Have you ever gotten bubble gum stuck in your hair? It's so hard to remove the stuff!
Decades ago, before I was old enough to drink legally, friends and I went down to TJ to go bar hopping. One of us thought he was very worldly and told us that if a prostitute approached us, you were to say, "Tengo no dinero" and they would leave you alone.
That night, we were at a bar and a thoroughly scrofulous whore slithered up to him, chewing a large wad of gum. She asked if he wanted to have some fun and in a panicked, squeaky voice he cried out, "¡Tengo no dinero! ¡Tengo no dinero!" She then growled some curse at him, took the gum out of her mouth and slammed it into his hair as she shoved him. We all laughed heartily. When we got back, he tried all kinds of things to get the gum out, but ended up having to cut some of his hair.
What Time Is It, Boys And Girls? It's Analogy Time!
For years now, I've used this blog to work out flaws in arguments. I've spent a huge amount of time on racism and a decent amount on the tranny thing. Dissecting recent discussions after getting past the snarling stage, I've come to the conclusion that it's a problem of hypothesis testing, or, rather, the lack of it.
Our culture has reduced the issues of race and trannies to single-variable polynomials. The variable is bigotry or, in it's most universal form, Hate™. Hate is the independent variable upon which every term in the equation depends. That means we can reduce many equations in life to a single-variable polynomial where x is the amount of Hate present.
It's nearly impossible to get this idea out of our heads. Marinating in a culture that desperately tries to fit the world into this model, any attempt to suggest complexity is met with swift condemnation. Trying to make sense of things when all around you are howling about Hate is like getting gum out of your hair.
In a previous post, I suggested the following players who act as guardians of the single-variable faith.
- Race grifters. Robin D'Angelo is out of a job if we suddenly declare that racial hate is no longer a big deal. Dittos for the bug-eyed practitioners of Modern Nazi Race Theory currently haranguing San Diego School District employees.
- Democrat politicians. For decades now, the Democratic Party has lived off of massive support from minority groups. If the prevailing view of the country was that income and education were markers of behavior and not racial spoils, they'd be toast.
- Social Justice Warriors. There's excitement in putting on your Power Ranger jammies and running outside to cosplay a battle wherein you defend a poor, beleaguered minority from the Forces of Hate™. If we came to the conclusion that the absence of fathers was orders of magnitude more important than hate, these people would have to face real German Shepherds and fire hoses as they strove to drag the culture back towards traditional morality.
The first two probably know the equation is wrong. The third probably don't, but are certain that to question it is to show you are filled with Hate. To publicly test hypotheses is to directly threaten all three groups.
As they're the majority with control of education, the arts, the news media and Big Tech, you'd be a total fool to question their equations. You have almost nothing to gain and everything to lose. It's best to keep quiet, even if the whole thing bothers you at a subconscious level.
Being a total fool, I got into science to understand how things work. It was the source of the tobacco and cotton experiments. I've picked and pulled at this particular wad of gum in my hair for years because it's illogical and I hate faulty logic with an OCD passion.
Since it doesn't pay to directly threaten the source of social justice porn, a different approach has to be used. In public discussions, as much fun as it is to yell at people, it's probably a better idea to pose doubt-inducing questions, such as:
- If racism is such a huge problem, why do blacks do so much better in Cheyenne, WY than they do in Chicago, IL?
- How do you know you identify as a man if you lack a man's endocrinology and brain structure?
It's non-threatening, but still makes the points.
 |
| Consider it the Socratic Method for getting gum out of your hair. |
21 comments:
Just a reminder: before you go thinking the Socratic Method is non-threatening and will allow you to reason with people without getting their hackles up, you might want to take a moment to remember what happened to Socrates.
See, this is what I was trying to say about canceling the classics. Instead of not learning Socrates, we should study him thoroughly and build on that. I would suggest that the famous, modern philosopher Van Zant has an interesting solution to the problem that Socrates faced way back when.
Peanut butter gets gum out of hair. You have to work it a little, but it seems to absorb the parts that make the gum stick. Washing out the mix is a chore, but doable. There are usually good answers to such questions, but sometimes you have to be open to understanding new ideas. Analogy time!
By the way, the adjective form of "Democrat" is "Democratic", just so you know.
Your confusion of racism with hate is part of the reason you don't understand people. Your occasional refusals to adjust your opinion in the light of new evidence (such as still referring to "canceling the classics" even when you were shown evidence that the professor was trying to expand the list of classics) is part of the reason that you think your logic is strong and other people get frustrated trying to discuss these things, yet you can't seem to make progress with them, either.
As an example, lets say a social scientist runs an experiment in Chicago. They hire some actors of various ages and races, and send them out to apply for entry-level jobs, being very careful to control for things like quality of the clothing they wear, hair styles, job background, etc. Such person finds that it's just a little bit easier for a white person with a (claimed) criminal record to land one of these jobs than it is for a black person with no criminal record (of course, white men with no record get hired at a much higher rate, and black men with a record at a much lower rate). It's not that managers all over the city are being hateful/white supremacists, they just treat black skin as the equivalent of a criminal record when hiring, probably without realizing it. Does that make the social scientist a "race grifter", Democratic politician, or social justice warrior?
If racism is such a huge problem, why do blacks do so much better in Cheyenne, WY than they do in Chicago, IL?
I assume you were referring to this?
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-04-08-mn-20458-story.html
I saw at least 6 different partial answers in that very story.
How do you know you identify as a man if you lack a man's endocrinology and brain structure?
Manliness is not based on endocrinology nor on brain structure.
One Brow
Manliness is not based on endocrinology nor on brain structure
OK. I’ll bite. What is it based on?
Ohioan@Heart,
I was taught that being a man meant you stand strong strong against things that were wicked, support people when they were weak, be kind to women and children, etc.; that the males who snuck around, the quislings, the bullies weren't really men. That isn't what you were taught?
One Brow
I agree with your definition (at least generally - there are two few words here to be certain that we are in complete agreement - but good enough).
I was quite surprised to see you define "man" (men / male / manliness / etc) using the phrase "women and children". Did you mean to imply that you consider those to be complementary sets? Does it mean that "women" can't be men?
Seriously, I'm just jerking you around this time (using some of that "Socratic method"). I was interested in your definition and I'm glad to see we are basically on the same page. Anyways, there is no need to answer these rhetorical questions. I understand that language is never really able to completely reflect the totally of our thoughts. So I'm satisfied with your answer, thank you for it, and won't be adding anything further to this thread.
Ohioan@Heart,
I appreciate any contribution you are willing to offer a discussion, for any duration you see fit.
My point, of course, is that there is nothing in endocrinology or sex-related brain structure that enables standing strong, giving support, or being kind.
Even though your questions were not seeking answers, I'll answer them, at least analogously. I see masonry and computer programming as complementary sets in out society, and I would even say that no one can be a mason and a computer programmer at the exact same time.
One Brow - I hate to go back on my word to not respond, but you seem to have misunderstood what I was getting at, so please bear with me while I become very direct (and possibly quite detailed).
First I seem to remember (faultily?) that you have a background/interest in math. Hence when I chose the phrase "complimentary sets" I assumed you understood that I meant that none of the sets have any elements in common and that their union is the complete set of the domain under discussion (assumed to be {humans}). Hence {masons} and {computer scientists} are not complementary, due to there being many more (professions/jobs/occupations). [Aside: I concede that they may be simultaneously mutually exclusive, however I could conceive of a computer scientist, who also dabbles in masonry, working to program a robotic system to perform masonry tasks, would that be both at the same time? Probably not, but close, very close. Aside ends] But if I assume that when you say {men} [are] kind to {{women}+{children}}, and if those sets are complementary, then the intersection of {men} and {women} is the empty set. So that led to my snarky question of could a woman be a man? You seem to concede that they would be mutually exclusive, at least simultaneously. But the general assertion that a woman can be a man is (along with a man being a woman) a tenant of the current gender position of the left. Anyways, am I wrong about how you meant {men} vs {women and children}?
Second, in your last you have expanded your definition by saying that there is "nothing in endocrinology or sex-related brain structure that enables standing strong, giving support, or being kind". This I do not agree with. There are sex-related brain structures. (see: this 2017 article. Here is quote from early in the article:
But over the past 15 years or so, there’s been a sea change as new technologies have generated a growing pile of evidence that there are inherent differences in how men’s and women’s brains are wired and how they work.
Not how well they work, mind you. Our differences don’t mean one sex or the other is better or smarter or more deserving. Some researchers have grappled with charges of “neurosexism”: falling prey to stereotypes or being too quick to interpret human sex differences as biological rather than cultural. They counter, however, that data from animal research, cross-cultural surveys, natural experiments and brain-imaging studies demonstrate real, if not always earthshaking, brain differences, and that these differences may contribute to differences in behavior and cognition. [Note: bolding added for emphasis.]
To believe that these are not, at least partially, caused by hormonal differences (endocrinology) would seem to me to be an indication of faulty reasoning. Since all our thoughts (and any subsequent ensuing actions) are products of the brain (and hence its structures), it is unlikely, bordering on the impossible, to deny any connection between these structures and the actions a person takes. Additionally, I would point out that it is much easier to support (at least in the context of defending) another when you have the strength to do so (i.e, defending both another and yourself against an aggressor). Surely you concede that males (thanks to testosterone) are generally bigger and stronger. Now this does not mean that I would say that all men are bigger, or stronger, or that a woman wouldn't risk themselves to defend another (particularly children!). It is meant to say that some of the actions in your definition are related to endocrinology and sex-related brain structure.
I think that's all pretty clear. At least I hope it is. And I do look forward to your response.
As I ran out characters in the previous comment...
Also, if you want to fall back on the idea that people think rationally and then decide to do those various things in your definition, I would point out that people are not rational, they are rationalizing, and most of our decisions are made by an non-rational brain system, which Kahneman called 'System 1' in his book "Thinking Fast and Slow" (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2011) [This is a great book which I highly recommend to all!]. Many of these decisions occur faster than what we typically think of as 'thinking', and people when asked later about why they made those decision make up a history of seemingly rational thoughts, hence the term rationalizing.
Ohioan writes, "data from animal research, cross-cultural surveys, natural experiments and brain-imaging studies demonstrate real, if not always earthshaking, brain differences, "
Which I think gets back to KT's original statement,
"How do you know you identify as a man if you lack a man's endocrinology and brain structure?"
KT seems to be suggesting that there is no way of objectively measuring a person's brain structure to see whether or not that structure matches the apparent gender of their body. But as Ohioan says, we do, in fact, have ways to get data on whether these brain differences exist.
So: Let's say we have a person whose body is, for example, female. This person claims that their brain's gender is in fact male. So we do some brain scans. And, for the sake of argument, let's say it turns out that the brain scan results really are a much closer match to the typical male brain than to the typical female brain.
So now what? What do you recommend that this person do?
-------------------------------
These kinds of studies have been done, and have concluded that gender mismatches between brain and body are actually happening. So this isn't entirely a "what if?" speculation on my part.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19403051/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18980961/
Ohioan@Heart,
I did indeed miss the reference to the mathematical notion of complementary sets. Sorry, I'll try to be more on the ball.
In that sense, I don't see "man" and "woman" as complementary. There are things we expect of both (honesty, hard-working, community-minded, etc.). There are traits that are optional for either (good dancer, trivia nut, etc.).
I agree our brain structures influence out preferences and behaviors, and that these structures are partly determined by our endocrine system. However, the brain is a remarkably plastic organ. If one damages the part of your brain that controls, for example, ones right leg, that part doesn't grow back (unless one is very young), but other parts of the brain will take over that function. Our brains adapt and change as we find ourselves in new situations and take on new tasks and roles.
Much like a person can be a bricklayer and a programmer, and switch between them, so some people perform the male roles at some times and the female role at other times. They sometimes refer to themselves as gender-fluid. Much as you can be neither bricklayer nor programmer, some people don't actively participate in either gender.
But the general assertion that a woman can be a man is (along with a man being a woman) a tenant of the current gender position of the left.
The "left" doesn't really have a single position here. There are trans-exclusionary radical feminists, who refer to trans women as men. There are those who would say gender is entirely social (I don't think I would say that, but I believe it has a large social component).
That said, I do see "can an adult female be a man" do be a very different question from "can a woman be a man". I think we have just agreed not all adult males are men, and I did not see you say that an adult female can not act the role of a man upon need. So I think an adult female can be a man, but a woman would not be a man.
I fully agree with you that people do not act rationally most of the time, and also heartily endorse "Thinking Fast and Slow".
I can't believe that STEM professionals are arguing over whether or not men can be women. This is pathetic.
Tim, testosterone levels are a big part of the scoreboard. The trannies are getting huge Vitamin T shots because they don't have anywhere near enough of it.
No, men and women aren't interchangeable. The chick with a more male brain structure is just that, a chick with a more male brain structure.
Like I said, this is pathetic.
KT:
Not everybody responds to testosterone identically. For an extreme example:
https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome/
And who is saying that men and women are interchangeable? I'm certainly not. Transexuals aren't, either, otherwise they wouldn't care about whether they felt like they were male or female. If they felt male and female were interchangeable, it seems to me that they just wouldn't be concerned about it one way or another. The fact that they are willing to put in the effort to make physical changes to their bodies, tells me that they *do* think there is a difference.
What I am saying, is that there are good reasons to think that there are a substantial number of "edge cases" where it isn't so cut-and-dried. And you, KT, appear to be not only denying that these edge-cases can exist, but seem to be positively offended by the idea that they *could* exist. Why is that? Why do you on the one hand say you believe that average male brains and male bodies are fundamentally different from female brains and female bodies, but then on the other hand deny the possibility that, due to differences in fetal development and different sensitivities to sex hormones, you might fairly often get a female brain developing in a male body or a male brain developing in a female body? Or even a sexually ambiguous body with a not-really-either brain?
Would this really be any more difficult to accept than, say, the occasional man who has breasts, or woman who can grow a moustache? Both of which are pretty common?
"The chick with a more male brain structure is just that, a chick with a more male brain structure."
OK, fine. You've just been kidnapped by a mad scientist who wants to practice his new brain-transplant technology. He takes out your brain, and puts it into the skull of a female body. Miraculously, you survive.
Are you male or female now?
The conversation is surreal.
If every body part she had was working to specifications, could she get another woman pregnant? No. Case closed.
As for hormones and brain structures being kind of more male, let's do this with all psychotics. If someone claims to be Napoleon, let's check out their brains. They may be on to something!
No, all we care about are groins.
"No, all we care about are groins."
See, this sums up the problem right here. Based on what you have written, I honestly cannot tell whether you meant this as sarcasm, or if that is actually your position.
I mean, I *think* it is probably sarcasm, but given that you seem to be saying "brain structure doesn't matter, if your body was born functionally female then you're female", it could be that you meant it seriously.
K T Cat,
I can't believe that STEM professionals are arguing over whether or not men can be women. This is pathetic.
Well, I can't speak for Tim, but I have very specifically said men can't be women.
tim eisele,
These kinds of studies have been done, and have concluded that gender mismatches between brain and body are actually happening. So this isn't entirely a "what if?" speculation on my part.
Again, I think it's an error to focus on brain structures, given the flexible and plastic nature of the brain.
" I think it's an error to focus on brain structures, given the flexible and plastic nature of the brain."
So, I think the issue is that we have a series of questions that people are disagreeing on the answers to:
1. Are there fundamental differences between the brains of men and women?
2. Is the brain "plastic" enough that it can be changed from one to the other?
3. Is it possible for a body to contain a brain that has the structure appropriate for the opposite sex?
Based on the answers to these questions, we end up with completely different answers to what a "transsexual" should do:
(a) Nothing. You aren't really transsexual, transsexuality is impossible, women and men have the same kinds of brains.
(b) Psycotherapy (and maybe drugs), to transform your brain to match the gender of your body.
(c) Change your body to match the gender of your brain, to whatever extent you are comfortable with.
So, since these are all very different things to do, I think we need to be *very* clear on the answers to the first three questions. This isn't politics, it is more like engineering. You need to know the actual problem before deciding what to do about it.
Tim, see my post for today.
If we can't extend this to the general proposition, than all we care about are groins. A better formulation might be, "All we care about are orgasms."
tim eisele,
So, I think the issue is that we have a series of questions that people are disagreeing on the answers to:
1. Are there fundamental differences between the brains of men and women?
2. Is the brain "plastic" enough that it can be changed from one to the other?
3. Is it possible for a body to contain a brain that has the structure appropriate for the opposite sex?
The answer to 1) is clearly "no". There are some measurable differences in means, but they are not fundamental, and for most of the differences in means, either mean is within a couple of standard deviations of the other. It's not like there are actual structures in the male brain not in the female, nor the opposite.
Since the answer to 1) is "no", 2) is irrelevant. Since the answer to 1) is "no", there is no need to be concerned about 3), either. Any brain is appropriate to any sex.
Whatever your conclusions are regarding transsexuality, they will not be sound if you base them on the mistaken notion of fundamentally different brains.
Post a Comment