|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 09 2026 03:18 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 03:04 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 02:42 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 09 2026 01:53 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 01:16 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 20:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 07 2026 11:54 ETisME wrote:
[quote]
What is a man One could simply say that a man is an "adult human male", but then "male" ends up carrying all of the same interesting/controversial weight that "man" did. You don't think the controversy is saying that a man is an adult human male? I didn't know what male had all the baggage that man did. I don't think there is much disagreement in what an Adult is referring to (age-wise) or what a Human is referring to (species-wise), for the conversation surrounding the trans community. Ok, what is a male? I answered it in the post you replied to (the part you cut out). It's the very next sentence  Theres no biological basis for male and female that make them less ambiguous than man and woman? When I talk about disorders that ambiguate male and female, your response would be that both of those are already ambiguous? I thought it was known and uncontroversial that the problem lies in traits that infer sex, not that sex itself is just as ambiguous as the wider categories of man and woman. If I ask a biologist if the term male is well-defined, the biologist would have to respond that No, it’s an ambiguous term? How would a biologist define male? Ask a biologist. I'm asking DPB if he thinks the biologist's answer would be the same ambiguous answer as if he had asked a biologist what a man is. What specific part(s) of DPB's definition do you disagree with? That male and female brings up the same issues of ambiguity as is contained in man and woman. I think it is a giant level of ambiguity removed. You're removing the ambiguity surrounding the mixed reference to sex and gender. So is the problem with "adult human male" that not all males are men, or that males are just as interesting/controversial/ambiguous as men? A biologist would give the standard and then note that it isn’t binary and note biological sex involves a combination of chromosomes, genes, gonads, and hormones. Natural variations, such as intersex traits, mean that not every individual fits neatly into standard categorical definitions. Because scientists don’t care about your politics.
This is/was also my expectation yeah.
|
Hydrogen and helium are over 99% of the universe. When overeducated school teachers try to tell me about the rest of the periodic table I call them woke for jettisoning perfectly reasonable and logical categories that apply to the vast majority of all observable mass.
|
On September 09 2026 03:18 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 03:04 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 02:42 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 09 2026 01:53 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 01:16 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 20:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 07 2026 11:54 ETisME wrote:
[quote]
What is a man One could simply say that a man is an "adult human male", but then "male" ends up carrying all of the same interesting/controversial weight that "man" did. You don't think the controversy is saying that a man is an adult human male? I didn't know what male had all the baggage that man did. I don't think there is much disagreement in what an Adult is referring to (age-wise) or what a Human is referring to (species-wise), for the conversation surrounding the trans community. Ok, what is a male? I answered it in the post you replied to (the part you cut out). It's the very next sentence Theres no biological basis for male and female that make them less ambiguous than man and woman? When I talk about disorders that ambiguate male and female, your response would be that both of those are already ambiguous? I thought it was known and uncontroversial that the problem lies in traits that infer sex, not that sex itself is just as ambiguous as the wider categories of man and woman. If I ask a biologist if the term male is well-defined, the biologist would have to respond that No, it’s an ambiguous term? How would a biologist define male? Ask a biologist. I'm asking DPB if he thinks the biologist's answer would be the same ambiguous answer as if he had asked a biologist what a man is. What specific part(s) of DPB's definition do you disagree with? That male and female brings up the same issues of ambiguity as is contained in man and woman. I think it is a giant level of ambiguity removed. You're removing the ambiguity surrounding the mixed reference to sex and gender. So is the problem with "adult human male" that not all males are men, or that males are just as interesting/controversial/ambiguous as men? A biologist would give the standard and then note that it isn’t binary and note biological sex involves a combination of chromosomes, genes, gonads, and hormones. Natural variations, such as intersex traits, mean that not every individual fits neatly into standard categorical definitions. Because scientists don’t care about your politics. Does biological sex, and I'm referring to male and female, thus involve less ambiguity than man and woman? You refer to "the standard," but already I think you wouldn't say the same thing about man and woman given gender identity and inferring sex from gender expression.
On September 09 2026 03:21 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 03:04 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 02:42 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 09 2026 01:53 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 01:16 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 20:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 07 2026 11:54 ETisME wrote:
[quote]
What is a man One could simply say that a man is an "adult human male", but then "male" ends up carrying all of the same interesting/controversial weight that "man" did. You don't think the controversy is saying that a man is an adult human male? I didn't know what male had all the baggage that man did. I don't think there is much disagreement in what an Adult is referring to (age-wise) or what a Human is referring to (species-wise), for the conversation surrounding the trans community. Ok, what is a male? I answered it in the post you replied to (the part you cut out). It's the very next sentence Theres no biological basis for male and female that make them less ambiguous than man and woman? When I talk about disorders that ambiguate male and female, your response would be that both of those are already ambiguous? I thought it was known and uncontroversial that the problem lies in traits that infer sex, not that sex itself is just as ambiguous as the wider categories of man and woman. If I ask a biologist if the term male is well-defined, the biologist would have to respond that No, it’s an ambiguous term? How would a biologist define male? Ask a biologist. I'm asking DPB if he thinks the biologist's answer would be the same ambiguous answer as if he had asked a biologist what a man is. What specific part(s) of DPB's definition do you disagree with? That male and female brings up the same issues of ambiguity as is contained in man and woman. I think it is a giant level of ambiguity removed. You're removing the ambiguity surrounding the mixed reference to sex and gender. So is the problem with "adult human male" that not all males are men, or that males are just as interesting/controversial/ambiguous as men? Because when you already accepted the premise that thing A is complicated to define, saying "oh A is B" is just a substitution. And if you accept that substitution, then it follows that defining A is complicated, and so must be B. Its just the most basic logic. Or you could say that is not what you mean, A and B are not equal, but A is a subset of B, in which case you still are left with the same issues, if not more: You still have the complicated part of defining all the things that make A, but now they also have to be compatible with a larger set of definitions that describe B so something like "All As are also Bs, but not all Bs have to be As" is satisfied. But you narrowed down the problem by crossing "adult" and "human" off the list. I do find it funny that the people who attempt to weaponise seemingly basic logic like Walsh and other dipshits of his calibre are seemingly the least equipped to navigate the premise they created  You're skipping past the most important part. Is the person saying, "A man is an adult human male" committing an error by making it a simple substitution? I presume you disagree with the statement, since some people use man and woman to express a nuanced gender identity partially or entirely divorced from biological sex. But you haven't told me if you disagree and why.
On September 09 2026 03:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 01:53 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 01:16 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 20:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 07 2026 11:54 ETisME wrote:On September 07 2026 11:14 KwarK wrote:On September 07 2026 06:34 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
Trans women are women and should compete in women's sports. Gatekeeping based off arbitrary biological factors hurts cis and trans women alike. I've made this abundantly clear over the dozens of posts I made about the subject. And the point here is that because people insist on an arbitrarily gendered society, these conflicts are inevitable.
If you want to say you don't care, then fine. But don't moralize "it works fine for me and I don't care about those for whom it doesn't work" into "therefore it's a good system". Women’s sports is a misnomer. They’ve never been open to all women, a better name might be non men sports. What is a man One could simply say that a man is an "adult human male", but then "male" ends up carrying all of the same interesting/controversial weight that "man" did. You don't think the controversy is saying that a man is an adult human male? I didn't know what male had all the baggage that man did. I don't think there is much disagreement in what an Adult is referring to (age-wise) or what a Human is referring to (species-wise), for the conversation surrounding the trans community. Ok, what is a male? I answered it in the post you replied to (the part you cut out). It's the very next sentence Theres no biological basis for male and female that make them less ambiguous than man and woman? When I talk about disorders that ambiguate male and female, your response would be that both of those are already ambiguous? I thought it was known and uncontroversial that the problem lies in traits that infer sex, not that sex itself is just as ambiguous as the wider categories of man and woman. If I ask a biologist if the term male is well-defined, the biologist would have to respond that No, it’s an ambiguous term? I think if you asked a biologist if 100% of all males (or men) absolutely must have testes, or any of the other "usually-but-not-always" examples I listed, I think they would say that it's not necessarily 100% and that it's usually-but-not-always present. It might be 99%. Or 95%. Or it could be much lower too, depending on the trait. If not having a 100% foolproof criterion for inclusion/exclusion makes the concept "ambiguous" or not perfectly defined, then okay, but to reiterate part of the post you left out: No definition is going to be completely satisfying or precisely all-encompassing, because the categories of sex become messier the more we understand about biology, genetics, psychology, and other related branches of science. Feel free to ask a biologist though! I am not one. Do you have a different perspective on this? Perhaps a criterion that is 100% perfect at splitting the men from the non-men? I'm not an expert in this field, and I'm open to hearing how you would define a man (or male). Interesting side notes from you, but I'm really just interested on you answering my post. I'll quote: 1) Theres no biological basis for male and female that make them less ambiguous than man and woman? 2) When I talk about disorders that ambiguate male and female, your response would be that both of those are already ambiguous? 3) If I ask a biologist if the term male is well-defined, the biologist would have to respond that No, it’s an ambiguous term?
I think you're not understanding that you're wrong to say male/female is just as ambiguous as man/woman, since man/woman involves much more gender identity, gender expression, and cultural norms than biological sex. You seem to be tripped up by within-category differences.
|
You wouldn't call Hydrogen Helium until you added that extra proton
|
On September 09 2026 03:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 03:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 03:32 Introvert wrote:On September 09 2026 02:42 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 09 2026 01:53 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 01:16 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 20:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]One could simply say that a man is an "adult human male", but then "male" ends up carrying all of the same interesting/controversial weight that "man" did. You don't think the controversy is saying that a man is an adult human male? I didn't know what male had all the baggage that man did. I don't think there is much disagreement in what an Adult is referring to (age-wise) or what a Human is referring to (species-wise), for the conversation surrounding the trans community. Ok, what is a male? I answered it in the post you replied to (the part you cut out). It's the very next sentence Theres no biological basis for male and female that make them less ambiguous than man and woman? When I talk about disorders that ambiguate male and female, your response would be that both of those are already ambiguous? I thought it was known and uncontroversial that the problem lies in traits that infer sex, not that sex itself is just as ambiguous as the wider categories of man and woman. If I ask a biologist if the term male is well-defined, the biologist would have to respond that No, it’s an ambiguous term? How would a biologist define male? What specific part(s) of DPB's definition do you disagree with? We went over this one time. Male produces sperm and female produces eggs. Other sex-associated characteristics are not part of the definition but they often go together. Objections are the one-legged man problem "how can you say humans have two legs that person was born with no legs!" Jettisoning perfectly reasonable and logical categories that apply to the vast majority of people is silly. But not always. Well that is the definition, so no. Now you can a disorder where you don't produce viable gamates but that isn't what people are talking about when they discuss this issue. Most trans men produced viable eggs, at least to start and more over it's not like they started producing sperm. Edit: this is why it is hard to get around a term like "biological male" it's actually quite well defined even if the "biological" part is superfluous
It's not just "to start with" either with eggs, it's so early that primary oocytes develop during the fetal stage, the finite supply is already fixed from before birth.
|
On September 09 2026 03:42 Introvert wrote:
You wouldn't call Hydrogen Helium until you added that extra proton
Sorry pal but atoms have the exact number of protons God gave them, and if you imply they're capable of "adding" anything to them, I'll take over your school board and have you fired for indoctrinating kids with woke godlessness.
|
On September 09 2026 03:40 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 03:18 Billyboy wrote:On September 09 2026 03:04 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 02:42 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 09 2026 01:53 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 01:16 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 20:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]One could simply say that a man is an "adult human male", but then "male" ends up carrying all of the same interesting/controversial weight that "man" did. You don't think the controversy is saying that a man is an adult human male? I didn't know what male had all the baggage that man did. I don't think there is much disagreement in what an Adult is referring to (age-wise) or what a Human is referring to (species-wise), for the conversation surrounding the trans community. Ok, what is a male? I answered it in the post you replied to (the part you cut out). It's the very next sentence Theres no biological basis for male and female that make them less ambiguous than man and woman? When I talk about disorders that ambiguate male and female, your response would be that both of those are already ambiguous? I thought it was known and uncontroversial that the problem lies in traits that infer sex, not that sex itself is just as ambiguous as the wider categories of man and woman. If I ask a biologist if the term male is well-defined, the biologist would have to respond that No, it’s an ambiguous term? How would a biologist define male? Ask a biologist. I'm asking DPB if he thinks the biologist's answer would be the same ambiguous answer as if he had asked a biologist what a man is. What specific part(s) of DPB's definition do you disagree with? That male and female brings up the same issues of ambiguity as is contained in man and woman. I think it is a giant level of ambiguity removed. You're removing the ambiguity surrounding the mixed reference to sex and gender. So is the problem with "adult human male" that not all males are men, or that males are just as interesting/controversial/ambiguous as men? A biologist would give the standard and then note that it isn’t binary and note biological sex involves a combination of chromosomes, genes, gonads, and hormones. Natural variations, such as intersex traits, mean that not every individual fits neatly into standard categorical definitions. Because scientists don’t care about your politics. This is/was also my expectation yeah.
This too, yeah. Sex is bimodal and not binary!
|
I am having massive Dejá Vu. Didn't we have this exact discussion with basically exactly the same statements and arguments at least 2-3 times already?
I guess the Hydrogen + Helium thing is slightly new?
|
On September 09 2026 03:50 Simberto wrote:
I am having massive Dejá Vu. Didn't we have this exact discussion with basically exactly the same statements and arguments at least 2-3 times already?
I guess the Hydrogen + Helium thing is slightly new?
Yes and yes.
|
Male/female being just as ambiguous as man/woman is definitely new. I thought people knew and understood that gender identity, gender expression, and cultural norms added all kinds of ambiguity on top of biological sex.
|
On September 09 2026 03:47 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 03:42 Introvert wrote:
You wouldn't call Hydrogen Helium until you added that extra proton Sorry pal but atoms have the exact number of protons God gave them, and if you imply they're capable of "adding" anything to them, I'll take over your school board and have you fired for indoctrinating kids with woke godlessness.
You picked a terrible analogy because atoms have no ambiguity. Their names arebased on their proton number, and there is no halfway between 1 and 2 protons. Some can have a varying number of neutrons but it doesn't change the element and, except in very particular circumstances, has absolutely no effect on the chemistry. Maybe you should advocate for some entirely new terminology instead of just male and female.
|
On September 09 2026 03:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 03:40 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 09 2026 03:18 Billyboy wrote:On September 09 2026 03:04 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 02:42 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 09 2026 01:53 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 01:16 dyhb wrote:
[quote]You don't think the controversy is saying that a man is an adult human male? I didn't know what male had all the baggage that man did. I don't think there is much disagreement in what an Adult is referring to (age-wise) or what a Human is referring to (species-wise), for the conversation surrounding the trans community. Ok, what is a male? I answered it in the post you replied to (the part you cut out). It's the very next sentence Theres no biological basis for male and female that make them less ambiguous than man and woman? When I talk about disorders that ambiguate male and female, your response would be that both of those are already ambiguous? I thought it was known and uncontroversial that the problem lies in traits that infer sex, not that sex itself is just as ambiguous as the wider categories of man and woman. If I ask a biologist if the term male is well-defined, the biologist would have to respond that No, it’s an ambiguous term? How would a biologist define male? Ask a biologist. I'm asking DPB if he thinks the biologist's answer would be the same ambiguous answer as if he had asked a biologist what a man is. What specific part(s) of DPB's definition do you disagree with? That male and female brings up the same issues of ambiguity as is contained in man and woman. I think it is a giant level of ambiguity removed. You're removing the ambiguity surrounding the mixed reference to sex and gender. So is the problem with "adult human male" that not all males are men, or that males are just as interesting/controversial/ambiguous as men? A biologist would give the standard and then note that it isn’t binary and note biological sex involves a combination of chromosomes, genes, gonads, and hormones. Natural variations, such as intersex traits, mean that not every individual fits neatly into standard categorical definitions. Because scientists don’t care about your politics. This is/was also my expectation yeah. This too, yeah. Sex is bimodal and not binary!
I don't know if you've thought this through. This is what bimodal distributions roughly look like.
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Bimodal.png)
So you think sex is distributed in a way similar to this. For the sake of simplicity without quibbling about details, we can just take this and say for example 0.5 might be a slight female, and 3.5 might be a "very" female (I would substitute "woman" but the name doesn't matter that isn't the point). Can you tell us all some examples of dimensions that you believe make a person more or less of a female?
|
On September 09 2026 04:07 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 03:47 LightSpectra wrote:On September 09 2026 03:42 Introvert wrote:
You wouldn't call Hydrogen Helium until you added that extra proton Sorry pal but atoms have the exact number of protons God gave them, and if you imply they're capable of "adding" anything to them, I'll take over your school board and have you fired for indoctrinating kids with woke godlessness. You picked a terrible analogy because atoms have no ambiguity. Their names arebased on their proton number, and there is no halfway between 1 and 2 protons. Some can have a varying number of neutrons but it doesn't change the element and, except in very particular circumstances, has absolutely no effect on the chemistry. Maybe you should advocate for some entirely new terminology instead of just male and female.
But I didn't claim that there's such a thing as fractional protons or whatever, my claim was 99% of the observable mass in the universe is hydrogen or helium. The rest is mental illness.
|
On September 09 2026 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 04:07 Introvert wrote:On September 09 2026 03:47 LightSpectra wrote:On September 09 2026 03:42 Introvert wrote:
You wouldn't call Hydrogen Helium until you added that extra proton Sorry pal but atoms have the exact number of protons God gave them, and if you imply they're capable of "adding" anything to them, I'll take over your school board and have you fired for indoctrinating kids with woke godlessness. You picked a terrible analogy because atoms have no ambiguity. Their names arebased on their proton number, and there is no halfway between 1 and 2 protons. Some can have a varying number of neutrons but it doesn't change the element and, except in very particular circumstances, has absolutely no effect on the chemistry. Maybe you should advocate for some entirely new terminology instead of just male and female. But I didn't claim that there's such a thing as fractional protons or whatever, my claim was 99% of the observable mass in the universe is hydrogen or helium. The rest is mental illness.
My point was that they are not interchangeable. Sure most of the universe is He and H but when we talked about the other 1% we give them their own names based on solid definitions, we don't call Helium "trans Hydrogen"
|
On September 09 2026 03:42 dyhb wrote:
You're skipping past the most important part. Is the person saying, "A man is an adult human male" committing an error by making it a simple substitution? I presume you disagree with the statement, since some people use man and woman to express a nuanced gender identity partially or entirely divorced from biological sex. But you haven't told me if you disagree and why.
Not at all actually. This started with
On September 08 2026 20:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
One could simply say that a man is an "adult human male", but then "male" ends up carrying all of the same interesting/controversial weight that "man" did. We could say that a man / someone who is male usually-but-not-always has XY chromosomes, usually-but-not-always has testes, usually-but-not-always produces sperm, usually-but-not-always can grow facial hair, and usually-but-not-always has a ton of other features.
Which was followed up by you with
On September 09 2026 01:16 dyhb wrote:
You don't think the controversy is saying that a man is an adult human male? I didn't know what male had all the baggage that man did.
If you wanted to question if substituting man with "adult human male", you could have done so, but you didn't. Instead you straight jumped to "how is male controversial" in response to DarkPlasmaBall clearly laying out a logical construct where you either substitute the terms or one becomes a subset of the other and thus inherits all the complexity and controversy as I described in my response. You either failed to understand that, or asked the wrong question.
Personally I don't really care of its definition past "sex and gender are 2 different things" and "what does the person I am talking to understand/mean when they hear/say the word". Having dabbled in some linguistics, and coming from a languages where its linguistics is descriptive rather than proscriptive, I am more open to contextual use of it and changing of it. As long as the intend is not stupid gatekeeping don't care how one uses the term. There is non stupid gate keeping, which I am also fine with. Overall I think I am fine with the definition DarkPlasmaBall laid out as long as we are talking about "man/male" being understood in the context of sex and not gender.
My dream would be to live in a world where all we need is the "usually-but-not-always" definition by DarkPlasmaBall because we have completely done away with gender roles and thus its merely a question of sex where it matters, but we will never get there. So a more wishy washy definition with lots of "usually-but-not-always" is ok too.
|
On September 09 2026 04:21 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 04:15 LightSpectra wrote:On September 09 2026 04:07 Introvert wrote:On September 09 2026 03:47 LightSpectra wrote:On September 09 2026 03:42 Introvert wrote:
You wouldn't call Hydrogen Helium until you added that extra proton Sorry pal but atoms have the exact number of protons God gave them, and if you imply they're capable of "adding" anything to them, I'll take over your school board and have you fired for indoctrinating kids with woke godlessness. You picked a terrible analogy because atoms have no ambiguity. Their names arebased on their proton number, and there is no halfway between 1 and 2 protons. Some can have a varying number of neutrons but it doesn't change the element and, except in very particular circumstances, has absolutely no effect on the chemistry. Maybe you should advocate for some entirely new terminology instead of just male and female. But I didn't claim that there's such a thing as fractional protons or whatever, my claim was 99% of the observable mass in the universe is hydrogen or helium. The rest is mental illness. My point was that they are not interchangeable. Sure most of the universe is He and H but when we talked about the other 1% we give them their own names based on solid definitions, we don't call Helium "trans Hydrogen"
Okay, then start using other terminology that's clearer and doesn't have any prejudicial connotations. If it catches on happily I'll credit you for it. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if there was a significant number of trans people who think all the conventional terminology is heavily flawed and foisted upon them by the rest of society. But at the moment I'm a lot more concerned about people who want a police state to enforce a binary gendered society and use people who don't conveniently fit into that mold as their scapegoat for everything.
|
On September 09 2026 04:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 03:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 03:40 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 09 2026 03:18 Billyboy wrote:On September 09 2026 03:04 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 02:42 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 09 2026 01:53 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I don't think there is much disagreement in what an Adult is referring to (age-wise) or what a Human is referring to (species-wise), for the conversation surrounding the trans community. Ok, what is a male? I answered it in the post you replied to (the part you cut out). It's the very next sentence Theres no biological basis for male and female that make them less ambiguous than man and woman? When I talk about disorders that ambiguate male and female, your response would be that both of those are already ambiguous? I thought it was known and uncontroversial that the problem lies in traits that infer sex, not that sex itself is just as ambiguous as the wider categories of man and woman. If I ask a biologist if the term male is well-defined, the biologist would have to respond that No, it’s an ambiguous term? How would a biologist define male? Ask a biologist. I'm asking DPB if he thinks the biologist's answer would be the same ambiguous answer as if he had asked a biologist what a man is. What specific part(s) of DPB's definition do you disagree with? That male and female brings up the same issues of ambiguity as is contained in man and woman. I think it is a giant level of ambiguity removed. You're removing the ambiguity surrounding the mixed reference to sex and gender. So is the problem with "adult human male" that not all males are men, or that males are just as interesting/controversial/ambiguous as men? A biologist would give the standard and then note that it isn’t binary and note biological sex involves a combination of chromosomes, genes, gonads, and hormones. Natural variations, such as intersex traits, mean that not every individual fits neatly into standard categorical definitions. Because scientists don’t care about your politics. This is/was also my expectation yeah. This too, yeah. Sex is bimodal and not binary! I don't know if you've thought this through. This is what bimodal distributions roughly look like. So you think sex is distributed in a way similar to this. For the sake of simplicity without quibbling about details, we can just take this and say for example 0.5 might be a slight female, and 3.5 might be a "very" female (I would substitute "woman" but the name doesn't matter that isn't the point). Can you tell us all some examples of dimensions that you believe make a person more or less of a female?
You have no idea what you're talking about, but thanks for trying to math-splain / stats-splain to me lol. Bimodal just means there are two responses that are more common than the rest (for sex, it's Men and Women). That fact doesn't require your image's distribution or anything else you assumed.
Here's an example: 100 people with 49 men, 49 women, and 2 non-binary individuals.
Bimodal data sets can also be discrete; they don't need to be continuous.
|
On September 09 2026 04:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 04:11 oBlade wrote:On September 09 2026 03:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 03:40 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 09 2026 03:18 Billyboy wrote:On September 09 2026 03:04 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 02:42 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 09 2026 01:53 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:
[quote]Ok, what is a male?
I answered it in the post you replied to (the part you cut out). It's the very next sentence Theres no biological basis for male and female that make them less ambiguous than man and woman? When I talk about disorders that ambiguate male and female, your response would be that both of those are already ambiguous? I thought it was known and uncontroversial that the problem lies in traits that infer sex, not that sex itself is just as ambiguous as the wider categories of man and woman. If I ask a biologist if the term male is well-defined, the biologist would have to respond that No, it’s an ambiguous term? How would a biologist define male? Ask a biologist. I'm asking DPB if he thinks the biologist's answer would be the same ambiguous answer as if he had asked a biologist what a man is. What specific part(s) of DPB's definition do you disagree with? That male and female brings up the same issues of ambiguity as is contained in man and woman. I think it is a giant level of ambiguity removed. You're removing the ambiguity surrounding the mixed reference to sex and gender. So is the problem with "adult human male" that not all males are men, or that males are just as interesting/controversial/ambiguous as men? A biologist would give the standard and then note that it isn’t binary and note biological sex involves a combination of chromosomes, genes, gonads, and hormones. Natural variations, such as intersex traits, mean that not every individual fits neatly into standard categorical definitions. Because scientists don’t care about your politics. This is/was also my expectation yeah. This too, yeah. Sex is bimodal and not binary! I don't know if you've thought this through. This is what bimodal distributions roughly look like. So you think sex is distributed in a way similar to this. For the sake of simplicity without quibbling about details, we can just take this and say for example 0.5 might be a slight female, and 3.5 might be a "very" female (I would substitute "woman" but the name doesn't matter that isn't the point). Can you tell us all some examples of dimensions that you believe make a person more or less of a female? You have no idea what you're talking about, but thanks for trying to math-splain / stats-splain to me lol. Bimodal just means there are two responses that are more common than the rest (for sex, it's Men and Women). That fact doesn't require your image's distribution or anything else you assumed. Here's an example: 100 people with 49 men, 49 women, and 2 non-binary individuals. Bimodal data sets can also be discrete; they don't need to be continuous.
You specifically went for sex instead of gender on this. You can certainly have a discrete distribution but you will be hard pressed to get more than 2 buckets because there are no speggs or otherwise non-binary gametes (?).
If your non-binary bucket is just a catch-all extra, so your enlightened "bimodal distribution" that isn't binary is just limited to all of 3 discrete buckets instead of 2 so you can "ackshually" people, cool.
|
On September 09 2026 04:58 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 04:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 04:11 oBlade wrote:On September 09 2026 03:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 03:40 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 09 2026 03:18 Billyboy wrote:On September 09 2026 03:04 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 02:42 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 09 2026 01:53 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:[quote] I answered it in the post you replied to (the part you cut out). It's the very next sentence Theres no biological basis for male and female that make them less ambiguous than man and woman? When I talk about disorders that ambiguate male and female, your response would be that both of those are already ambiguous? I thought it was known and uncontroversial that the problem lies in traits that infer sex, not that sex itself is just as ambiguous as the wider categories of man and woman. If I ask a biologist if the term male is well-defined, the biologist would have to respond that No, it’s an ambiguous term? How would a biologist define male? Ask a biologist. I'm asking DPB if he thinks the biologist's answer would be the same ambiguous answer as if he had asked a biologist what a man is. What specific part(s) of DPB's definition do you disagree with? That male and female brings up the same issues of ambiguity as is contained in man and woman. I think it is a giant level of ambiguity removed. You're removing the ambiguity surrounding the mixed reference to sex and gender. So is the problem with "adult human male" that not all males are men, or that males are just as interesting/controversial/ambiguous as men? A biologist would give the standard and then note that it isn’t binary and note biological sex involves a combination of chromosomes, genes, gonads, and hormones. Natural variations, such as intersex traits, mean that not every individual fits neatly into standard categorical definitions. Because scientists don’t care about your politics. This is/was also my expectation yeah. This too, yeah. Sex is bimodal and not binary! I don't know if you've thought this through. This is what bimodal distributions roughly look like. So you think sex is distributed in a way similar to this. For the sake of simplicity without quibbling about details, we can just take this and say for example 0.5 might be a slight female, and 3.5 might be a "very" female (I would substitute "woman" but the name doesn't matter that isn't the point). Can you tell us all some examples of dimensions that you believe make a person more or less of a female? You have no idea what you're talking about, but thanks for trying to math-splain / stats-splain to me lol. Bimodal just means there are two responses that are more common than the rest (for sex, it's Men and Women). That fact doesn't require your image's distribution or anything else you assumed. Here's an example: 100 people with 49 men, 49 women, and 2 non-binary individuals. Bimodal data sets can also be discrete; they don't need to be continuous. You specifically went for sex instead of gender on this. You can certainly have a discrete distribution but you will be hard pressed to get more than 2 buckets because there are no speggs or otherwise non-binary gametes (?). If your non-binary bucket is just a catch-all extra, so your enlightened "bimodal distribution" that isn't binary is just limited to all of 3 discrete buckets instead of 2 so you can "ackshually" people, cool.
Did you want me to send you my lesson plans on learning mean, median, and mode?
|
On September 09 2026 03:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2026 03:32 Introvert wrote:On September 09 2026 02:42 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 09 2026 01:53 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:On September 09 2026 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 09 2026 01:16 dyhb wrote:On September 08 2026 20:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 07 2026 11:54 ETisME wrote:
[quote]
What is a man One could simply say that a man is an "adult human male", but then "male" ends up carrying all of the same interesting/controversial weight that "man" did. You don't think the controversy is saying that a man is an adult human male? I didn't know what male had all the baggage that man did. I don't think there is much disagreement in what an Adult is referring to (age-wise) or what a Human is referring to (species-wise), for the conversation surrounding the trans community. Ok, what is a male? I answered it in the post you replied to (the part you cut out). It's the very next sentence Theres no biological basis for male and female that make them less ambiguous than man and woman? When I talk about disorders that ambiguate male and female, your response would be that both of those are already ambiguous? I thought it was known and uncontroversial that the problem lies in traits that infer sex, not that sex itself is just as ambiguous as the wider categories of man and woman. If I ask a biologist if the term male is well-defined, the biologist would have to respond that No, it’s an ambiguous term? How would a biologist define male? What specific part(s) of DPB's definition do you disagree with? We went over this one time. Male produces sperm and female produces eggs. Other sex-associated characteristics are not part of the definition but they often go together. Objections are the one-legged man problem "how can you say humans have two legs that person was born with no legs!" Jettisoning perfectly reasonable and logical categories that apply to the vast majority of people is silly. But not always.
His point still stands. Males have organs made to produce sperm, and if they don't, we have a one-legged-man problem.
I have heard similar analogies from the animal world, with certain species changing their gender at will, for example. A single Queen Bee can also be the the mother of a whole colony, and ther are females who eat their partners after mating. What animals do is not relevant for humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
