0
0

[–] voat-ist ago  (edited ago)

" unbiased research" is not something I believe exists.

A proper scientific definition does not handle all the edge cases. That is naive. It fails when we talk about weather a virus is alive. It fails hard when we talk about what constitutes a species. Sometimes, good solid definitions just can't cover everything.

You also say "every way we can measure" which is the real problem isn't it? You seem to have much more faith in how far along science is when it comes to understanding the brain and what makes up human "self."

Edit: idk who is downvoting you. But they are a butthole and they should stop. Downvoting is for people who aren't clearly articulating their ideas people.

0
0

[–] LazarusLong ago  (edited ago)

" unbiased research" is not something I believe exists.

Certainly completely unbiased is probably impossible, but I think there are many organizations doing a pretty honest job.

A proper scientific definition does not handle all the edge cases. That is naive. It fails when we talk about weather a virus is alive. It fails hard when we talk about what constitutes a species. Sometimes, good solid definitions just can't cover everything.

You also say "every way we can measure" which is the real problem isn't it? You seem to have much more faith in how far along science is when it comes to understanding the brain and what makes up human "self."

I was under the impression that a virus did not meet all 7 of the currently established criteria for life.

Science does have a long way to go as far as understanding the brain, but the results of brain brain/body gender can be quantified in a number of ways.

Various aptitude tests for skills that are indicative to one gender or the other, hormone levels at various points in life, reflex testing, receptor density, size of sexually dimorphic brain structures, etc.

If I had to come up with a cut and dried definition of gender I would just make it a sliding scale between femaleness and maleness. Then let the results of a battery of the above tests determine where someone falls on that scale.

Maybe even defining the ranges of the scale from the body of all gathered results within a time period/location to allow for population based variations.

Then people could fight it out over where to put the line between "that's a man" and "that's a woman."

Maybe the understanding isn't advanced enough for something like that to be possible or practical.

Currently, I just go off how someone looks.

If they ask to be referred to as something else and aren't a dick about it, I generally oblige.

0
0

[–] voat-ist ago 

As for the last line I agree. If you want me to call you a girl and you have nuts it's fine by me. But Don't go in the bathroom with my daughters.

A virus doesn't meet all 7. The big one is cell structure. But that is the fun thing. Biologists usually say 5 of 7 counts as "life." IIRC a virus solidly meets like 3. But scientists argue about it. This is the point. A well accepted reasoned definition that takes all our best information into account still doesn't account for some weird cases.