Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Mar 29 02:05:35 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / My son is resisting
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 21 01:00:41
My attempts of raising him gender neutral.

He has a whole range of toys, but he seems fascinated by wheels and everything that has wheels and will not play with soft animals. They are building outside where we live and he likes to look at those trucks as well.

Alas it has spread to his choice of cartoons, his face shines up when there is a firetruck on making noises or any other vehicle that makes vehicle noises. He is making vehicle noises.

I don’t know what to do, me and my wife see no other option, we are going to take him to the hospital and... put him down..
Forwyn
Member
Fri Sep 21 01:07:39
Toxic masculinity claims another.

F
Pillz
Member
Fri Sep 21 01:43:18
F
Aeros
Member
Fri Sep 21 01:55:16
Funny, my daughter is going for dolls and disney princess stuff. She's not even 3 yet and already is brainwashed by the patriarchy
obaminated
Member
Fri Sep 21 01:56:45
yes, it turns out that males have different brains than women. something only seb disputes.
Seb
Member
Fri Sep 21 02:32:54
Obaminated:

And neuroscientists.

So my daughter at 2 went through a princess phase. Then we realised she picked it up from Peppa pig which is very explicit about what's for boys and what's for girls.

Now she's into paw patrol but was rather dissapointed because she thought the cool things were only for boys because "they arent pink".

Unless your kid is in a hermetically sealed room, they pick up social norms like a sponge from about 3-6 months onward.

obaminated
Member
Fri Sep 21 02:39:06
lol, you are going to raise a basket-case
Paramount
Member
Fri Sep 21 02:39:27
"his face shines up when there is a firetruck on making noises"


Try giving him a Lady Gaga doll that is making noises. Maybe he will like that too.
Pillz
Member
Fri Sep 21 03:00:56
Neurosciencists most definitely do not believe men and women have identical brains.
Average Ameriacn
Member
Fri Sep 21 03:10:16
Isn't he interested in guns yet?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 21 03:16:44
>>they pick up social norms like a sponge from about 3-6 months onward.<<

Nope. But please do provide a link.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 21 03:21:59
>>Average Ameriacn
Member Fri Sep 21 03:10:16
Isn't he interested in guns yet?<<

I have tried playing "war" with him, but he gets scared when I mimic the roar of a jet engine, he does enjoy getting bombed with tickle missiles however.

Hot Rod
Revved Up
Fri Sep 21 03:39:21

Sounds like he is going to grow to be a man's man.

Good for him. I have a feeling they are going to be in short supply 30 or 40 years from now.



Tell him about WWII. That is a war without all of this new fangled crap.

jergul
large member
Fri Sep 21 03:46:33
Nimi
He prolly just finds it unrealistic. You should simply tickle-bomb him without warning. Perhaps at night while he sleeps.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Fri Sep 21 03:49:30

LOL, did your dad do that to you jergul and do you do it to your son(s)?

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 21 04:53:31
This is actually an evolutionary psychological prediction that turned out to be false. The testosterone level of men goes up while driving a fast sports car. The prediction was that it wouldn't go up if he is driving alone on an empty road, but it turned out to be false, testo levels go up regardless if he is on a empty road or a busy street.

During the toddler phase and in the womb, boys are bombarded with testosterone. Then later the tsunami of puberty.

The effects of testosterone is visible in physiology (digit ratio among them) and brain morphology (larger brains) etc. even in women who have for various reasons received abnormal levels of testosterone in utero. The effects are medically termed "masculinization".

In this case, boys are not intrinsically wired to like cars specifically (since cars are a new phenomena), but perhaps _things_ that move mechanically and make certain appealing noises. In this context this could be a "digg digg excavator digg digg digg" :) I am sorry my brain is damaged. Anyways in another context it could be a boat or something else. But universally in modern societies, sports cars are a marker for status. Which a toddler doesn't understand, despite the claim of soaking up societal norms. He does understand movement and noise however. That is about what 3-6 month olds are soaking up.

Another example to illustrate the dynamics, religiosity is 0.5 heritable, so who becomes religious is in part a matter of genes, but what religion you end up in, is by and large a question of which culture you are born and raised into.

Amazing that this was theorized over 150 years ago, but still educated people do not understand even roughly how it fits together.

****

It has been quite funny at kindergarten, his fascination with wheels (allegedly very common with boys) hearing all the old ladies at the school, "it is biological, all boys love cars!". The old ladies didn't go through the gender neutral pedagogy education so they don't know biology stopped mattering sometime during the 70's in Sweden.

I am just saying, I have been and will be very careful what I foist on my son, but at 1 years old he seems to come pre-packaged with certain desires and preferences. I have no idea why he whines when I play one cartoon and smiles and claps when he sees excavators and fire trucks. I certainly have no fascination with excavators that I tried to teach him. I still remember because it was only a couple of months ago, I randomly played this song for him

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAggvgBtOxI

He was mesmerized. RED FIRE TRUCK! WEEEEEE WOOOOOO. How? Who? When? Testicles, me, november 2017. Just like that.
Paramount
Member
Fri Sep 21 05:03:33
"smiles and claps when he sees excavators and fire trucks."


Do you think he is into muscular firefigthers?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 21 05:13:38
He has not soaked up that much social norms yet :)
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 21 05:27:19
I think I can relate to the fascination of wheels indirectly. There are many many times I am observing my son and I have a sense of deja vu as he is engaged in some activity. I can see it through his eyes the sense of awe and wonder. He is fascinated the way any of us is fascinated by magic tricks, but his entire world is full of magic tricks with rather mundane explanations. How does this thing work? We all have memories like that and from when the magic unravels, ohh it's a round thing on an stick...
Paramount
Member
Fri Sep 21 05:43:38
”I think I can relate to the fascination of wheels indirectly.”

Your child probably sees this.

I think a child might be fascinated by most things that his or her parent brings him. Especially if it is making funny noises. And maybe of the child sees fascination on your face and if you make funny noises, then the child knows that the object you brought to him/her is something to like.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 21 06:17:34
I have no fascination with wheels for him to see though. I may have been fascinated by wheels as a toddler, I don't know, have to ask mom and dad. My earliest memory of diverging from liking cars (like many men), was when I turned 5 and my parents choose anything and the guy at the counter showed me a car that changed color when it got wet (but I wanted lego). I was not impressed by the car, it was just a car, the lego, well that could be anything. I have pictures of me with a rifle I built with lego :)
Paramount
Member
Fri Sep 21 06:23:50
I wanted Meccano:

http://www...YBKkQ_AUICigB&biw=1268&bih=851


but all I got was Lego. Lego was okay, but Meccano always looked to be more interesting for some reason. Maybe because of all the metal.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 21 06:24:30
What I relate to is the sense of wonder when he is looking at and spinning the wheel. It is a strange feeling, as if some fuzzy memory that I shouldn't have is coming back. And it feels like 1 year old me was also spinning a wheel, wondering what it is and how it works.

But you know mostly he is just insane, impossible and easily indignant.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 21 06:39:06
Meccano, that is for grown up kids!

http://www...kZBwRiCQ#imgrc=kw1IhvgJQk9gzM:

I played with lego basic components and if someone gave me a prepackaged thing with a "blue print" I would rarely if ever build that thing, I would use the parts for other things waiting in the shipyard.

Much older (14) having given up lego I worked in a daycare for 2 days as part of a school activity. They had legos of course. So I built something inspired by a Klingon Bird of prey, it with movable wings and EVERYTHING!

It was a master piece and I liked it so much that I smuggled it out with me :/ (yes I stole from little kids) and I still have it 23 years later in my drawer. Every time I have moved and gotten rid of old shit, this thing, I couldn't throw it away. LOL :D
hood
Member
Fri Sep 21 07:17:24
"he does enjoy getting bombed with tickle missiles however."

Idk why but tickle missiles amused me. Maybe it was the rhyme?

.... Back the fuck up with those hands, Nim.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 21 07:30:54
Hehe it does :) I never thought of that.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 21 07:42:12
paramount
"I think a child might be fascinated by most things that his or her parent brings him. Especially if it is making funny noises. And maybe of the child sees fascination on your face and if you make funny noises, then the child knows that the object you brought to him/her is something to like."

I think we can all agree that kids do what they see, monkey see monkey do. But they don't do everything they see, they don't even see everything there to see, to do. The question then is, why do some people see and do certain things and not others. He doesn't like everything I do or sees, it is through an exhausting process of trial and error that pappa clown figures it out :D
Seb
Member
Fri Sep 21 08:26:45
pillz:

Not the same thing to say "There isn't such a thing as an archetyple male and female brain" and "all brains are identical".

The current thinking is there are a number of different features that vary on a continuum.

Statistically some of those features correlate with sex, others don't so much.

But you can't treat "the brain" as an undivided whole and say "there is an archetypal male brain and an archetyple female brain".

And biologically and genetically, there is actually a growing school of thought that's noticing that intersex is a biological thing.

The binary model of sex is a somewhat useful tool, but there is a whole host of stuff that doesn't work very well until you accept it's a bit more complex.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 21 09:01:50
>>"all brains are identical".<<

Yes pillz, you dope, stop saying that all brains are identical. Oh wait...
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Fri Sep 21 09:22:57
@Nimatzo

this might help,

Pop'n'Olly
http://www.youtube.com/user/ollysp
Pillz
Member
Fri Sep 21 10:33:06
Where does Seb get this shit from?
Paramount
Member
Fri Sep 21 10:37:55
”The question then is, why do some people see and do certain things and not others.”

I don’t know, but I would guess that a parent is unconsciously sending signals to its children which influences or tells the child what to do. It may be your face expression, your tone of voice, your body language, etc.

If you have a barbie doll to the left and a firetruck to the right and you tell yourself that you will let your boy pick for himself what he wants to play with, and if he the first time picks the barbie doll then he will sense and maybe see your disappointment and the fear in your eyes that you think he is queer because he picked the barbie doll. So the next time maybe he will pick the firetruck and then he will see a relieved and happy father, so then the boy knows which toy to continue to play with. He will likely pick the firetruck again.
The Children
Member
Fri Sep 21 10:39:41
ur son sounds like a douchebag...

like father like son.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Fri Sep 21 11:11:13

Nim, too bad you and your son were not around during the 50's and 60's when all of the muscle cars were around. They were a blast.

You might look around for some of the kits, they don't make a lot of noise but they were beautiful cars with big engines.

Seb
Member
Fri Sep 21 11:25:06
Nim/Pillz:

Pillz says that neuroscientists do not believe that men and women have identical brains.

But I did not say that neuroscientists believe they were identical. I disputed "males and females have different brains" as I have made clear, not because they think everyone has the same archetype (or as pillz phrased it, identical), but because increasingly they don't think the binary categorisation "male" and "female" works that well.

If you are objecting to the word "all" be clear I'm using it to mean "all types of people", and "identical" in whatever sense pillz did which I understood to be "of the same type".

If you are confused, it's because you don't understand the salient points: the categorisation doesn't work and pillz language is absurd.

Paramount:

Yup, a fair few papers showing that parents can direct infants attention this way, and well known parental attention modifies behaviour from 3 months.

obaminated
Member
Fri Sep 21 11:43:58
yeah, there is no such thing as male and female, good point seb.
Dukhat
Member
Fri Sep 21 11:46:38
Confirmation bias as a thread. Nothing useful learned at all. I feel sorry for Nimatzo's kids. Their dad is so obsessed about identity issues instead of being a genuinely good father looking at issues holistically.
Seb
Member
Fri Sep 21 11:52:45
Obaminated:

Not quite right either.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 21 12:01:20
Seb
Let do this one more time.

Obaminated
”yes, it turns out that males have different brains than women. something only seb disputes.”

Seb
”And neuroscientists.”

Do neuroscientist dispute that men and women have different brains?

Rugian
Member
Fri Sep 21 12:05:11
Unfortunately, we live in an era where the elites are systematically trying to feminize society. If you want your son to grow into a real man, you need to start giving him Super Male Vitality immediately.

http://www.infowarsstore.com/super-male-vitality.html
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 21 12:09:08
Seb
Pillz
”Neurosciencists most definitely do not believe men and women have identical brains.”

Do neuroscientist believe men and women have identical brains?

The answer is no to both questions.

Team Pillz/Obaminated 2 (1 own goal)
Team seb 0

Carry on.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 21 12:11:55
Rugian
Vegan, gluten free AND Made in America? Sold!
Seb
Member
Fri Sep 21 14:35:33
Nim:

The statement "men and women have different brains" implies that there is such a meaningful thing as "male type brain" and a "female type brain" and these are different.

This statement is incorrect.

The state of the field over the last five years has moved towards an idea that no, there isn't a broadly male type brain and a broadly female type brain.

Instead there are a bunch of features all of which are on a spectrum, some of which are more frequent in men, others in women - but not necessarily correlated with each other. The result is you can't definitively assign a "sex" to the brain.

Therefore, saying "men and women have different brains" is potentially as meaningless as saying "blue eyed people and brown eyed people have different brains". The categorisation approaches arbitrary.

Or to put it another way: if men and women have different brains, then starting only from brain structure, you should be able to identify the sex of the individual to a very good degree of accuracy, and actually it looks like we can't do that well.

And here's the kicker, a bunch of features correlate with different types of intersex. E.g. there are men who don't have y chromosomes but have all the secondary sex characteristics of men and none of women. Unsurprisingly, in important ways they differ from men who have xy and women.

Bottom line: No, cutting edge neuroscience does not unanimously believe there men and women's brains are different: they think it's far more complex than a binary categorization.


Pillz mistake is to think that to not believe in a binary categorisation means there is only one type of brain, and they claim that this idea is rejected. It is true, but a straw man as nobody claims that.


You remain really crap at logic.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 21 15:39:42
There is such a thing as a male brain and female brain according to neuroscience. 3 - 0
Waffeling about ”on a spectrum” here without also mentioning or perhaps even not appreciating bimodal distribution, is worthless sebsplaining.

Oh wait it gets better, you think outliers are relevant here. Some people are 2.2 meter tall. How interesting.

”brains, then starting only from brain structure, you should be able to identify the sex of the individual to a very good degree of accuracy, and actually it looks like we can't do that well.”

Yes. With some certainty, we can. Male brains are on average larger. Is this you again pinning your hopes in the fog provided by the current generation of instruments?

”Cutting edge neuroscience” sounds like cutting edge BS, you know most new ideas are terrible, right? So I will look at the not so ”cutting edge neuroscience”. In the real world the neuroscience of sex differences is the study of the brain differences in the sexually dimorphic species of humans.

Seb
Member
Sat Sep 22 13:03:43
Nim:

A bimodal distribution where a large fraction of men have lots of features of "female" brains and vice versa makes a bit of a mockery of the idea of there being such a thing as a male type of brain and a female brain.

Are those men with lots of female brain features actually women?

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Sep 23 05:43:33
The overlap varies (even outside the brain) depending on what trait we are looking at. Is the claim now that if things overlap, we can't differentiate them? We can scan brains and with some degree of certainty tell the sex of the brain, you said we couldn't do this "well". Which given your bar for evidence when it comes to things you don't like, I guess means 99.99967%.

You should stop talking to this strawman where men and women are different species. The differences are within that frame, some of them big, some insignificant, others moderate etc. That is the data.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Sep 23 05:46:12
*99.99966%. I don't want to exaggerate.
jergul
large member
Sun Sep 23 07:29:26
Does mean we can move forward to identify the specific pathology and work towards minimizing hormon impact causing a huge array of undesirable symptoms?

It could be that the yx chromosone combination is viable for as long as hormon intervention takes place at an early enough stage in fetus development.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Sep 23 07:50:37
We talk of tails in plurals. All the geniuses are almost all men. Many of them have a mild form of autism or ADHD. So sure talk of the tailS. They are part of the same spectrum and produced by the same processes.

I think not only shouldn't you speak about this, given the history your ethnic group has with trying to weed out "undesirables" or alter population biology, you should stop making social policies all together. No one has the kind of actionable answers with the rigorous causal links required.
jergul
large member
Sun Sep 23 08:10:44
Yes, the lapplander (sami) scourge and its endless commitment to weeding out undesirables.

The only shocking thing I see is that women still give birth to male children at all. It makes little sense.
jergul
large member
Sun Sep 23 08:18:41
Hmm, let me see. Yah, I'll take the off-spring with higher mortality in every age category, with a higher risk of incarceration for serious crimes, and the greatest chance of faling out of society.

Its a crazy option, given the choice. And well, we are at a point where gender is a choice.

Ideal plan:

20 years old - freeze eggs.
45 years old - IVF, opt for female.
Repeat until desirable number of off-spring reached.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Sep 23 08:29:26
Your country, your socialist brothers. Many roads led to hell.

It makes a lot of sense if you take into account than women love men. It may not be obvious to everyone that this is the case.

If you are already that far technology wise in your fantasy, then why not just remove the genes responsible for anti social behavior? One must not use a broad sword, where the scalpel is enough.
jergul
large member
Sun Sep 23 08:33:59
Nimi
I think that is what I just said. Though as you point out, it may not be genes so much has hormonal impact in vulnerable stages of development.

Don't blame the xy. Blame the hormones that causes xy to degrade.

jergul
large member
Sun Sep 23 08:37:03
I am fine with people giving birth to children that are male, or have downes syndrome, or any other genetic illness.

But is it really something you should choose if it could be avoided at conception?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Sep 23 09:07:31
”Blame the hormones”

No. Things like ADHD and Autism are linked to genes and heritable. Anti social behavior as well. Linkes have been made to specific genes for some of cognitive diseases, but too early.


Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Sep 23 09:07:57
You should want a boy if you want more awesome.
jergul
large member
Sun Sep 23 11:34:23
"According to a female protective effect hypothesis more extreme genetic mutations are required for a girl to develop autism than for a boy. In 2012, Harvard researchers published findings suggesting that, on average, more genetic and environmental risk factors are required for girls to develop autism, compared to boys. The researchers analyzed DNA samples of nearly 800 families affected by autism and nearly 16,000 individuals with a variety of neurodevelopmental disorders. They looked for various types of gene mutations. Overall, they found that females diagnosed with autism or another neurodevelopmental disorder had a greater number of harmful mutations throughout the genome than did males with the same disorders"

"Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) are currently more commonly diagnosed in males, with a ratio of about 1 female for every 4 males diagnosed"

Hormon intervention could reduce autism diagnosis by 80%.
jergul
large member
Sun Sep 23 11:34:33
wiki
Seb
Member
Sun Sep 23 11:36:21
Nim:
Given intersex alone is like, 1 in 1500, I think 99.999967 is somewhat an exageration.

Put it this way, if say, brown eyes were 90% more common in women than men, would we say brown eyes are a feminine trait?
Seb
Member
Sun Sep 23 11:39:44
Sorry, that's ambiguous genitalia. Covering the full range of systemic you can break the defined female/male binary it's estimated at 1.7% of the population.
jergul
large member
Sun Sep 23 11:53:16
Nimi
The point I am trying to make is that it is non-constructive to use gender to explain stuff.

There is nothing new will thinking flaws should be protected. Down syndrome for example, or the deaf community. Both are highly sceptical of measures that would eradicate recruitment into those groups.

I trust that you do accept a lot of flaws follow from "males" if we consider "females" to be baseline normal.

So lets not do that.
jergul
large member
Sun Sep 23 11:57:01
Incidentally, being attracted to hard, faceless objects could be symptomatic of autismlike traits.

Males being more attracted to trucks than dolls because trucks lack faces and are hard, not fuzzy bordered.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Sep 23 12:01:11
can't rule out mechanophilia
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Sep 24 08:34:28
"Hormon intervention could reduce autism diagnosis by 80%."

It's still no, it isn't this simple. I mean even you have to think here jergul. Extreme mutations needed for the sex that has 2 of the same chromosomes. Hmmm so if you only have 1??

That testosterone plays a role is almost certain. It does for male pattern baldness, but not everyone goes bald, despite having testosterone. I am not sure I would want to weed out everyone with autism and ADHD, they likely stand for an obscene and disproportionate amount of output in society. We can't afford losing them (mostly men).

>>The point I am trying to make is that it is non-constructive to use gender to explain stuff.<<

It isn't well received or thought out. When describing large population outcomes with stat, that is precisely where these explanations come in. When groups/movements tell us group A is getting unjustifiably paid less, or we want more of group Z in category X and that the lack of is because of bias or something other that is unjust, then yes, that is precisely where these explanations on the group level come in to provide answers.


>>I trust that you do accept a lot of flaws follow from "males" if we consider "females" to be baseline normal.<<

But I can't trust that you accept the other end of the spectrum of, you will only ever talk about the criminals, murderers and undesirables. This is a difference between us, I don't cherry pick. Men dominate the following categories, rape, math, murder, physics, drug abuse, programmers and general stupid and reckless behavior which every now and then produces greatness. Women are on average more average.

So do you accept that all the greatest people are mostly men and will be men? Or do you believe the bigger die will only roll 1's and 2's?

>>So lets not do that.<<

lol you will never understand this, but you and I, we are playing two different games. One game is about better understanding things, the other game is you fighting some edgelord with your own edgy eugenics comments. Quite sad.


seb
People are born without eyes or eye sight, would you say humans having eyes exists along a continuum? Blind -> 20/20 vision. I am not asking you if you think we technically can say that it does, but what should the biology books say. Do you talk about human eye sight in this way? Or any other part of the human body? Every heritable genetic disease can be viewed as existing along a spectrum of genotypic expression. I know you do not like facile explanations. This is facile.

Genitals have a function, function that requires certain behavior to come to use. The rest is evolutionary history.

Here is a question back to jergul, should intersex people also be aborted? I mean, is it something parents should want?

Personally (if anyone wonders) my values would not allow this even if the evidence was clear. People regardless of gender or what "continuum" they exist on or think they exist on, have the same rights and obligations legally. We don't need to rethink human biology because 1 in 1500 people have an ambiguous genitalia or abnormalities in their chromosomes.

>>brown eyes were 90%<<
I am not interested in hypothetical things, there are plenty of studies on these topics and deal with bi-modality, you keep bringing up this buzzword "binary", the relevant science talks about bi-modality, that data is there for everyone to read.

You made a specific claim that we couldn't tell brains apart. If you are no longer making that claim then go in peace I am not here for a fight.

>>Covering the full range of systemic you can break the defined female/male binary it's estimated at 1.7% of the population.<<

Bi-modality. And 1.7% that is actually amazing, most manufactures who mass produce aspire to reach such a quality level. Your point is what?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Sep 24 08:58:01
>>Here is a question back to jergul, should intersex people also be aborted? I mean, is it something parents should want?<<

And to you as well seb, when you and your wife were expecting, did you hope a baby along the eye sight and number of fingers continuum? Along the genitalia continuum? Were you hoping for the 1.7% or the 98.3%? Is it "normal" to want an child who most likely can't have children of it's own?

*Correction your last usage of "binary" to describe the male-female binary, was correct. Of course legally I think it is reasonable and just to have a third category, it is just a fact of life.
jergul
large member
Mon Sep 24 09:06:02
Nimi
Wow. Wall of text.

I noted the word eugenics and have no idea where you got that from. Rational people making rational choices before conception does not eugenics make.

To your question: For every Einstein, is there a Curie? I dunno. Its hard to adjust for bias.

But measuring greatness in degrees of Savantism seems a bit far-fetched.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Sep 24 09:21:05
Small mistakes can take a lot of effort to clean up. This is especially true for complex topics such as this. Don't get scared bro.

>>I noted the word eugenics and have no idea where you got that from.<<

I equate the way you talk about males as a disease and "women will replace you" talk with the eugenics of the master race. I think it is fair, no one is forcing you to be so edgy, it is a choice, even here on UP.

>>To your question: For every Einstein, is there a Curie?<<

No, not according to the same standards/studies/data we would use to say that most rapist and murderers are men. It is just "facts". See I knew it :) you want to pick out the raisins out of a dry cake. I won't bother with that.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Sep 24 09:24:01
But also 40% of the wall is for seb. So he doesn’t miss it.
jergul
large member
Mon Sep 24 09:39:35
Nimi
Nothing edgy about it. I am always happy to explore male exceptionalism with you.

"#womenwillnotreplaceus"

Get the quote right.
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 24 10:02:11
Nim:

If intersex at 1.7% is dysfunction, are green eyes (2%) a dysfunction.

I think if you are prepared to say some humans have green eyes, you can be prepared to say also some men have two x chromosomes and no y chromosomes.

In any case, at best we are now down to a 98.3% accuracy for the binary sex model. Several orders of magnitude off your assertion!

You see, we should be led by data, not a model. A basic tennet of empiricism. What you are saying otherwise is "by observation is see two modes, so my model is there are two types. Any data that do not conform to my model are reality being wrong". At which point you've just declared biological sex a social construct.

Note, when it comes to brain structure there were iirc about ten features that varied independently on a spectrum by gender with little covariance on top of the intersex thing. Intersex was just a convenient unambiguous point to avoid diving into details you clearly won't understand (based on your willfull inability to deal honestly with the Guthub results).

So you have a bimodal spread over ten dimensions which is far more varied. How much of humanity are you going to label aberrations from your model?

Seb
Member
Mon Sep 24 10:06:22
I'm not sure why you are talking about what I wanted during pregnancy.

Surely that would only emphasise that your model is actually a social construct based on values humans place on it?

Not very scientific. The reality is as reality is.

If someone came up with an evolutionary rationale as to why intersex existed, would that suddenly make it valid for you?
Pillz
Member
Mon Sep 24 10:37:38
Not that I was following this thread, but is Seb claiming 98.3% of people lack binary gender?

jergul
large member
Mon Sep 24 10:41:40
Pillz
No.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Sep 24 11:41:44
My model of valuing an offspring that can procreate, has eyes and isn’t malformed, is socially constructed. Yes.

Thanks for playing.
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 24 11:52:02
Nim:

I thought we were arguing about biology, not sociology.

If it's a social construct, you've basically accepted the "gender theory" you rail against.

Are you saying you wouldn't value your child as much if they turned out to be infertile?
Pillz
Member
Mon Sep 24 12:01:09
Annnd Seb swoops in on a gust of stupid.
Nekran
Member
Mon Sep 24 12:05:21
"This is a difference between us, I don't cherry pick. Men dominate the following categories, rape, math, murder, physics, drug abuse, programmers and general stupid and reckless behavior which every now and then produces greatness. Women are on average more average."

Not only is that a pretty bad sales pitch, but women have hardly had access to education for a couple of decades... seems to me like you're making some seriously premature conclusions.
Pillz
Member
Mon Sep 24 12:13:03
Yeah, men's access to education was entirely universal and always has been.....
Nekran
Member
Tue Sep 25 03:17:15
Are you claiming there's been no difference in that department historically?
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 25 03:29:15
Pillz:

"Not that I was following this thread, but is Seb claiming 98.3% of people lack binary gender?"

LOL. Idiot.


Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Sep 25 04:07:59
>>Not only is that a pretty bad sales pitch, but women have hardly had access to education for a couple of decades... seems to me like you're making some seriously premature conclusions.<<

It isn't a "sales pitch", I am not trying to "sell" you anything. I don't think that women or men are any better than the other taken on the whole. You are playing the same game Jergul is playing. I refer you to the equality paradox, gender differences in STEM are larger in Sweden than Iran, larger in the UK than in Algeria.

You should pay attention to what I said.

"according to the same standards/studies/data we would use to say that most rapist and murderers are men."

Look at prison admissions and admissions to engineering. Same standard. We can look at behavioral genetic studies (same standard), same thing, men are more violent and interested in things. etc. and so on.

The difference Nekran, is I accept that both male violence and interest in engineering is partly or even mostly in the case of violence, due to biology. Because that is actually what the data shows. If I was doing what jergul does, I would say all the great things men do, that is inherent to their nature, but all this tragedy, well that is societies fault, or the result of bad mothers. If only their mothers have been more loving, they could fulfill the noble fate written in their DNA.

At some point the data may change (any which way), so will my opinion. I have no ideological dog in this fight, unlike jergul and seb. But they think I do, so we always end up playing two different games.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Sep 25 04:11:05
seb
I think that for some portion of the population, loving, worrying and wishing their children a healthy body and mind, is a social construct. Their lineage has survived because of herd immunity expressed in culture based on the _inherent feelings_ that all the other parents have towards their offspring. Mimicking others behavior can be beneficial.
So, I accept that in seb’s case, his kids would have likely died if the culture didn’t tell him to care for them, even punish him if he failed grossly and negligently. That is the underpinnings of not wanting a child with ambiguous genitalia or only 1 arm, because you care for them, because you understand (unlike a dog or a fish) by using your brain and available data that life will be more difficult for them, certain things will be out of their reach, the risk of failure much greater. Those are inherent feelings for most of us, that through history have been expressed in culture and with language, which for people who have the intellectual depth of a puddle, can only be understood in the first order.
Most animals care for their offspring, only humans can think so far ahead, assess risks, construct systems of values and not >want< their children to exist along the “eye sight and genitalia continuum”. Social constructs, the product of human brains, don’t exist in a vacuum, they are not built on thin air, they are fed by the world around us and our inherent instincts.

But I do accept that you may belong to the portion of the population I mentioned earlier, clearly there is variation in inherent parenting quality, that much is obvious.
jergul
large member
Tue Sep 25 04:18:17
No skin off my teeth on this issue. I just think its crazy to accentuate inherent gender differences when one gender is such a comparatively large fuck-up.

Gender equality is actually something males should strive to support. Because objectively, we don't make much sense.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Sep 25 04:28:13
>>Are you claiming there's been no difference in that department historically?<<

No the point pillz is making is that, the difference we measure today, in twins on heritability are independent of access to education, since they are measured in children and people without education, even in apes. So while historically certain domain were exclusively for men, they were only open to a very small minority of men, as was positions of power and access to resources. There is a historical fabrication and exaggeration central to the feminist narrative, that women poor women have historically been oppressed and excluded from everything. The truth is, that 99% of people where excluded and lived in relative poverty as farmers (if they were lucky) or subsistence farming if they were poor according to the standard of the time.

Here is the grain of truth. The 1% where almost exclusively all men. But wait a minute, didn’t their wives benefit from this? Did the male farmer really have more power and access to a better life than the noble lady? Doesn’t take much digging to unravel such ahistorical narrative.

Just keep in mind who has historically and still to this day driven the feminist agenda, it isn't lower class women. Doesn't mean they don't have good points, doesn't mean equality of opportunity is not an emergent truth we should adhere to and strive for, but caution is advised before drinking all the cool aid.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Sep 25 04:38:11
>>I just think its crazy to accentuate inherent gender differences when one gender is such a comparatively large fuck-up.<<

As I said earlier:

"When describing large population outcomes with stat, that is precisely where these explanations come in. When groups/movements tell us group A is getting unjustifiably paid less, or we want more of group Z in category X and that the lack of is because of bias or something other that is unjust, then yes, that is precisely where these explanations on the group level come in to provide answers."

We disagree on the usefulness of population level statistics and it's relevance for social "inequality" and differences.

>>Because objectively, we don't make much sense.<<

Only if one does not understand the evolution of sexual reproduction and the advent of male/female, which isn't the same thing. It was actually very important, it facilitated much of the variation and speciation, you can look at bacteria to see how "great" things are without males and female. Further it also reduced by half the total output of offspring, since with the introduction of males only 1 party of the process could carry offspring and much more.

I gave you a video lecture on this by a finish professor a while back, but you thought my saying "she is an authority on the subject" was an >appeal< to authority. *shrugs* so be it.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 25 07:23:43
Nim:

So much confusion in your post.

My point was that nature is what nature is. You have looked at the data and said "great, a bimodal population. I'm going to make a normative judgement that every one should sit at one of those modes. However if the reality is there is a consistent spread around those modes, the truth of the matter - for whatever reason - there are humans who are of neither sex. The binary model is exactly that: a (sometimes) useful construct not a fundamental description of reality.

Now you tried to refute this by asking whether I wanted my child to be healthy and able to reproduce.

The line of argument is misconceived in the first place (whether I prefer one or the other has not the slightest impact on reality and whether the model describes reality).

But on top of your confusion between model and reality, you've now hitched a normative statement that it's not healthy or good to not conform to your binary model.

But the majority of intersex people are both otherwise healthy and able to reproduce.

The only way they are unhealthy in general is that they don't conform to your binary model.

The harm being done here is by people such as yourself insisting on confirmation. There's a long history of mental health issues from people who've been surgically assigned to a sex at birth. And many more who have grown up being told they are abbarent.


So if I were a parent of an interview sex child, the thing I'd want is for people like you to stop creating that harmful environment.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Sep 25 09:02:25
>>I'm going to make a normative judgement that every one should sit at one of those modes.<<

Wow.. I looked at the data that includes the entire distribution and said, everyone should be here. This is a "normative" judgement in your book? It isn't descriptive of the facts that everyone actually can be found in a distribution? Intersex people do not live in this bi-modality? Who is confused?

>>Now you tried to refute this by asking whether I wanted my child to be healthy and able to reproduce.<<

Not to refute this, it is refuted already, by the data. It is a relevant question to someone who says abnormal development that is in medical terms and from our understanding of biology a disruption of the normal trend of human development is just any old variation like the color of the eyes.

You refuse to answer, because we both know the answer. You wouldn't wish this for your child, I didn't ask IF what would you do. IF anything you love and care for your children. I asked what you wished for and we both know neither you nor your wife wished for anything that a healthy, normally developed baby.

Here is some advice, don't hold values that are contingent on empirical answers or that actually have empirical answers. The intrinsic value of a human being isn't contingent on medical nomenclature or what medical science produces today or in 20 years. The hurdles and social problems that inter-sex people face are not going be solved by asserting things that are false regarding the nature and origins of their condition.

Unfortunately people like, not I, have made science into the battle ground for the extension of the culture war. You have mixed what we ought to write in our legal and social code, with what is described by medical research.

>>But the majority of intersex people are both otherwise healthy and able to reproduce.<<

Is very rare. You are welcome to provide a source for this claim.

>>The only way they are unhealthy in general is that they don't conform to your binary model.<<

You are completely clueless. These people go through years of suffering and agony, confused and suicidal, wanting to be "normal". They undergo multiple surgeries just so they can belong to this binary you claim *I* am forcing them into. How does someone so clueless walk away thinking they are "helping"?

>>So if I were a parent of an interview sex child, the thing I'd want is for people like you to stop creating that harmful environment.<<

You are actually the one creating the harmful environment, by pinning their value to what can be established by science. Well seb, those chickens will come back to roost sooner rather than later.

Meanwhile I think they are human beings with the same rights and obligations as everyone else, completely detached from what scientific development.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Sep 25 09:17:32
"You wouldn't wish this for your child"

And valuing things or "judging" isn't by definition or even most of the time socially constructed. Valuing Elvis guitar that is a pure social construct based on multiple systems of value many people contribute to and Elvis fans agree upon. There is no objective value in a guitar that was owned by Elvis, other than it is a guitar. It is contingent on a bunch of things, culture and an interest in Elvis for instance.

Valuing a healthy normally developed baby, is based on objective facts we know and understand about life on this planet.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 25 15:47:37
Nim:

Do you understand the difference between being in a distrution and sitting at one of the modes?

Clearly not. By definition, intersex do not sit at either mode. They don't fit into a binary model which by definition says you must be one or the other.

Do you want to try again, having clearly failed to understand a simple statement?
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 25 15:51:45
Nim:

"Valuing a healthy normally developed baby,
is based on objective facts we know and understand about life on this planet"

So a healthy man, capable of reproducing, but with two X chromosomes who you would not otherwise consider not a man had you not sequenced his genome or peered at a cell nucleus through a microscope, is, in your view, objectively less valuable than one with an X and y?

That seems inescapably what you are saying.

He's not developed normally (i.e. he's outside your binary model that fits 98%, he's one of the deviant 2%).
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 25 15:55:24
And again, you've missed the point. What I value or don't value, or you for that matter: nature doesn't give a fuck.

Like it or not, about 2% of people don't fit in your binary model.

And when it comes to brains, even worse. Very few people have male or female for all the sex correlated features.

Your trying to fit facts to your model, rather than model the facts.
McKobb
Member
Tue Sep 25 16:16:28
Spontaneous blink rate was significantly larger in "women than in men (19 vs 11 blinks per minute)"

Also older women blink more.

Random neurological evidence in the difference between the sexes.
jergul
large member
Tue Sep 25 16:21:17
McKobb
Why not go with multiple orgasms if you want random neurological evidence.

McKobb
Member
Tue Sep 25 16:22:39
I was coming to that.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Tue Sep 25 19:47:16
so,did you come yet?
Seb
Member
Wed Sep 26 05:35:21
McKobb:

Could also be due to physiological effects elsewhere and you are going for a phenomenology here rather than a direct inspection of the structure.

But lets say it's one of the brain features that are known to vary with sex - say a different structure of one of the nerves involved or the brainsteam.

Lets say that you found that say, 10% of men had the same kinds of structure as that found in women ... do those men have a female brain structure? Or is it more accurate to say "This structure is more common in women than men".

If you have 10 such features, and only a very small number of men have all 10 male versions of the features, is it really accurate to say the model "male brain" is a brain that consists of all those features? Taking just men, such a brain would look deeply abnormal from the average man's brain.

That's the problem here when talking about "men and women having different brains".

cf. "Flaw of the averages" - the classic example being cockpit design for the USAF that at one point took the average of a bunch of measurements to design a cockpit, but discovered that it fit basically nobody.

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html





Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Sep 26 06:04:28
>>Do you understand the difference between being in a distrution and sitting at one of the modes?

Clearly not. By definition, intersex do not sit at either mode. They don't fit into a binary model which by definition says you must be one or the other.<<

By definition inter-sex humans have a brain that produces behavior. Both their brain physiology and behavior falls within the bi-modal distribution for the given trait of interest.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Sep 26 06:39:42
>>in your view, objectively less valuable than one with an X and y?<<

In my view you are objectively the least valuable poster here. I see you are still waffeling about the github study that I went through bit by bit and explained why you were an idiot for presenting it as causal mechanism that could be extrapolated.

Trust me "misunderstanding" you was charitable, I did not expect that even you would present as >evidence< numbers with low statistical power and relaxed criteria between statistical insignificance and 1.2%.

I told from the start, this study is not useful for your crusade. I went over every aspect, the published effect, poor methodology, reference to anecdotal evidence, the problems of enormous sample size, researchers sharing your bias, tossing out 55% of the data, the fact that only 10% are women skewing results, figures prior to controls, figures after controls, I was correct from the start.

You failed. You talked about another study, nothing was produced.

You have made 2 empirical claims in this thread, I asked for sources, nothing. Because we (including those who pretend to read the "lit") both know the study you read about in an article, failed to have the method for imagine recognition validated. Yes it actually failed to differentiate between the faces of 3 different species of monkeys, let alone the subtle differences in a brain.

Did you managed to google this when I asked for source? If you didn't, go ahead google Joel et al, see what the first page produces.

You are objectively the least intelligent, principled and rigorous "scientist" I have met. That, is a fact.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Sep 26 07:00:15
>>That's the problem here when talking about "men and women having different brains".<<

Don't weasel little weasel. You specified this further,

”brains, then starting only from brain structure, you should be able to identify the sex of the individual to a very good degree of accuracy, and actually it looks like we can't do that well.”

This claim is the backbone of your hypothesis and it has an empirical answer. Where is it?
Seb
Member
Wed Sep 26 08:50:33
Nim:

"By definition inter-sex humans have a brain that produces behavior. Both their brain physiology and behavior falls within the bi-modal distribution for the given trait of interest."

I think the answer then is no. You clearly do not understand the difference between being at the mode, and being in a distribution, as what you are writing does not in any way address the point you originally claimed to be responding to.
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share