4 ms·

> Removing your face-recognition function because it's less effective on black faces is certainly a substantial ideological commitment. Deploying your face-rec

by mlyle 4y ago

> Removing your face-recognition function because it's less effective on black faces is certainly a substantial ideological commitment. Deploying your face-recognition function for something critical that impacts user quality of life, even if it doesn't recognize black faces well, is an ideological commitment by default. > That's not generally true. It's absolutely generally true. We generally call people by the name they request; if they don't like us referring to their race or features in a certain way, we stop. > We don't give noble or professional titles Are you suggesting that having a naturally born penis is some kind of equivalent signifier to being a P.Eng? > focused on the feelings of some very small groups I think you are underestimating how big of a change is afoot in the 13-25 demographic.

lmm 4y ago
- mlyle 4y ago
  > In terms of how much difference it makes to someone going to dinner with them in a casual social context? Yes, it probably is. Anyone can date whomever they want based on whatever criteria they want. But if someone wants to be called "he" despite not being born with a penis-- what's the big deal? Are you being harmed so much by complying? > > if they don't like us referring to their race or features in a certain way, we stop. > Maybe to their face. Well, here we're talking about the code we're writing that will presumably be telling them "to their face" in some context. And, polite company defers to wishes of people even behind their back and doesn't insist on trivializing their deepest insecurities once they're out of earshot, or being able to call someone the n-word when they're not there. > particularly characteristics that gave someone an advantage Do you think being deeply uncomfortable with your birth-assigned gender and wanting to be called "he" gives you a big advantage? (Please don't bring up the sports thing, because it's not what we're talking about and that's a completely different kettle of fish).
  - lmm 4y ago
    - sgxhcjii 4y ago
      Sometimes your spade is broken enough that it's hard to use as a spade, or so bent from use that it'd be more reasonable to call it a pickaxe The social meaning of a "man" or "woman" encompasses a large swath of things. Generally people's mental models of those concepts includes both physical and mental ideas. The issue is, this is not very constant. Some people will inevitably fail to possess some characteristics (like lacking large muscles, or having small breasts). We typically allow these exceptions without questioning it too much. Genitalia, of course, is the exception. In my experience, it is typically regarded as the fundamental cornerstone of gender. The question is, is that really accurate? We assign labels to make sense of the world. So, we tend to stick things in the categories where they fit the most (important) attributes. After all, we don't measure the genetics before calling something a dog, we typically see it bark, wag it's tail, play fetch and decide it's probably a dog, even if we haven't seen it before. If someone looks like a girl, acts like a girl, has had genital recontruction surgery, has a fashion sense, wears makeup, and generally is just another regular person on the street, then for any social interaction they are just like any girl. There is one situation where this isn't true - if they are sexually involved with someone who has the intent of having children. For that purpose, they, like any infertile woman, can't provide children. I can sympathise with a hatred for people trying to force falsehoods on me - I personally have been the annoying atheist friend quite a lot. However, to take that birth genetalia are a cornerstone of gender uncritically doesn't seem very useful, since then the labels "man" or "woman" tell you nothing about how they might act - you may meet a woman, who is perfectly ordinary in every way, who then reveals that she is trans. If birth genitalia is to be the cornerstone of gender, you now have to include someone who looks and acts as any woman would in your definition of "man". To me this seems like it makes the term meaningless, and it makes far more sense to just classify that person as a "woman". Genetalia itself isn't really important to social relationships outside of sex, so for situations outside of sex classifying by it also seems somewhat useless. The other, much more (imo) defensible argument you expressed was relating socialization. In my experience it is true that socially, boys are conditioned to be more aggressive while girls are often punished for being aggressive. This definitely leads to a difference in how far they are willing to push to fulfill their own needs. However, assertiveness, to an extent, is a useful trait for anyone to have. Imo it shouldn't be seen as a "masculine" trait, but rather a trait men tend to have, since being able to clearly communicate needs and boundaries, and push back when those needs and boundaries get ignored, is an essential skill for anyone, but one that women might be less practiced in due to often receiving higher backlash for doing so. Of course, there are non trans women who possess that capability. However, in your experience dealing with trans women, has that made your experience in interacting with them closer to an angry man, or closer to any other aggressive woman? It probably varies case by case. From what I've heard the looks of a woman come with the social pressures of a woman, so I'd wager that an aggressive trans woman, on average, wouldn't differ much from an aggressive non trans woman, simply because, so long as they are perceived as women, their anger is taken extremely seriously on several issues (sexual crimes and harassment) and somewhat less seriously on everything else. My personal theory is that this is due to the assumed threat of physical violence with men, while women are often seen as being incapable of/unlikely to commit violence, leading to two lopsided power dynamics rather than one even one. Regardless, I think that basing our definition of gender off of genitalia or genetics doesn't provide a super useful mental model for socialization, which I believe to be the primary good use of gender as a concept. Sports are one area in which I think you're wrong. If growing up on testosterone were a major contributor to advantages, we'd expect to see a lot more trans athletes at the top of the women's league, the way you anecdotally noted we do with buisness. They have been allowed to compete for quite some time now, so the fact that only recently have the media made a circus about a trans athlete in the olympics suggests to me that they likely do not possess any significant advantage - in my personal experience, I saw someone who could previously do 20 pushups when completely unfit struggle to do 1 a year after starting hormones, so I find it kind of hard to believe they retain any significant advantage, given enough time We can say that we are humans, or evolved monkeys, or extremely processed stardust; all can be correct, but laws only apply to humans, and no one gets out of jail by claiming to be an inanimate object.
- pseudalopex 4y ago
  I never had a reason to call people ugly behind their backs. Calling Romani Romani not a word they don't like isn't dishonest, strange, or rude. I don't know anything about the birth genitals of most people I dine with.
  - atq2119 4y ago
    > I don't know anything about the birth genitals of most people I dine with. Unless you mostly participate in statistically unusual social circles, that's plain incorrect. The truth is that you can't know anything about their birth genitals with certainty. However, unless you have some unusual condition that prevents you from perceiving sex-associated characteristics, then if somebody looks male/female to you, you know with very high confidence what their birth genitals were. One can quibble about the exact level of confidence, and it depends on what social circles you self-select into (because that affects your base rates), but for most people the certainty is fairly close to 100%. Of course that may not be the lived experience of people who are trans themselves, because of who they associate with, and that may contribute to some of the unnecessary vitriol on the topic In any case, what matters is what you do with that knowledge.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      A frat buddy of mine was a trans man. I would have never known if old fart assholes hadn't pitched a fit about him being elected our chapter president.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Regarding calling Romani Romani, this can be a touchy subject, just as a heads-up. For years being asked where I'm from or being referred to as Russian, even without me present (e.g., I overheard or inferred people discussed this), made me uncomfortable. It's fading recently only because of the war and the overt hatred directed at me by nationality online making me more confrontational about it. I observe this happening with some people of other nationalities too, depending on individual personality. (It doesn't tend to happen with people from 'global north', of course, who tend to lack any confidence issues on this front.)
- throwaway290 4y ago
  > Maybe to their face. We certainly don't stop describing those people honestly in general It's routine politeness to comply with wishes on how someone wants to be called without them present, no? Would like to hear if this is culture-specific. I generally don't care what variation of my name I'm called, but I can imagine myself wanting to be called by a specific name other than what's in my ID and I'd expect you to comply, and if you don't then I can totally see me considering it an infraction even if you don't do it to my face. I mean, there'd be a reason I asked for it in the first place, right? Of course, non-compliance shouldn't make you a target for crowd-sourced justice (to a degree it'd be my personal issue if it's a touchy subject for me), but unless you are mildly sociopathic you should understand that ignoring this request paints you as mentally weak (if unable to remember) or domination-seeking/insulting (if done on purpose), and that it could be a reason for me to avoid interacting with you. I don't think it's any more optional with gender (probably less since, unlike with names, there're barely any pronunciation barriers with pronouns across languages). I've met people for whom it was a touchy subject and I could empathise.
smsm42 4y ago
- mlyle 4y ago
  > You're telling me if a short, bald, overweight guy with a beard likes to be referred to as a tall, thin blonde woman with lustrous hair - "we" immediately stop seeing his height, his lack of hair, his girth and his beard? I don't know who that "we" is but that'd require some major training in delusion, Mr. O'Brien. That's straw-man and snark across the board. If that short person wants to be called "she" and to stop pointing out she's bald, those are reasonable asks. I'm cross-eyed when I don't wear my glasses. Do you insist on pointing that out to my face repeatedly even when I ask you not to? Do you insist on gossiping about it to other people in a way that I would consider derogatory if I heard? Do you insist on a shortened version of my name that I don't like? If so, I think you're being a jerk. Ditto if you refuse to comply with requests from other people that I consider reasonable.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    > Do you insist on pointing that out to my face repeatedly If it's not relevant, then of course there's no point of pointing that out. But if we are talking about a task that requires visual acuity, and I point out that you seem to have an issue in that department, then you may feel bad, but that doesn't change the facts. And if the task does require knowing that, then your feeling bad does not overcome that. For example, if you need glasses to drive safely, then your driver license should say that, and if you feel bad about it, then you'd feel bad and the license still should say it. If you are short, and feel bad about it, I wouldn't point it out each five minutes "repeatedly". There's no reason to do that. But if you come to join a basketball team, claiming you are actually gigantic - I'll tell you "dude, sorry, but you're short", and if you feel bad about it, then you feel bad. It's between you and your therapist. It so happens that humans are sexually dimorphic species, and thus the notion of this is relevant in human cultures (in different ways for different cultures, of course). Thus if a bearded guy claims he's a woman, I may ignore it when it's irrelevant, but if it becomes relevant, I'll tell him "dude, sorry, but you're a dude". > Do you insist on a shortened version of my name that I don't like? Names are rarely carrying any meaning, they are generally arbitrary, so there's no reason to prefer one to another, unless it's done for nefarious purposes (like identity theft or tax evasion). So I see no reasonable cause to prefer one version of the name to another. > Ditto if you refuse to comply with requests from other people that I consider reasonable.c Note that I am a jerk if I refuse requests that you consider reasonable. Somehow your personal opinion of what reasonable becomes the law of the world, and my personal opinion of what's reasonable doesn't even enter the picture. Funny how it works?

by mlyle 4y ago

lmm 4y ago

mlyle 4y ago
> In terms of how much difference it makes to someone going to dinner with them in a casual social context? Yes, it probably is. Anyone can date whomever they want based on whatever criteria they want. But if someone wants to be called "he" despite not being born with a penis-- what's the big deal? Are you being harmed so much by complying? > > if they don't like us referring to their race or features in a certain way, we stop. > Maybe to their face. Well, here we're talking about the code we're writing that will presumably be telling them "to their face" in some context. And, polite company defers to wishes of people even behind their back and doesn't insist on trivializing their deepest insecurities once they're out of earshot, or being able to call someone the n-word when they're not there. > particularly characteristics that gave someone an advantage Do you think being deeply uncomfortable with your birth-assigned gender and wanting to be called "he" gives you a big advantage? (Please don't bring up the sports thing, because it's not what we're talking about and that's a completely different kettle of fish).
- lmm 4y ago
  - sgxhcjii 4y ago
    Sometimes your spade is broken enough that it's hard to use as a spade, or so bent from use that it'd be more reasonable to call it a pickaxe The social meaning of a "man" or "woman" encompasses a large swath of things. Generally people's mental models of those concepts includes both physical and mental ideas. The issue is, this is not very constant. Some people will inevitably fail to possess some characteristics (like lacking large muscles, or having small breasts). We typically allow these exceptions without questioning it too much. Genitalia, of course, is the exception. In my experience, it is typically regarded as the fundamental cornerstone of gender. The question is, is that really accurate? We assign labels to make sense of the world. So, we tend to stick things in the categories where they fit the most (important) attributes. After all, we don't measure the genetics before calling something a dog, we typically see it bark, wag it's tail, play fetch and decide it's probably a dog, even if we haven't seen it before. If someone looks like a girl, acts like a girl, has had genital recontruction surgery, has a fashion sense, wears makeup, and generally is just another regular person on the street, then for any social interaction they are just like any girl. There is one situation where this isn't true - if they are sexually involved with someone who has the intent of having children. For that purpose, they, like any infertile woman, can't provide children. I can sympathise with a hatred for people trying to force falsehoods on me - I personally have been the annoying atheist friend quite a lot. However, to take that birth genetalia are a cornerstone of gender uncritically doesn't seem very useful, since then the labels "man" or "woman" tell you nothing about how they might act - you may meet a woman, who is perfectly ordinary in every way, who then reveals that she is trans. If birth genitalia is to be the cornerstone of gender, you now have to include someone who looks and acts as any woman would in your definition of "man". To me this seems like it makes the term meaningless, and it makes far more sense to just classify that person as a "woman". Genetalia itself isn't really important to social relationships outside of sex, so for situations outside of sex classifying by it also seems somewhat useless. The other, much more (imo) defensible argument you expressed was relating socialization. In my experience it is true that socially, boys are conditioned to be more aggressive while girls are often punished for being aggressive. This definitely leads to a difference in how far they are willing to push to fulfill their own needs. However, assertiveness, to an extent, is a useful trait for anyone to have. Imo it shouldn't be seen as a "masculine" trait, but rather a trait men tend to have, since being able to clearly communicate needs and boundaries, and push back when those needs and boundaries get ignored, is an essential skill for anyone, but one that women might be less practiced in due to often receiving higher backlash for doing so. Of course, there are non trans women who possess that capability. However, in your experience dealing with trans women, has that made your experience in interacting with them closer to an angry man, or closer to any other aggressive woman? It probably varies case by case. From what I've heard the looks of a woman come with the social pressures of a woman, so I'd wager that an aggressive trans woman, on average, wouldn't differ much from an aggressive non trans woman, simply because, so long as they are perceived as women, their anger is taken extremely seriously on several issues (sexual crimes and harassment) and somewhat less seriously on everything else. My personal theory is that this is due to the assumed threat of physical violence with men, while women are often seen as being incapable of/unlikely to commit violence, leading to two lopsided power dynamics rather than one even one. Regardless, I think that basing our definition of gender off of genitalia or genetics doesn't provide a super useful mental model for socialization, which I believe to be the primary good use of gender as a concept. Sports are one area in which I think you're wrong. If growing up on testosterone were a major contributor to advantages, we'd expect to see a lot more trans athletes at the top of the women's league, the way you anecdotally noted we do with buisness. They have been allowed to compete for quite some time now, so the fact that only recently have the media made a circus about a trans athlete in the olympics suggests to me that they likely do not possess any significant advantage - in my personal experience, I saw someone who could previously do 20 pushups when completely unfit struggle to do 1 a year after starting hormones, so I find it kind of hard to believe they retain any significant advantage, given enough time We can say that we are humans, or evolved monkeys, or extremely processed stardust; all can be correct, but laws only apply to humans, and no one gets out of jail by claiming to be an inanimate object.
pseudalopex 4y ago
I never had a reason to call people ugly behind their backs. Calling Romani Romani not a word they don't like isn't dishonest, strange, or rude. I don't know anything about the birth genitals of most people I dine with.
- atq2119 4y ago
  > I don't know anything about the birth genitals of most people I dine with. Unless you mostly participate in statistically unusual social circles, that's plain incorrect. The truth is that you can't know anything about their birth genitals with certainty. However, unless you have some unusual condition that prevents you from perceiving sex-associated characteristics, then if somebody looks male/female to you, you know with very high confidence what their birth genitals were. One can quibble about the exact level of confidence, and it depends on what social circles you self-select into (because that affects your base rates), but for most people the certainty is fairly close to 100%. Of course that may not be the lived experience of people who are trans themselves, because of who they associate with, and that may contribute to some of the unnecessary vitriol on the topic In any case, what matters is what you do with that knowledge.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    A frat buddy of mine was a trans man. I would have never known if old fart assholes hadn't pitched a fit about him being elected our chapter president.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  Regarding calling Romani Romani, this can be a touchy subject, just as a heads-up. For years being asked where I'm from or being referred to as Russian, even without me present (e.g., I overheard or inferred people discussed this), made me uncomfortable. It's fading recently only because of the war and the overt hatred directed at me by nationality online making me more confrontational about it. I observe this happening with some people of other nationalities too, depending on individual personality. (It doesn't tend to happen with people from 'global north', of course, who tend to lack any confidence issues on this front.)
throwaway290 4y ago
> Maybe to their face. We certainly don't stop describing those people honestly in general It's routine politeness to comply with wishes on how someone wants to be called without them present, no? Would like to hear if this is culture-specific. I generally don't care what variation of my name I'm called, but I can imagine myself wanting to be called by a specific name other than what's in my ID and I'd expect you to comply, and if you don't then I can totally see me considering it an infraction even if you don't do it to my face. I mean, there'd be a reason I asked for it in the first place, right? Of course, non-compliance shouldn't make you a target for crowd-sourced justice (to a degree it'd be my personal issue if it's a touchy subject for me), but unless you are mildly sociopathic you should understand that ignoring this request paints you as mentally weak (if unable to remember) or domination-seeking/insulting (if done on purpose), and that it could be a reason for me to avoid interacting with you. I don't think it's any more optional with gender (probably less since, unlike with names, there're barely any pronunciation barriers with pronouns across languages). I've met people for whom it was a touchy subject and I could empathise.

smsm42 4y ago

mlyle 4y ago
> You're telling me if a short, bald, overweight guy with a beard likes to be referred to as a tall, thin blonde woman with lustrous hair - "we" immediately stop seeing his height, his lack of hair, his girth and his beard? I don't know who that "we" is but that'd require some major training in delusion, Mr. O'Brien. That's straw-man and snark across the board. If that short person wants to be called "she" and to stop pointing out she's bald, those are reasonable asks. I'm cross-eyed when I don't wear my glasses. Do you insist on pointing that out to my face repeatedly even when I ask you not to? Do you insist on gossiping about it to other people in a way that I would consider derogatory if I heard? Do you insist on a shortened version of my name that I don't like? If so, I think you're being a jerk. Ditto if you refuse to comply with requests from other people that I consider reasonable.
- smsm42 4y ago
  > Do you insist on pointing that out to my face repeatedly If it's not relevant, then of course there's no point of pointing that out. But if we are talking about a task that requires visual acuity, and I point out that you seem to have an issue in that department, then you may feel bad, but that doesn't change the facts. And if the task does require knowing that, then your feeling bad does not overcome that. For example, if you need glasses to drive safely, then your driver license should say that, and if you feel bad about it, then you'd feel bad and the license still should say it. If you are short, and feel bad about it, I wouldn't point it out each five minutes "repeatedly". There's no reason to do that. But if you come to join a basketball team, claiming you are actually gigantic - I'll tell you "dude, sorry, but you're short", and if you feel bad about it, then you feel bad. It's between you and your therapist. It so happens that humans are sexually dimorphic species, and thus the notion of this is relevant in human cultures (in different ways for different cultures, of course). Thus if a bearded guy claims he's a woman, I may ignore it when it's irrelevant, but if it becomes relevant, I'll tell him "dude, sorry, but you're a dude". > Do you insist on a shortened version of my name that I don't like? Names are rarely carrying any meaning, they are generally arbitrary, so there's no reason to prefer one to another, unless it's done for nefarious purposes (like identity theft or tax evasion). So I see no reasonable cause to prefer one version of the name to another. > Ditto if you refuse to comply with requests from other people that I consider reasonable.c Note that I am a jerk if I refuse requests that you consider reasonable. Somehow your personal opinion of what reasonable becomes the law of the world, and my personal opinion of what's reasonable doesn't even enter the picture. Funny how it works?