|
(spreads cheeks to fart, but only THE LAW comes out)
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
I wouldn't refer to Trump as "Lordsir" because "Lordsir" is an honorific, if a neologism, and to apply it would be inappropriate for the same reason as calling him "Officer" or "Your Honor". He can choose whatever pronoun he wants; personally, I recommend "Santorum".
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
I just wanted to chip in and say that there is in fact some good evidence that hormonal development is connected to gender identity development, although of course gender development is multidimensional. Thus gender is not completely disconnected from biological sex. This review gives a good general overview: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-neuro-061010-113654#/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-neuro-060909-153218 Interestingly, hormonal development also seems to be associated with sex-typed play. This study specifically looks at how adrenal androgen overproduction leads to more masculinised patterns of playful behaviour: http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2001-011531
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Lichy posted:I just wanted to chip in and say that there is in fact some good evidence that hormonal development is connected to gender identity development, although of course gender development is multidimensional. Thus gender is not completely disconnected from biological sex. Ah, the old "we are genetically programmed to conceive of cars and construction vehicles" saw.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Ah, the old "we are genetically programmed to conceive of cars and construction vehicles" saw. I'm sorry?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Lichy posted:I just wanted to chip in and say that there is in fact some good evidence that hormonal development is connected to gender identity development, although of course gender development is multidimensional. Thus gender is not completely disconnected from biological sex.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
In addition, there is a very good news article in Nature on the topic of the relationship between gender and sex at the genetic and developmental level: http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943 Cingulate posted:Everything is somehow connected. Almost no effect in the life sciences is precisely zero. The concept of significance of an effect is rather important to good, reproducible science.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Lichy posted:I'm sorry? Saying that playing with construction vehicles is caused by hormones relies on the assumption that we are genetically programmed to understand what a backhoe is, if we are to use it as evidence that the relationship is "hormones cause masculine play" rather than "hormones cause an internal state that leads to masculine play". That is, what constitutes a masculine toy is so obviously culturally contingent that it's bullshit to use it as evidence that testosterone causes systematizing thinking over testosterone causing an internal state which we bind up with systematizing thinking in a cultural construction of masculinity and maleness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Saying that playing with construction vehicles is caused by hormones relies on the assumption that we are genetically programmed to understand what a backhoe is I disagree, as I have said gender identity is multidimensional, thus, while testosterone affects behaviour, how exactly it affects it depends on societal exposure (learning to use a backhoe is part of societal exposure).
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Lichy posted:I disagree, as I have said gender identity is multidimensional, thus, while testosterone affects behaviour, how exactly it affects it depends on societal exposure (learning to use a backhoe is part of societal exposure). That's what the researchers are arguing in their abstracts, though!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:That's what the researchers are arguing in their abstracts, though! The JCEM study has found a relationship between fetal androgen exposure and the degree of masculinisation. Whether masculinity is a social construct or not this shows that hormonal development influences gender typing to some statistically significant extent, at least in congenital adrenal hyperplasia sufferers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
For those asking, many of the non standard pronouns used today were coined back in the seventies. Not only that but gender neutral pronouns have been proposed by linguists going as far back as the 19th century. Its possible some have been made up more recently but there is a long running precedent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
blowfish posted:At the end of the day, if that's not objectively verifiable, why should anyone need to care. It's actually objectively verifiable that transgender people's brains function differently from cisgender people's, and in a manner that can't be written off as a mental illness. the trump tutelage posted:What if I believe that society as a whole would be happier if there was less celebration of individuality and less weight placed on individual experience and subjective truth? Then I kind of think you might be in the wrong country. A big part of the American ethos is that the individual matters, that the minority should be protected from the tyranny of the majority, etc. Majorian fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Mar 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Lichy posted:The concept of significance of an effect is rather important to good, reproducible science. Okay, you can't know this, but significance is not what you think it is. Significance refers to the detectability of an effect given a sample, not to the existence or importance of an effect. And in the brain and behavioral sciences, it is generally assumed that almost all possible comparisons have some non-zero effect that would come up as significant in a sufficiently large study. This does not mean the effect is of substantial magnitude; it does mean that an effect being significant has become an outdated statement. Brainiac Five posted:Saying that playing with construction vehicles is caused by hormones relies on the assumption that we are genetically programmed to understand what a backhoe is, if we are to use it as evidence that the relationship is "hormones cause masculine play" rather than "hormones cause an internal state that leads to masculine play". That is, what constitutes a masculine toy is so obviously culturally contingent that it's bullshit to use it as evidence that testosterone causes systematizing thinking over testosterone causing an internal state which we bind up with systematizing thinking in a cultural construction of masculinity and maleness. Majorian posted:It's actually objectively verifiable that transgender people's brains function differently from cisgender people's, and in a manner that can't be written off as a mental illness That transgender people's brains function differently from cis people is not a meaningful observation - it's either trivially true (what else do you think experiences a misfit between sex and gender, the liver?), or lacking substantial evidence. For now, we're not even remotely sure what the, if any, substantial differences between sexes are, and the studies on that have been much bigger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Generally, no general statement can be objectively verified with empirics, and specifically, there is nothing objective in brains that says that some complex, common trait is or is not to be classified as a mental illness. No, but the consensus among people whose business it is to diagnose mental illnesses is pretty much that being transgender doesn't meet the criteria. This only becomes more underlined when the opposing argument can be neatly summed up as, "It's...it's just WRONG, okay?! Men don't wear women's clothes or vice-versa! Argh!!!" quote:That transgender people's brains function differently from cis people is not a meaningful observation Indeed it isn't! Thank God I posted an article that has considerably more content than just that. e: Here, let me help you out: quote:They found significant differences between male and female brains in four regions of white matter – and the female-to-male transsexual people had white matter in these regions that resembled a male brain (Journal of Psychiatric Research, DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.05.006). “It’s the first time it has been shown that the brains of female-to-male transsexual people are masculinised,” Guillamon says. quote:For now, we're not even remotely sure what the, if any, substantial differences between sexes are  This is a joke, right?
Majorian fucked around with this message at 09:11 on Mar 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No, but the consensus among people whose business it is to diagnose mental illnesses is pretty much that being transgender doesn't meet the criteria. This only becomes more underlined when the opposing argument can be neatly summed up as, "It's...it's just WRONG, okay?! Men don't wear women's clothes or vice-versa! Argh!!!" There was a high-profile study in one of the most important scientific journals (PNAS) reporting that in a sample of over 1000 brains scanned, female brains are more interconnected than male brains, congruent with the prevailing stereotype that men are straight-forward, focused problem solvers, and women are context-sensitive, interdependent empaths. Do you think this should be taken as evidence that men and women simply think differently, and that the differences in outcomes and social positions between the sexes we observe in this society should be taken to partially result from innate biology? Next, also in 2011, there was a series of studies on brain scans of trans people that was taken by some to indicate that Blanchard's characterization is correct. What's your gut feeling regarding these studies, without having yet seen them? I will read the stuff you're referring to in the light of my own intuitive answers to the above questions, which are "no" and "no", respectively. Majorian posted:
Edit: I now understand what you mean. I meant to say: we don't know what, if any, reliable, innate differences in the brains of men and women exist. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Mar 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Yes, as a punching bag. Come say this sentence in the stats and psychology threads so we can all have a mean-spirited laugh! It would be lovely to read a publication in a credible journal concerning what you said about significance, would you kindly point me in the right direction?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
According to the scientific journal, "Jurassic Park" developing babies are all female until the introduction of certain hormones. I could see it reasonable that differing amounts of hormones in the mother could produce more feminine or masculine traits in a fetus of the opposite biological sex.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
Sexual dimorphism in humans is pretty well studied. Behavioral differences between the sexes is really the only area where there's any major ambiguity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's actually objectively verifiable that transgender people's brains function differently from cisgender people's, and in a manner that can't be written off as a mental illness. While largely obsolete terminology in activist circles, "transsexual" does not map perfectly onto "transgender", although it is a subset of the latter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Isn't there some amount of chicken or the egg going on with the brain scans, though? The way we use our brain changes it physically, doesn't it? So couldn't social conditioning create differences between the sexes as well?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:According to the scientific journal, "Jurassic Park" developing babies are all female until the introduction of certain hormones. I could see it reasonable that differing amounts of hormones in the mother could produce more feminine or masculine traits in a fetus of the opposite biological sex. Other than the SRY gene encoding for a couple of proteins that begin testicular development (with the associated production of anti-mullerian hormone to cause regression of the Müllerian ducts which usually differentiate into the female reproductive tract), it's all hormones. And here's where the definition of biological sex gets tricky. What happens if SRY is absent or ineffective on the Y chromosome. Or if has been crossed onto an X chromosome during spermatogenesis. DeathMuffin fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Mar 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Lichy posted:It would be lovely to read a publication in a credible journal concerning what you said about significance, would you kindly point me in the right direction? Beyond that, it would actually be pretty hard to not come across a few of the vast number of recent papers that have been written on this. One easy way of finding more would be to look at any of the 3500 citations of Cohen's paper. Psychological Science's Most Read list featured for a long time one of Cumming's many publications on the topic: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/25/1/7.abstract In a similar vein, basically all major organizations have published some condemnations of significance tests in the last year, such as Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700 the ASA: http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 Already in 1998, BBS published a defense of p values, indicating the strong tradition of criticism: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=30907&fileId=S0140525X98591169 And so on. But really, you should just read Cohen's paper, twice. It's all in there. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. Araenna posted:Isn't there some amount of chicken or the egg going on with the brain scans, though? The way we use our brain changes it physically, doesn't it? So couldn't social conditioning create differences between the sexes as well?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
So in other words, there are no male eggs/sperm or female eggs/sperm. They're all the same. Is that right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:So in other words, there are no male eggs/sperm or female eggs/sperm. They're all the same. Is that right? No. It's that foetally we have both sets of ducts that differentiate into the male and female reproductive tracts. Sexual differentiation is initiated by a single gene (usually) on the Y chromosome, which causes a cascade of hormones which do everything else. If you are insensitive to testosterone you develop phenotypically female. If that gene is actually present on the X chromosome you develop phenotypically male .. Plus many other configurations
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
sidviscous posted:No. It's that foetally we have both sets of ducts that differentiate into the male and female reproductive tracts. Sexual differentiation is initiated by a single gene (usually) on the Y chromosome, which causes a cascade of hormones which do everything else. Oh right, I forgot about the X and Y chromosomes. Also that genetic inheritance has a bit of randomness to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Okay I can do that, but as a preface, I want to ask you for your own intuition about two other recent findings. The Atlantic did an excellent summary of the first study to which you're referring: quote:Scientists have long known that male and female brains are distinct, but the degree of these differences, and whether they impact behavior, is still somewhat of a mystery. The field has repeatedly unearthed seemingly solid clues that turned out to be red herrings. In August, for example, a study in the journal PLoS One challenged the long-held idea that male and female brains exhibit differences in “lateralization,” or strengths in one half of the brain or another. And past books on the “male” and “female” styles of thinking have been criticized for only including studies that reinforce well-known gender stereotypes. My feeling on the study's findings is that they underline what everyone here already knows, ie: innate biology plays a role in the differences between genders, and social conditioning also plays a role. When you read the study that I cited earlier, however, you'll note that the researchers controlled for the variable of gender social conditioning. Regarding the second study you cite, I'm assuming you mean "New MRI Studies Support the Blanchard Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism." If so, take note of the following paragraph in the NIH's summary: quote:Also meriting emphasis is that—although these data disconfirm that the heterosexual type has a feminized brain pattern—the data nonetheless confirm that heterosexual transsexuals have a brain structure distinct from that of typical (nontranssexual) persons. Their gender identity is not a transient or ephemeral characteristic, but a likely innate and immutable characteristic, emerging from their particular brain structure. This confirms the findings of the previous study I cited.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The most-cited text in this context is probably Cohen's "The Earth is Round (p < .05)". It's very readable, too. You can find copies everywhere, but here is one: http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/PP279_Cohen1.pdf This is actually really helpful, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's actually objectively verifiable that transgender people's brains function differently from cisgender people's, and in a manner that can't be written off as a mental illness. Yes, precisely, and I do not dispute it. My contention is that a large proportion of self-identified xpecial xnowflake gender people most likely do show this phenomenon. Brainiac Five posted:Saying that playing with construction vehicles is caused by hormones relies on the assumption that we are genetically programmed to understand what a backhoe is, if we are to use it as evidence that the relationship is "hormones cause masculine play" rather than "hormones cause an internal state that leads to masculine play". That is, what constitutes a masculine toy is so obviously culturally contingent that it's bullshit to use it as evidence that testosterone causes systematizing thinking over testosterone causing an internal state which we bind up with systematizing thinking in a cultural construction of masculinity and maleness. There's experiments on basically newborn babies already showing these behavioural differences, when cultural baggage shouldn't yet have a meaningful effect. Systematizing thinking is arguably part of the internal state that leads to masculine play, and functionally I don't see a difference between ""hormones cause masculine play" and "hormones cause an internal state that leads to masculine play" because both take the same input and give you the same output while the intermediate step is interesting from a scientific but not from a societal point of view.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 09:50
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Yes, precisely, and I do not dispute it. My contention is that a large proportion of self-identified xpecial xnowflake gender people most likely do show this phenomenon. Those studies tend to have methodological problems at such a level as to make them worthless. Most don't even attempt to be double-blind. There are also studies which show that both masculinized and feminized play are performed by children and it's social correction that causes children to only perform one or the other. There's also a significant difference, societally, between "men inherently like trucks" and "men like trucks because we associate trucks with masculinity", because the latter is malleable and the former not. The latter also doesn't cause us to conclude that women who think systematically must be intersex or something, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
Yeah; there's definitely a major social component to what things are considered masculine or feminine. Look at the name "Leslie", or the profession of school teacher or nurse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
It's interesting how people assume that differences in the brain that may exist for trans people are about behavior rather than, say, a difference in the sensory homunculus which generates dysphoria about the shape of the body or something similar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The Atlantic did an excellent summary of the first study to which you're referring: I assume it makes no difference to you though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:05
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:It's interesting how people assume that differences in the brain that may exist for trans people are about behavior rather than, say, a difference in the sensory homunculus which generates dysphoria about the shape of the body or something similar. E: I mean, this seems like the fundamental disagreement between Internet gender theorists. Some people argue that gender is a social construct and others that gender is an innate aspect of our identities. Maybe they are both partially right, but I tend to lean towards the former because the latter doesn't jive with the way that I understand the "self" to function. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
If we have an innate identity, then I'd say it influences our gender by some factor. But I don't believe that it's likely that whatever innate thing this is would be nicely split down the middle. There are different gender norms throughout history and throughout different cultures, it doesn't make sense to me to say that there's a natural man identity/woman identity based on any contemporary social norms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:If we have an innate identity, then I'd say it influences our gender by some factor. But I don't believe that it's likely that whatever innate thing this is would be nicely split down the middle. There are different gender norms throughout history and throughout different cultures, it doesn't make sense to me to say that there's a natural man identity/woman identity based on any contemporary social norms. "natural man/woman identity" and "natural tendency to develop a man/woman identity" could, if you want to make that argument, be very different
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:E: I mean, this seems like the fundamental disagreement between Internet gender theorists. Some people argue that gender is a social construct and others that gender is an innate aspect of our identities. Maybe they are both partially right, but I tend to lean towards the former because the latter doesn't jive with the way that I understand the "self" to function. Identity is an extremely broad term whose broadness is abused extensively in that particular debate to justify either part of the arguement. If you take extreme positions on either end, the former implies it is reasonable to suggest gender reassignment surgery is not necessary ("the linkage between gender and sex organs is entirely socially fabricated and thus there can't be a" true" mismatch between them"), which is obviously a rather strong claim. Meanwhile, the latter implies that the plethora of gender terms (see: http://mogai-lexicon.tumblr.com) might not be infinite in scope, much to the ire of some. I endorse neither of these positions, but when taken to this level they become quite incompatible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:Identity is an extremely broad term whose broadness is abused extensively in that particular debate to justify either part of the arguement. If you take extreme positions on either end, the former implies it is reasonable to suggest gender reassignment surgery is not necessary ("the linkage between gender and sex organs is entirely socially fabricated and thus there can't be a" true" mismatch between them"), which is obviously a rather strong claim. Meanwhile, the latter implies that the plethora of gender terms (see: http://mogai-lexicon.tumblr.com) might not be infinite in scope, much to the ire of some. I endorse neither of these positions, but when taken to this level they become quite incompatible. Frankly I am of the opinion that the linkage between gender and sex organs is socially constructed. Historically, that social construction served a purpose (male sexual organs provide testosterone which in turn equips them to hunt and defend, ditto for females), but in industrial/post-industrial societies, that distinction basically doesn't matter and therefore the old gender roles are obsolete. I am no expert, but I imagine dysphoria comes from A: the cultural inertia that continues to maintain these distinct 'male' and 'female' identities, and feeling you do not fit into that category because you lack the sex characteristics erroneously assigned to those identities, and B: you feel a strong emotional response to the sex characteristics themselves, irrespective of the identities traditionally assigned to them. It is not uncommon for trans people to hate the sex characteristics that they're born with, even if gender roles were eliminated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:This is contentious i think Lacan got it right
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:Identity is an extremely broad term whose broadness is abused extensively in that particular debate to justify either part of the arguement. If you take extreme positions on either end, the former implies it is reasonable to suggest gender reassignment surgery is not necessary ("the linkage between gender and sex organs is entirely socially fabricated and thus there can't be a" true" mismatch between them"), which is obviously a rather strong claim. Meanwhile, the latter implies that the plethora of gender terms (see: http://mogai-lexicon.tumblr.com) might not be infinite in scope, much to the ire of some. I endorse neither of these positions, but when taken to this level they become quite incompatible. I think that sexual reassignment surgery still has a role even if gender is entirely socially constructed because of the physical aspect of sexual dysphoria. What it does suggest is that gender dysphoria, especially non-binary gender-dysphoria, is a culturally-bound mental illness. ^Lacan got it right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 19:04
|
|