|
On October 17 2013 04:37 Slayer91 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 04:35 ComaDose wrote:On October 17 2013 04:35 Slayer91 wrote: why its only wrong if it doesnt achieve its purpose this is the real world not philosophy your saying you can call a 2 a 1 and it will be right. I do not follow. what's a 2? You just made up 2, what does 2 refer to? Here is it spelled out for you. You say man is 1 and woman is 0 someone is neither woman nor man you call them a 1 or a 0 you are incorrect.
|
its not incorrect its my assignment i decide what is correct thats how code works
|
On October 17 2013 04:39 Slayer91 wrote: its not incorrect its my assignment i decide what is correct thats how code works
You cant tell people what gender they are.
|
im not telling people what gender they are it was an example for how to write a code if you were going to categorize people for purposes of advertising or something else that involves a large number of people
|
On October 17 2013 04:40 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 04:39 Slayer91 wrote: its not incorrect its my assignment i decide what is correct thats how code works
You cant tell people what gender they are.
If they are classifying themselves as "Null", and you are coding all of humanity into either 1=Female, 0=Male, then yes, you can assign them your own classification.
This is purely classification purposes. You are not assigning them their identity. You're dropping them into a bucket to make manipulation of the data make sense.
|
I find the idea that you want to force everyone into 2 boxes gross and highly disturbing. But yes if your going back to advertising now, we have already decided that mirroring society is effective.
|
I was going to complain about this argument but then I remembered I had like a 10 page discourse with Osmo about KS.
So I fucked up my sleep schedule last night. I fell asleep at like 7 PM. Like, I got home, ate dinner, and passed out on the couch. Then I woke up (in my bed wtf) at 2 AM and couldn't fall back to sleep so I got up and played Hearthstone and Pokemon.
I haven't had caffeine in a long time but I think I'm going to have to stay up tonight to get my shit back on track lol. I should play League, Dew-fueled sessions usually have good winrates.
|
On October 17 2013 04:44 ComaDose wrote: I find the idea that you want to force everyone into 2 boxes gross and highly disturbing. But yes if your going back to advertising now, we have already decided that mirroring society is effective.
you don't understand at all we are putting people in boxes for a certain purpose the same boxes we might use for people of the same personality type
there are often advantages to doing this certain types of people work better together etc
|
On October 17 2013 04:38 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 04:37 Slayer91 wrote:On October 17 2013 04:35 ComaDose wrote:On October 17 2013 04:35 Slayer91 wrote: why its only wrong if it doesnt achieve its purpose this is the real world not philosophy your saying you can call a 2 a 1 and it will be right. I do not follow. what's a 2? You just made up 2, what does 2 refer to? Here is it spelled out for you. You say man is 1 and woman is 0 someone is neither woman nor man you call them a 1 or a 0 you are incorrect. even if classification is wrong, and you put someone who is neither, into 1 or 0. the error rate is so low that it is pretty much nondescript.
|
In this argument each side is trying to make a point. Both sides have acknowledged the other side's point. I think we all understand where we're coming from after this discussion.
Discussion is useful for understanding things. Like discussing personality test results.
|
I didn't get shit done today heh fuck.
I never said being a bigot wasn't good for business so I'm not sure what your saying i don't understand.
I also said that if you fit into the boxes that the person who made the test outlined, then the test will reiterate that you are infact in the box you answered like you were in.
|
yes. thats the definition of a test.
theres no way of knowing what box someone is in if you dont do the test
"I never said being a bigot wasn't good for business so I'm not sure what your saying i don't understand. " so you're saying companys should advertise for intersex people? you are ridiculous
|
On October 17 2013 03:58 Slayer91 wrote: im not grossly miscontruing the two, im stating that the vast majority of people equate them and thus if we were an advertising company we ignore those few.
we are not arguing about different things nay more, and i know some people identify with the "opposite" gender as their sex, but you are butting into the conversation without reading the context.
Those whom differ from societal gender roles construe a significantly larger proportion of population than less than 1%. Women in the military, stay-at-home dads, and same-sex couples all break conventional social norms and conceptions of their gender. This is not identifying with the "opposite" gender, but breaking cultural gender roles. Again, gender is not binary, but complex social constructs that consistently evolve, adapt, and cross-pollinate with one another.
That being said, for classification purposes, the use of biological sex is a perfectly valid unit of analysis, and the statistical data that's yielded remains useful (since classifying gender is far too complex and fluid to categorize). As long as the two aren't construed, I'm fine with it.
On October 17 2013 04:00 Osmoses wrote: I'm with Slayer. If one person out of a million somehow grows a dick-vagina or an egg dispenser from out behind their right ear that's not a new gender, that's not even worth categorizing. Every known species that reproduces sexually have two parties, a male and a female. Why anyone would think this is worth arguing over completely baffles me.
Though if the alternative is pokemon, please go on -_- As I just stated, sex=/=gender. Gender is not biological (whereas sex is, by and large, and binary), but a social/cultural construct. What is considered masculine and feminine changes dramatically depending on the social and cultural context. <__<
Statistical sampling and analysis based on sex is entirely fine, but the words are no longer interchangeable (but then again, that is my social science background talking).
|
Oh shit I just realized I forgot to pay my rent.
|
On October 17 2013 05:10 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 03:58 Slayer91 wrote: im not grossly miscontruing the two, im stating that the vast majority of people equate them and thus if we were an advertising company we ignore those few.
we are not arguing about different things nay more, and i know some people identify with the "opposite" gender as their sex, but you are butting into the conversation without reading the context.
Those whom differ from societal gender roles construe a significantly larger proportion of population than less than 1%. Women in the military, stay-at-home dads, and same-sex couples all break conventional social norms and conceptions of their gender. This is not identifying with the "opposite" gender, but breaking cultural gender roles. Again, gender is not binary, but complex social constructs that consistently evolve, adapt, and cross-pollinate with one another. That being said, for classification purposes, the use of biological sex is a perfectly valid unit of analysis, and the statistical data that's yielded remains useful (since classifying gender is far too complex and fluid to categorize). As long as the two aren't construed, I'm fine with it. Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 04:00 Osmoses wrote: I'm with Slayer. If one person out of a million somehow grows a dick-vagina or an egg dispenser from out behind their right ear that's not a new gender, that's not even worth categorizing. Every known species that reproduces sexually have two parties, a male and a female. Why anyone would think this is worth arguing over completely baffles me.
Though if the alternative is pokemon, please go on -_- As I just stated, sex=/=gender. Gender is not biological (whereas sex is, by and large, and binary), but a social/cultural construct. What is considered masculine and feminine changes dramatically depending on the social and cultural context. <__< Statistical sampling and analysis based on sex is entirely fine, but the words are no longer interchangeable (but then again, that is my social science background talking).
if you're a stay at home dad or a woman in the military it doesn't affect things like what kind of movies you like to watch and what kind of products you like to buy defying gender roles doesn't mean you identify with a different gender so it doesnt affect my argument at all really what you're arguing now is beside the point completely. How many stay at home dads call themselves a woman? How many women in the military think they are really men? Not many. That's what i was referring to, people woh were born on sex but feel they are the other, if they were 40% of the population you would need to account for that in businesses, however since they arnet you don't
|
On October 17 2013 05:08 Slayer91 wrote: "I never said being a bigot wasn't good for business so I'm not sure what your saying i don't understand." so you're saying companys should advertise for intersex people? you are ridiculous I said the exact opposite?
|
you're saying that because they dont they are bigots calling someone a bigot for doing their job what
|
United States15536 Posts
On October 17 2013 05:19 Slayer91 wrote: you're saying that because they dont they are bigots calling someone a bigot for doing their job what
They are bigots. Usually people who are are bigots by ignorance.
Participating in a flawed society that perpetuates bigotry makes you a bigot.
If you aren't part of the solution you're part of the problem.
|
All aboard the Ark to escape this thread in hopes of the promised land
|
Propagating binary gender roles is bad mmk
|
|
|
|
|
|