|
Keep discussion objective and civil.
Blindly spewing uninformed non-sense will lead to moderation action. |
On December 05 2012 12:27 thisisstupid1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:13 NicolBolas wrote:On December 05 2012 12:05 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:03 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:01 iamahydralisk wrote:On December 05 2012 11:58 Crawdad wrote:On December 05 2012 11:53 Shakattak wrote:
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ? Intersex people usually identify as a specific gender, but they are born with both male and female sex characteristics, and I'm sure there are intersex people who identify as non-binary. To throw my hat into the ring... I consider myself to be intersex, at least mentally. When I was younger, I had transsexual feelings that intensified to the point that I nearly transitioned from M to F when I was 19 years old. I stopped at the last second (personal reasons), and while I feel more comfortable in my male body now than I did then, I still don't identify fully as a man or a woman. The urges to transition are still there and they come and go. Some days they're really strong and other days, not so much. I don't consider myself to be a part of the gender binary. I feel like I'm somewhere in the middle. ^^ thank you this is what im getting at , a binary system is inadequate to describe humans who are anything but. This is an argument going back to the concept of "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts". Neurons either fire or dont fire. Memories either exist or they don't. Genes are either ON or OFF. We are built on binary designs. When we go so far as to say that "humans are too complex to be binary", we're either saying that we have inadequately explored our subject, or that we decide to believe in things that aren't true. That's complete bullshit biologically speaking. Neurons fire in degrees. The quantity of neurotransmitters involved across the synapse defines how hard or softly a neuron fires. Gene expression is also something that happens in varying degrees. Memories can be half-remembered. You keep inventing these binary distinctions that simply don't exist in reality. Memories are "half remembered" because when you access them, they change, form new connections, and become different. again, binary. Im aware of the bahavior of neurons. Try this experiemnt. Stick your hand in a fire and see how long you go before neurons tell you you're being damaged. Then, see how long you can prevent your CNS from pulling your hand out of the fire. These are all degrees taht you're speaking of. Enough neurons need to fire to promote the conscious awareness of damage, e.g. pain. Enough neurons need to fire to override the neurons that you are consciously using to keep your hand in the fire. All of that behavior is still binary, as the same can be written in programming language. Gene "expression" is affected by other genes all working together. But the genes themselves are either on or off. This is all some mysticism spouted because of this "irreducible complexity" mentality at work. It didn't hold up to scrutiny in the 1500's, and it doesn't hold up now. x marines vs y zerglings. in enough multiplication, X wins. in enough multiplication, Y wins. But it's not that simple right? It also depends on the method of attack, the use of terrain, and the upgrades, etc. However, all of these are STILL not proof that the fight isn't binary. All of these things can be calculated by physical location coordinates and by the other variables which are VERY quantifiable. But your argument style would be to stop at the point of the terrain, saying that beyond this point, it can't be explainable as binary (irreducible complexity argument), and therefor it proves that success in fights in SC2 between y marines and x zerglings is on a spectrum. Using the misnomer of the spectrum is the hand waving of today's armchair scientists.
You never actually argue about things at hand ever .... you just want to say peiople are stupid and wrong and you do this all the time. Also when things are constantly changing they are not binary . I don't understand how the brain works but neurons making different connections each time is not binary .
|
On December 05 2012 12:27 thisisstupid1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:13 NicolBolas wrote:On December 05 2012 12:05 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:03 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:01 iamahydralisk wrote:On December 05 2012 11:58 Crawdad wrote:On December 05 2012 11:53 Shakattak wrote:
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ? Intersex people usually identify as a specific gender, but they are born with both male and female sex characteristics, and I'm sure there are intersex people who identify as non-binary. To throw my hat into the ring... I consider myself to be intersex, at least mentally. When I was younger, I had transsexual feelings that intensified to the point that I nearly transitioned from M to F when I was 19 years old. I stopped at the last second (personal reasons), and while I feel more comfortable in my male body now than I did then, I still don't identify fully as a man or a woman. The urges to transition are still there and they come and go. Some days they're really strong and other days, not so much. I don't consider myself to be a part of the gender binary. I feel like I'm somewhere in the middle. ^^ thank you this is what im getting at , a binary system is inadequate to describe humans who are anything but. This is an argument going back to the concept of "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts". Neurons either fire or dont fire. Memories either exist or they don't. Genes are either ON or OFF. We are built on binary designs. When we go so far as to say that "humans are too complex to be binary", we're either saying that we have inadequately explored our subject, or that we decide to believe in things that aren't true. That's complete bullshit biologically speaking. Neurons fire in degrees. The quantity of neurotransmitters involved across the synapse defines how hard or softly a neuron fires. Gene expression is also something that happens in varying degrees. Memories can be half-remembered. You keep inventing these binary distinctions that simply don't exist in reality. Memories are "half remembered" because when you access them, they change, form new connections, and become different. again, binary. Im aware of the bahavior of neurons. Try this experiemnt. Stick your hand in a fire and see how long you go before neurons tell you you're being damaged. Then, see how long you can prevent your CNS from pulling your hand out of the fire. These are all degrees taht you're speaking of. Enough neurons need to fire to promote the conscious awareness of damage, e.g. pain. Enough neurons need to fire to override the neurons that you are consciously using to keep your hand in the fire. All of that behavior is still binary, as the same can be written in programming language. Gene "expression" is affected by other genes all working together. But the genes themselves are either on or off. This is all some mysticism spouted because of this "irreducible complexity" mentality at work. It didn't hold up to scrutiny in the 1500's, and it doesn't hold up now. x marines vs y zerglings. in enough multiplication, X wins. in enough multiplication, Y wins. But it's not that simple right? It also depends on the method of attack, the use of terrain, and the upgrades, etc. However, all of these are STILL not proof that the fight isn't binary. All of these things can be calculated by physical location coordinates and by the other variables which are VERY quantifiable. But your argument style would be to stop at the point of the terrain, saying that beyond this point, it can't be explainable as binary (irreducible complexity argument), and therefor it proves that success in fights in SC2 between y marines and x zerglings is on a spectrum. Using the misnomer of the spectrum is the hand waving of today's armchair scientists.
Dude, how the fuck do you want to calculate somebody's gender? Well lets see they have X testosterone in their blood stream, but also Y estrogen, brain scans show a mix of what is generally seen in both genders but slightly leaning toward female (60-40), plug this into my nice algorith and ... BAM male. Easy right? If spectrums didn't exist why would questionaires in psych exams use the Strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree etc. The brain is more complicated than you want to simplify it to. A spectrum simply means that there are a range of locations to identify with that lie between male and female. Somewhat male and somewhat female (an some other stuff too, third gender, genderqueer etc.). If someone identifies as mostly female but also as a male how can you tell that person that he or she must choose?
|
On December 05 2012 12:29 thisisstupid1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:19 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:16 NicolBolas wrote:On December 05 2012 12:12 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:05 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:03 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:46 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:43 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:36 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:32 thisisstupid1 wrote:
[quote]
Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument.
I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around . You used an ad hominem . "you have a comprehension problem, I didn't explain it poorly". You just stated that they move from ONE to ANOTHER state. That is black and white. Regardless of how i am stating it which could be poorly , your the one avoiding the things im saying , it isnt black and white for them cause just cause they are physically male or female doesnt mean they biologically are  thats the point. Thats like saying just because a frog is physically a frog, it isn't one biologically. if you actually HAD a logically derived argument based on your own thorough investigation as to the Factuality of what you;'re saying, you could actually explain it better than this. You continue to digress form the argument to say i suck at arguing without actually proving any of YOUR points. I gave examples and the most you could say was "nope". http://www.genderspectrum.org/about/understanding-gender I haven't at all. You didn't give any proof. you cited an example, and declared it as proof without validating it. You did not explain WHY your example proves it. When I questioned that, you gave an ad hominem the first time. The burden of proof is on you, because you're attempting to say that what you have shown is correct. I am not a person that is swayed by arguments based on feelings. That's the funny part. Science has already determined whether what he's saying is true or not. Science has already determined that gender and sex aren't the same. That gender dysphoria is a real thing and not merely something someone does because they feel like being an effeminate male and don't want to be stigmatized for it. And so forth. He doesn't need to prove his assertions because his assertions have already been demonstrated in the psychological literature. It's your viewpoint that is without evidence. Thank you NicolBolas at least im getting through to someone >.> science hasn't determined it as factual. Provide the proof. It's still psychology which requires people to express their "personal belief and feelings", and then correlate that to internal physical parameters of the human body. As long as it is like that, it will never be factual proof.
Sex is not psychological gender may be , psychology is the study of the mind which is still not understood the human body constantly changes in your life .an example that is not binary
Young - adult -middle aged -senior
Why don't you give us articles and proof that proves your right ?
|
On December 05 2012 11:28 thisisstupid1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 11:23 shinosai wrote:And yes, I don't feel like I have any attachments to my gender or sex. Obviously, if someone questions my gender indentity, saying that I'm trying to be a girl, for instance because of my hair, I get offended, not because I couldn't stand the thought of me being female, but because it's a insult at my intellect. It's a bit like calling someone stupid. Someone claims that you have a mental problem or confusion that you know don't exist. Well, I feel like we're really starting to communicate here. This paragraph here is exactly why we don't like to be referred to as having a disorder. Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person. I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms. So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay. I will have to agree here. Psychology is the most fluid and changing of "sciences", mostly because it relies on pinning down personality and behaviors, which are built on such complicated mechanisms, that it's like trying to solve a calculus equation with most of the numbers as unknown variables. Add to that how we go through periods of "this is good, that's bad, okay now lets reverse this!" again with even factual medical sciences (see: eggs), and a more subjective "science" like psychology is going to be even more prone to shifting views, usually laboring to please the majority or loud minority's views. The problem with many sciences like these is that in order to actually go anywhere in the field you have to publish a paper that tries to tear apart earlier studies, even if your paper is total bullshit.
I think you live in a parallel universe where psychology is some kind of post-modern, hermeneutic, feminist alchemy and people wear hamburgers for hats. I challenge you to present an actual example of a bullshit psych study that tries to tear apart earlier ones or an example of medical sciences being at odds with clinical or research psychology.
|
For whatever it's worth, I've enjoyed the discussion in this thread.
Life has led me to understand homosexuality and my own sexuality to an appreciable degree, but in the past few years I have become more curious about the subject outside of those confines. This thread was an excellent resource.
Thanks for sharing.
|
What is Thisistupid1 trying to argue against?
|
On December 05 2012 12:33 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:27 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:13 NicolBolas wrote:On December 05 2012 12:05 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:03 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:01 iamahydralisk wrote:On December 05 2012 11:58 Crawdad wrote:On December 05 2012 11:53 Shakattak wrote:
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ? Intersex people usually identify as a specific gender, but they are born with both male and female sex characteristics, and I'm sure there are intersex people who identify as non-binary. To throw my hat into the ring... I consider myself to be intersex, at least mentally. When I was younger, I had transsexual feelings that intensified to the point that I nearly transitioned from M to F when I was 19 years old. I stopped at the last second (personal reasons), and while I feel more comfortable in my male body now than I did then, I still don't identify fully as a man or a woman. The urges to transition are still there and they come and go. Some days they're really strong and other days, not so much. I don't consider myself to be a part of the gender binary. I feel like I'm somewhere in the middle. ^^ thank you this is what im getting at , a binary system is inadequate to describe humans who are anything but. This is an argument going back to the concept of "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts". Neurons either fire or dont fire. Memories either exist or they don't. Genes are either ON or OFF. We are built on binary designs. When we go so far as to say that "humans are too complex to be binary", we're either saying that we have inadequately explored our subject, or that we decide to believe in things that aren't true. That's complete bullshit biologically speaking. Neurons fire in degrees. The quantity of neurotransmitters involved across the synapse defines how hard or softly a neuron fires. Gene expression is also something that happens in varying degrees. Memories can be half-remembered. You keep inventing these binary distinctions that simply don't exist in reality. Memories are "half remembered" because when you access them, they change, form new connections, and become different. again, binary. Im aware of the bahavior of neurons. Try this experiemnt. Stick your hand in a fire and see how long you go before neurons tell you you're being damaged. Then, see how long you can prevent your CNS from pulling your hand out of the fire. These are all degrees taht you're speaking of. Enough neurons need to fire to promote the conscious awareness of damage, e.g. pain. Enough neurons need to fire to override the neurons that you are consciously using to keep your hand in the fire. All of that behavior is still binary, as the same can be written in programming language. Gene "expression" is affected by other genes all working together. But the genes themselves are either on or off. This is all some mysticism spouted because of this "irreducible complexity" mentality at work. It didn't hold up to scrutiny in the 1500's, and it doesn't hold up now. x marines vs y zerglings. in enough multiplication, X wins. in enough multiplication, Y wins. But it's not that simple right? It also depends on the method of attack, the use of terrain, and the upgrades, etc. However, all of these are STILL not proof that the fight isn't binary. All of these things can be calculated by physical location coordinates and by the other variables which are VERY quantifiable. But your argument style would be to stop at the point of the terrain, saying that beyond this point, it can't be explainable as binary (irreducible complexity argument), and therefor it proves that success in fights in SC2 between y marines and x zerglings is on a spectrum. Using the misnomer of the spectrum is the hand waving of today's armchair scientists. Dude, how the fuck do you want to calculate somebody's gender? Well lets see they have X testosterone in their blood stream, but also Y estrogen, brain scans show a mix of what is generally seen in both genders but slightly leaning toward female (60-40), plug this into my nice algorith and ... BAM male. Easy right? If spectrums didn't exist why would questionaires in psych exams use the Strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree etc. The brain is more complicated than you want to simplify it to. A spectrum simply means that there are a range of locations to identify with that lie between male and female. Somewhat male and somewhat female (an some other stuff too, third gender, genderqueer etc.). If someone identifies as mostly female but also as a male how can you tell that person that he or she must choose?
Thank you once again , he ats liek we are all wrong and basically states spectrums don't exist in regards to sex and gender
|
On December 05 2012 12:30 thisisstupid1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:15 shinosai wrote:On December 05 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:so what is the semiotic structure of "spectrum" if there are no binaries, and only spectra how does one conceptualize them? edit: @above, you are welcome that is not a very good article at explaining but it's an important thing, this Greimas square edit: we would do well to keep in mind that binary oppositions are an unreasonably effective means of conceptualizing the world, even if we want to maintain some distance from any naive assertions of their ontological status or representational completeness There really are binaries. And paradigms. There is black, and there is white. But to take an argument from Wittgenstein (remarks on the foundations of mathematics - the section about black and white in part I).... there's no "essence" to the black or the white. Look, we could've defined the binary as red and purple. It might not have been as useful as black and white, but there's no reason why we couldn't have defined it in some other way. There's nothing "necessary" about the paradigm of black and white. We do have binaries, and they are real. But we constructed them. They could've been some other way. There can't be "some other way". people die without oxygen. people live with oxygen. The universe itself imposes binary logic on everything within it
Actually, yea, we could've made the binary some other way. We could have made the binary between young and old. Death and birth merely relate to how close one is to either of these paradigms, much like black and white could be defined in terms of how close they are to red or purple.
State x and y - when a person has x much oxygen or y much oxygen. Being dead and alive in relation to how close they are to this paradigm. There's nothing necessary about the paradigm of dead and alive - only that we have a paradigm with which to relate them to something. The relation is what matters. Now, dead and alive might be a much more useful paradigm than state x and y, but it's not necessary. That was Wittgenstein's point. It can be used on ANY binary. All you need is a paradigm with which to compare things to.
Look, being dead can just be defined as being closer to state x than state y. No problemo.
|
On December 05 2012 12:34 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 11:28 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:23 shinosai wrote:And yes, I don't feel like I have any attachments to my gender or sex. Obviously, if someone questions my gender indentity, saying that I'm trying to be a girl, for instance because of my hair, I get offended, not because I couldn't stand the thought of me being female, but because it's a insult at my intellect. It's a bit like calling someone stupid. Someone claims that you have a mental problem or confusion that you know don't exist. Well, I feel like we're really starting to communicate here. This paragraph here is exactly why we don't like to be referred to as having a disorder. Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person. I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms. So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay. I will have to agree here. Psychology is the most fluid and changing of "sciences", mostly because it relies on pinning down personality and behaviors, which are built on such complicated mechanisms, that it's like trying to solve a calculus equation with most of the numbers as unknown variables. Add to that how we go through periods of "this is good, that's bad, okay now lets reverse this!" again with even factual medical sciences (see: eggs), and a more subjective "science" like psychology is going to be even more prone to shifting views, usually laboring to please the majority or loud minority's views. The problem with many sciences like these is that in order to actually go anywhere in the field you have to publish a paper that tries to tear apart earlier studies, even if your paper is total bullshit.
I think you live in a parallel universe where psychology is some kind of post-modern, hermeneutic, feminist alchemy and people wear hamburgers for hats. I challenge you to present an actual example of a bullshit psych study that tries to tear apart earlier ones or an example of medical sciences being at odds with clinical or research psychology.
Another thing to point out is how al sciences change over time and not everything is actually understood hence why there are theories and not everything is a Law of
|
On December 05 2012 12:36 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:34 reincremate wrote:On December 05 2012 11:28 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:23 shinosai wrote:And yes, I don't feel like I have any attachments to my gender or sex. Obviously, if someone questions my gender indentity, saying that I'm trying to be a girl, for instance because of my hair, I get offended, not because I couldn't stand the thought of me being female, but because it's a insult at my intellect. It's a bit like calling someone stupid. Someone claims that you have a mental problem or confusion that you know don't exist. Well, I feel like we're really starting to communicate here. This paragraph here is exactly why we don't like to be referred to as having a disorder. Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person. I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms. So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay. I will have to agree here. Psychology is the most fluid and changing of "sciences", mostly because it relies on pinning down personality and behaviors, which are built on such complicated mechanisms, that it's like trying to solve a calculus equation with most of the numbers as unknown variables. Add to that how we go through periods of "this is good, that's bad, okay now lets reverse this!" again with even factual medical sciences (see: eggs), and a more subjective "science" like psychology is going to be even more prone to shifting views, usually laboring to please the majority or loud minority's views. The problem with many sciences like these is that in order to actually go anywhere in the field you have to publish a paper that tries to tear apart earlier studies, even if your paper is total bullshit.
I think you live in a parallel universe where psychology is some kind of post-modern, hermeneutic, feminist alchemy and people wear hamburgers for hats. I challenge you to present an actual example of a bullshit psych study that tries to tear apart earlier ones or an example of medical sciences being at odds with clinical or research psychology. Another thing to point out is how al sciences change over time and not everything is actually understood hence why there are theories and not everything is a Law of
That is not the difference between a theory and a law
|
On December 05 2012 12:35 Crawdad wrote:
What is Thisistupid1 trying to argue against?
He is attempting to argue that a gender spectrum (and actually the idea of a spectrum itself) is impossible.
|
On December 05 2012 12:38 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:36 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:34 reincremate wrote:On December 05 2012 11:28 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:23 shinosai wrote:And yes, I don't feel like I have any attachments to my gender or sex. Obviously, if someone questions my gender indentity, saying that I'm trying to be a girl, for instance because of my hair, I get offended, not because I couldn't stand the thought of me being female, but because it's a insult at my intellect. It's a bit like calling someone stupid. Someone claims that you have a mental problem or confusion that you know don't exist. Well, I feel like we're really starting to communicate here. This paragraph here is exactly why we don't like to be referred to as having a disorder. Tell me to define a mental disorder for you (for no reason), then proceed to tell me I can't use the closest science that deals with mental disorders as proof. Boy are you a reasonable person. I am pretty reasonable. It's just that if you haven't studied the history of psychology, you probably don't realize how unempirical psychology really is. Even today, with all our advanced knowledge, psychologists still have a very limited understanding of how many drugs work and interact with the brain. The DSM-IV has been revised many times. There is a great amount of dispute about even seemingly obvious personality disorders (borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic, and antisocial - all cluster B personality disorders, once considered to be completely different disorders, now some theorize that they are all the same disorder but different responses to the same underlying symptom). Many disorders had (and still have) overly broad symptom lists, which means that your average kid on the internet that looks at them will be able to identify with most symptoms. So, no, I don't think that psychology gets to label what's mentally orderly and disorderly, because the distinction has always been very blurry and non-empirical. It's based on frameworks of what it means to be normal not by some objective standard of normalcy but rather presuppositions about what is sane and insane. Frameworks that were constructed, not "discovered". If that makes me unreasonable, okay. I will have to agree here. Psychology is the most fluid and changing of "sciences", mostly because it relies on pinning down personality and behaviors, which are built on such complicated mechanisms, that it's like trying to solve a calculus equation with most of the numbers as unknown variables. Add to that how we go through periods of "this is good, that's bad, okay now lets reverse this!" again with even factual medical sciences (see: eggs), and a more subjective "science" like psychology is going to be even more prone to shifting views, usually laboring to please the majority or loud minority's views. The problem with many sciences like these is that in order to actually go anywhere in the field you have to publish a paper that tries to tear apart earlier studies, even if your paper is total bullshit.
I think you live in a parallel universe where psychology is some kind of post-modern, hermeneutic, feminist alchemy and people wear hamburgers for hats. I challenge you to present an actual example of a bullshit psych study that tries to tear apart earlier ones or an example of medical sciences being at odds with clinical or research psychology. Another thing to point out is how al sciences change over time and not everything is actually understood hence why there are theories and not everything is a Law of That is not the difference between a theory and a law
Forgive my ignorance on the subject.
|
On December 05 2012 12:39 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:35 Crawdad wrote:
What is Thisistupid1 trying to argue against? He is attempting to argue that a gender spectrum (and actually the idea of a spectrum itself) is impossible.
Only sith deal in absolutes .
|
Acceptance and tolerance is significant to my happiness. I am happy that transgender people now are not considered mentally ill as homosexuals once were. I am happy for people who get to be themselves if it doesn't harm others. Gay bashing and transgender bashing is useless hate, and I do not accept people in my life who partake in such things. I'm also sick of people complaining about how posts must be "liberal or PC" to be accepted on TeamLiquid.
I have always felt that controversial opinions are absolutely okay on teamliquid! It is fine to have an unpopular opinion. It is not fine to disrespect someone or a group of individuals. You don't have to be politically correct or a liberal to have respect and morals along with an educated opinion.
I support homosexuals and transgenders. Be who you want to be, as long as your not an asshole or hurting others. I think that is reasonable.
|
On December 05 2012 11:23 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +And yes, I don't feel like I have any attachments to my gender or sex. Obviously, if someone questions my gender indentity, saying that I'm trying to be a girl, for instance because of my hair, I get offended, not because I couldn't stand the thought of me being female, but because it's a insult at my intellect. It's a bit like calling someone stupid. Someone claims that you have a mental problem or confusion that you know don't exist. Well, I feel like we're really starting to communicate here. This paragraph here is exactly why we don't like to be referred to as having a disorder.
It's not the same. Someone looking a bit like the opposite gender because of freedom of expression, and ppl claiming that he have a gender issue is not the same as someone actively trying to fit another gender mold and being claimed to have a gender issue. In the 2nd example it's actually true, and in this case you're forcing ppl to accept you in one mold, while in the first case if anything it's a question of rejecting gender molds.
In the first case it's a question of an initial misunderstanding, something that can be cleared out by the exchange of a few words, and in the second case it's a question of disagreement, where one person claims that there is such a thing as a gender, that is different from the sex, and the other person rejecting it.
On December 05 2012 11:20 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 11:01 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 10:47 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 10:42 ayaz2810 wrote:On December 05 2012 10:04 Shakattak wrote:
Infact alot of the issues are derived from the fact that we are stuck in a binary way of thinking , good , bad , male female we should start changing our perceptions of other people so these problems such as guilt and other issues that society causes to trans people . Our binary way of thinking is something I would hate to live without. I can't explain why exactly, but the idea of a bunch of men wearing baggy jeans with women's blouses along with lipstick, a backwards ball cap, a purse, and various other accessories from both genders just creeps me the fuck out. I picture a big homogenous mass of people who lack any identity. I honestly cannot figure out why that prospect bugs me to no end. Maybe it's something evolutionary. I dunno. Its cultural you were socialized go think like that your whole life , if you werent taught that men and women should wear the clothes that they do and there was no social stigma about wearing what you wanted be that lipstick blouses etc then you would not care . Life is binary, in all senses. You are either alive or dead. You are either male, physically, or female. You are either asleep or awake. That isn't to say we can't allow people to choose their preference in what they want to do. A boy wants to play with dolls? Fine. He might not even be gay, just a sensitive guy, who enjoys interpersonal relationships more than dominating. Where it happens to go wrong is the point on which we assume that a sensitive guy must be gay. Have you guys even looked into the feminist agenda, the male hate complex, etc? http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2011/03/where-have-all-the-nice-guys-gone-why-you-girls-are-stuck-dating-players-and-losers/It's really unpleasant to see, but the nicest males never get what they want, and females complain even after choosing the "manlier" men, the egoistic and self centered ones who think they deserve it all without having to give any in return. This isnt new at all. This is ages old. In our post feminist society, however, the feeling of being a man is so closely tied to success with females, and to behaving in very stereotypical ways. edit: Nicol's post echos my thoughts so much more coherently than I can say it at the moment. There are tribes that the kid is born as a male or female cant remember but when they hit puberty there body undergoes natural changes that change their gender , life is anything but binary there are alot of differences and things that cause life to be not binary , its just easier to think that way .
Could you give a source please. I would be interested in reading that.
|
Why do people for whom this is not a personal issue feel the need to argue over definitions of a thing? That's what I can't understand.
|
Can someone explain how wanting to be someone (something) else is not a mental disorder by definition?
I can understand softening the adjectives to let that group of people feel better about their condition, but this can't be seriously considered "normal" in any scientific community, am I wrong? If this isn't a mental disorder, than what is? We'd have to lay off a good 2/3rds of psychologists/psychiatrists in the field.
|
On December 05 2012 13:20 sam!zdat wrote:
Why do people for whom this is not a personal issue feel the need to argue over definitions of a thing? That's what I can't understand.
Are there a lot of people here that feel like this is a personal issue for them? More than 3?
|
On December 05 2012 12:27 thisisstupid1 wrote:
Using the misnomer of the spectrum is the hand waving of today's armchair scientists.
OK, time for some definitions.
A specific, well-defined system can be classified as a "binary" system if the system can only exist in two discrete, well-defined states. The system can only ever be A or B. It can't be both and it can't be neither. Every system that is in state A must be indistinguishable (in any meaningful way) from every other system in state A; same goes for systems in state B.
A specific, well-defined system can be classified as "digital" if the number of states that the system can be in is finite. It may be 1, it may be 2, it may be 50,000,000,000,000, but as long as the number of states is finite, it is a digital system. Binary systems are digital by definition, but digital systems are not necessarily binary.
If you disagree with this definitions, I don't give a shit. That's what they actually mean, so that's what I'm going to call them.
Computers are digital systems, but they are not binary systems. Computers use binary numerical computation systems and boolean logic operations. But when taken as a whole system, a computer is not a binary system. It can exist in more than two states.
Now that we're all on the same page, let's look at your claims:
On December 05 2012 12:27 thisisstupid1 wrote:
Memories are "half remembered" because when you access them, they change, form new connections, and become different. again, binary.
That's not binary. Memories, even by your own logic, can exist in 3 states: "half-remembered", "not remembered at all", or "fully remembered". Whether memories are digital or not is a different, unknown question. It depends on whether you consider the brain to be a digital system.
On December 05 2012 12:27 thisisstupid1 wrote:
Im aware of the bahavior of neurons. Try this experiemnt. Stick your hand in a fire and see how long you go before neurons tell you you're being damaged. Then, see how long you can prevent your CNS from pulling your hand out of the fire.
These are all degrees taht you're speaking of. Enough neurons need to fire to promote the conscious awareness of damage, e.g. pain. Enough neurons need to fire to override the neurons that you are consciously using to keep your hand in the fire. All of that behavior is still binary, as the same can be written in programming language.
This... is a non-sequitur. You originally stated "Neurons either fire or dont fire." That is wrong; neurons fire in degrees. Now, you're talking about an aggregation of neurons firing, which is a different system from a single neuron. You've changed what system you're talking about.
It's not entirely clear what this system even is. Is it whether your hand is on the hot place or not? Is it the number of neurons firing to keep it there?
On December 05 2012 12:27 thisisstupid1 wrote:
Gene "expression" is affected by other genes all working together. But the genes themselves are either on or off.
No, they aren't. Gene expression can be partial. And I don't mean that they can be inhibited by various factors. I mean they can be partially expressed. There are degrees of gene expression, which cause different quantities of proteins to be produced.
Gene expression is not a binary system. Whether it is a digital one depends, since biological chemistry is based on thermodynamic statistics, not certainty.
On December 05 2012 12:27 thisisstupid1 wrote:
x marines vs y zerglings. in enough multiplication, X wins. in enough multiplication, Y wins. But it's not that simple right? It also depends on the method of attack, the use of terrain, and the upgrades, etc. However, all of these are STILL not proof that the fight isn't binary. All of these things can be calculated by physical location coordinates and by the other variables which are VERY quantifiable.
But your argument style would be to stop at the point of the terrain, saying that beyond this point, it can't be explainable as binary (irreducible complexity argument), and therefor it proves that success in fights in SC2 between y marines and x zerglings is on a spectrum.
Again, digital and binary are not the same thing. A system of "marines vs. zerglings" will yield some specific, digital state. But it is not binary because there are more than 2 possible answers.
Just because a system is digital does not mean it is not on a spectrum. Remember, a light spectrum is quantized too; light spectra are digital. That doesn't mean that there aren't a hell of a lot of different wavelengths.
Something being a spectrum does not mean unquantifiable and unknowable. It simply means that there are many subtle gradations instead of having a small number of few states.
On December 05 2012 13:03 LarJarsE wrote:
You don't have to be politically correct or a liberal to have respect and morals along with an educated opinion.
This is something that has always bugged me about people who talk down about being "politically correct". Political correctness is all about having "respect and morals along with an educated opinion." What's happened is that assholes have demonized the term to the point where even people who are politically correct don't think that they are.
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
nolook, I'd recommend you read the additional parts of the OP to get a better understanding of what this means legally for trans people and to get an understanding of what it means to be marginalized for who you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
