You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] LazarusLong ago 

There are some rare times when boy and girl is hard to define but it is incredibly rare.

A proper scientific definition should handle edge cases.

Its ok to have a n effeminate man. That doesn't magically make him a her.

I mean the brain is exactly the same as what would fall within the "female" spectrum in every way we can measure.

Again, I really don't care what other people want to refer to someone as, or how they want to refer to themselves.

That's each person's prerogative.

However, there is an actual field of study which is ideally exists outside of the political and cultural bullshit surrounding this issue.

I personally prefer the conclusions of unbiased research to any emotionally charged assertions coming out of the SJW/ultra-con shitshow.

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.