meaning having decided it was biological in cause you started inventing scientific sounding explanations which weren't actually reflective of the actual literature.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Dec 18 03:30:21 If I would revise anything seb it would me making it sound like intersex people are all that make up the transgender debate. Attempting to talk about something specific it sounded definitive and excluding other people with different circumstances. But really prejudice or bigot, I don't know that there is a difference in the context of the wider debate going on? Prejudice is certainly not a virtue. But I think the evidence disagree with the sentiment that there is no reason to think this has to do with mental health. Gender and the theory behind it gender theory is a social science theory that divorces human social behavior completely from biology. The type of gender fluidity we are talking about is a product of that theory. I remain completely unconvinced in those theories ability to explain and predict human behavior. That in and of itself does not mean that everything I say about the pathology and so on must be true, but it puts into to question the definition of "gender" and if there are any good reasons to believe it is infinitly fluid and divorced from biology. I mean, what does gender theory explain that is not already explained by evolutionary theories on behavior? What predictions have it made? On what evidence are the 54 genders based on? etc. Now, there is without a doubt a social and cultural aspect of this topic and it is rooted in the gender theory that is taught in the social sciences and humanities of western academia. It is taught as a science and pushed as a human rights issue. To me it is clear that it is pseudoscentific nonsense that can make young and already confused people question their identity and undergo changes that can not be undone, changes to some fundamental aspects of their biology. It is a very complicated issue and topic, with many parts we do not fully understand. The complexity is much greater than Islamophobia and racism, topics which are already not as clear cut as we sometime believe.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Dec 18 03:52:43 If you have 7 minutes, this in part explains my own sentiment on the cultural/social aspects of what is going on and it ties very well into the orginal post of the orginal thread (Oxford). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8BRdwgPChQ
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Dec 18 05:37:35 But I do appreciate the crowd you were addressing in that thread. Given the unfortunate war like nature of discussions in politics sometimes we shoot friendlies. The fortunate part is that unlike real war, we can in the aftermath clarify and correct them. On a moral level I see few differences worth mentioni g between us. Once we get past definitions and get down to practical matters I think we would check 9 out 10 boxes. With WTB I have to be honest, I have no idea what his position is, he seems to think they require no explanation at all. He flails with his hands that I have misunderstood him (which we can all experience), but provides no correction, no clarification nothing, maybe he will quote an ambigious phrase. Sadly this would not be the first time I (or others) have been confronted with such a dilemma talking with someone from social science and humanities. Because to them, questioning their definition of "gender identity" and the theories behind them is tantamount to questioning and invalidating peoples existences (their own words). There are popular ideas floating around in the social sciences around such concept as truth, knowledge, power and dialogue that come from people like Foucault, Deridda and other names that escape me, and put into practice today they promote obscurantism and produces theories that violate everything you and I learned about biology. Now there is a merit to one idea put forward by Foucault I think, that paradigms and structures should be questioned, but you can't question them with crappy/no science/evidence and the theories put in their place have to actually provide better explanations and predictions. Why am I telling you this? Because I don't think you are aware of them, you have probably filled your days with other more useful things, just make sure your ticket matches with the train you have boarded.
williamthebastard Member	Sun Dec 18 06:56:25 Because all you want to do is stay scientific and sensibly debate the merits of things like different social classes having different gender practices due to having different biologies. When will you sensibly explain the science of that theory to us silly children?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Dec 18 07:47:32 Up until "the merits of things" beyond that you have my position wrong, I objected to your "can not possibly be" and asked some relevant question as to how you excluded biology completely from your hypothetical. I am still waiting on some kind of answer, have I misunderstood your position? What have I misunderstood, please clarify. I think it is only fair given that I have not deflected your questions and provided clarifications when asked, despite thinly veiled insults and admission on your part of not reading what I say. I gave you a 2 hour >debate< where someone argues what I believe to be your position, your response was explicitly clear in how dismissivly you flicked through it. Out of respect and fairness I gave you the opportunity to provide 2 hours or so for me to invest. Nothing WTB, not a god dam thing, but your frustration over me not understanding a position you just refuse to explain. You have had 300 posts to explain what I am getting wrong about you, you have deflected and dismissed every opportunity to do do. I have tried to convey to you that I am genuinly interested in understanding you. We might still disagree, but until the strawmen and 4chan understanding has been put aside, we can never know to what extent we actually disagree. You think I am not frustrated with your inaccurate 4chan understanding of biology? To the best of my ability I try to explain it, when I come short I try to provide sources that can explain better. Still nothing from you. Any way I am done providing answers for now, we have been travelling this one way street for too long.
williamthebastard Member	Sun Dec 18 07:55:42 Again: I have no interest in reading or responding to utter fiction such as Foucault didnt believe in medicines, nietzsche didint believe in ToE, I dont believe in Excluding biology completley from relevant matters. All this is your fictio, all incorrect. However, this is not my fiction, this is what you states, so again: When will you sensibly explain the science of that theory to us silly children?
williamthebastard Member	Sun Dec 18 08:03:14 Im not going to defend claims I utterly do not believe in because thats not sensible debate in any possible meaning. When will you defend your actual claims that you actually do believe in? Perposterous, of course, to try to equate them. But then again, this is the well established plague of our era.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Dec 18 09:45:41 >>Im not going to defend claims I utterly do not believe in because thats not sensible debate in any possible meaning.<< Me neither. Merry Christmas.
williamthebastard Member	Sun Dec 18 10:43:43 >>both have very different ideas, based in class, about what is manly or unmanly is an example of a whole script of gender acts that cannot possibly be hormonally or biologically rooted in determinism.<< Can not possibly? It is like me saying, this could not possible be rooted in culture." But, you see, in this post-truth era, you simply lie. Explain - once more - how your theory that different gender actions in different classes is based in differential biological determination in different social classes ( a theory we havent heard much about since the 1700s) is equal to the common, basic scientific theory that they are based in social constructions? See, I've asked you to defend something you actually argue. You ask me to defend things neither foucault, nietzsche or I have ever remotely believed. Fake claims and real claims are as different as fake news and real news. So, please explain the theory you actually do propose.
williamthebastard Member	Sun Dec 18 10:45:02 Then, If you ever ask me to defend a theory I actually do believe in, I'll try
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Dec 18 12:38:37 What if your hypothetical person, was hypothetically low intelligence or born wity a learning/reading disability and he ended up in the bottom rungs of society because of that? With proper structures born in different time he could have become. Or he was born with naturally higher levels of testosterone enabling much riskier behavior and propensity to resort to violence? What about this: Impulsivity is both a facet of personality and a major component of various disorders, including ADHD,[7] substance use disorders,[8][9] bipolar disorder,[10] antisocial personality disorder,[11] and borderline personality disorder.[10] Impulsiveness may also be a factor in procrastination.[12] Abnormal patterns of impulsivity have also been noted instances of acquired brain injury[13] and neurodegenerative diseases.[14] Neurobiological findings suggest that there are specific brain regions involved in impulsive behavior,[15][16][17] although different brain networks may contribute to different manifestations of impulsivity,[18] and that genetics may play a role.[19] Study on the genetics of impulsivity http://www...icles/PMC3638385/#!po=0.229358 Study on the genetics of addiction http://www.addictionsandrecovery.org/is-addiction-a-disease.htm And addiction can be many things, not just substance abuse. If you come out of the womb wired in such a way that your brain rewards you for quick thrills, you would agree, this is big disadvantage in the socioeconomic game? Do you think these factors play a role in determining economic success? Could your hypothetical scenario possibly (just possibly) be the result of biology given what we know about the genetics of these two (there are others) factors that can impact success?
williamthebastard Member	Sun Dec 18 12:41:31 I see, coalminers are generally equated with ADHD and hypothetically low intelligence. Nice one, mate.
williamthebastard Member	Sun Dec 18 12:42:29 I wonder, do you also believe the difference between islam and christianity is biological?
williamthebastard Member	Sun Dec 18 12:46:58 Youre actually saying, at its base, that the upper class have more biologically correct gender practices than the working, right? Thats the consequences of your theory?
williamthebastard Member	Sun Dec 18 12:51:23 Remember, you started off arguing for the "root" cause. Thus, the the root cause that you've offered for the working class generally across the board having very different gender practices from the upper class, is due to the working class across the board generally having low IQ and ADHD. Naturally, this then poses the issue of biologically inferior working class and superior upper class beings.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Dec 18 13:03:11 lol so the goal post have shifted now? Your claim was it could not possibly be, I have provided evidence of the contrary, it can possibly be. Now you want a broader and more general explanation? We would be venturing into things I have never asserted, that everything can be explained by biology. Anyway now would be the time to retract that statement. If you can't do that, then I am not dealing with an honest person.
williamthebastard Member	Sun Dec 18 13:03:50 You think men using perfume, or extending the pinky when drinking tea, contrary to the working class, is the result of a higher and more healthy IQ...this is sad. Its ridiculous, goal post shifting, my little idiot buddy. Or do you want to recant the idea that addicts, stupid people and people suffering from ADHD is not a very well thought out, and rather disconcerting, representation of a class that broadly has different gender practices?
williamthebastard Member	Sun Dec 18 13:04:14 Its ridiculous, no goal post shifting
williamthebastard Member	Sun Dec 18 13:05:27 "Your claim was it could not possibly be" Still could ot possibly be that your subset represents a much larger group not at all inflicted with various mental illneses. Its an idiotic supremacist theory
williamthebastard Member	Sun Dec 18 13:06:15 Youre a total nazi, man, without realizing it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Dec 18 13:06:18 Ah yes the next mythical lie has already taken root, "generally". LOL anyway it is here for everyone to see.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Dec 18 13:07:26 Let it all out buddy.
williamthebastard Member	Sun Dec 18 13:07:52 "generally". Yes, the gender practices across the classes is far, far, far more broader than your subest of ADHD victims in one of the groups. You fucking moron. Merry eugenics xmas!
	show deleted posts