4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
  - lmm 4y ago
    > 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. Sure. I'm not advocating for genital fundamentalism. All I'm asking for is to be able to call someone who looks like a girl and acts like a girl a girl, and vice versa.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > All I'm asking for is to be able to call someone who looks like a girl and acts like a girl a girl, and vice versa. And if they're deeply uncomfortable with this, and would prefer you remember to use "they", you're not harmed and should defer. You may have to take a little extra effort to tell someone "They present as female but prefer 'they'" at some point. It's a little bit of cognitive load, but the kind of courtesy we can extend even to vague acquaintances. And, you know-- if you screw up in good faith, they should be understanding. Of course, there's enough people screwing it up on purpose to be hostile for political and ideological reasons that it's harder for people in this situation to discern whether it's really good faith.
      - lmm 4y ago
        > And if they're deeply uncomfortable with this, and would prefer you remember to use "they", you're not harmed and should defer. And what if I'm just as deeply uncomfortable with saying what they want me to say? Are we now a dictatorship of the most fragile?
        mlyle 4y ago
        Sorry, if someone doesn't like being called "she", and you really want to call that person "she" -- that's on you. You have other choices, after all.
        lmm 4y ago
        My other choice is to lie, to willfully mislead whoever I'm talking to (probably a friend). Again, people might not like being called rich or privileged or out of touch, but we would never dream of saying this means you shouldn't call them that.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > Are you harmed so much by saying there are five lights when there are four? Definitions and language change. I know of people who get deeply offended when "decimated" is used to not strictly mean exactly a 10% reduction, despite language not meaning quite that forever. "He" meaning "chooses to present as male and/or would really like to be referred to in ways that are associated with maleness" rather than "was born with a penis" seems OK. Insisting on labelling someone based on your historical idea of language and what you think they should be called is not really a great way to choose to do things. I mean, you can insist on calling someone the N-word because that's "just calling a spade a spade", but... > A mention of gender in code is probably not talking about the author's gender. It's probably talking about a user's or a customer's gender. e.g. eventually getting in someone's face with it. > for assuming that the same dynamics don't apply in other areas. Virtually everything that we're able to objectively measure, we find significant sex differences. I struggle to respond to this one. I mean-- really, really seriously-- "so what?" I mean, it seems that you're upset that stereotypes might not work as well. Basically every simple characteristic A we measure about humans is correlated with many different complex outcomes B with terrific variation. Yes, people who present with female characteristics at birth are shorter than me on average, but not all. Most are worse at basketball than the average man, but not all. There are some differences in spatial tasks on average than men, but some outperform most men. Most show lower measures of aggression than men, but... Etc. I mean, do you need to get gender of birth correct- or race, or natural hair color, or nation of upbringing, etc, so you can make judgments based on stereotypes better (which may be real biological correlates)? I think we should always be acting based on the actual individual ahead of us based on the actual measure in question, rather than some proxy. And even if you really, really want stereotypes to work-- people born male who choose to present as female vary on a whole lot of measures, on average, from the overall male average. And sex hormones change a number of these measures, both immediately and with sustained usage. So, the measure is pretty broken in the first place, because of terrific individual variation and being affected by the gender transition process.
  - lmm 4y ago
    > I know of people who get deeply offended when "decimated" is used to not strictly mean exactly a 10% reduction, despite language not meaning quite that forever. You can't expect to force someone else to use the words you want. But it would be deeply wrong to force someone who felt that way to say "decimate" when they meant something different. > Insisting on labelling someone based on your historical idea of language and what you think they should be called is not really a great way to choose to do things. I'm not insisting on using the same word (though I'd appreciate it if words weren't changed under me by fiat and I wasn't gaslit about what I'd been taught they meant), but I do insist on being able to convey the concept of looking and seeming like a woman/man irrespective of the person's own opinions, and that's what people really object to - nelogisms like moid/foid attract just as much criticism as "misgendering". (It's reminiscent of the way airports in China will have an "International plus Taiwan Terminal" and a "Domestic except Taiwan Terminal"). > It's probably talking about a user's or a customer's gender. e.g. eventually getting in someone's face with it. The user is never going to see the code though. > I struggle to respond to this one. I mean-- really, really seriously-- "so what?" I mean, it seems that you're upset that stereotypes might not work as well. > I mean, do you need to get gender of birth correct- or race, or natural hair color, or nation of upbringing, etc, so you can make judgments based on stereotypes better (which may be real biological correlates)? I think we should always be acting based on the actual individual ahead of us based on the actual measure in question, rather than some proxy. I'm upset at deliberately limiting my ability to draw inferences from the information available. There is simply no way to know 7 billion people in their full human depth, we all make assumptions and take shortcuts, make the best guess we can based on the superficial information we have available - there's simply no other way to live. The idea that we would always be able to directly measure the individual is a pipe dream. As you say, even our best guesses are pretty bad, so why make them worse? > And even if you really, really want stereotypes to work-- people born male who choose to present as female vary on a whole lot of measures, on average, from the overall male average. And sex hormones change a number of these measures, both immediately and with sustained usage. So, the measure is pretty broken in the first place, because of terrific individual variation and being affected by the gender transition process. The fact that people object to anyone actually trying proves that we all know that the stereotypes actually work pretty well.

by mlyle 4y ago

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.
- lmm 4y ago
  > 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. Sure. I'm not advocating for genital fundamentalism. All I'm asking for is to be able to call someone who looks like a girl and acts like a girl a girl, and vice versa.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > All I'm asking for is to be able to call someone who looks like a girl and acts like a girl a girl, and vice versa. And if they're deeply uncomfortable with this, and would prefer you remember to use "they", you're not harmed and should defer. You may have to take a little extra effort to tell someone "They present as female but prefer 'they'" at some point. It's a little bit of cognitive load, but the kind of courtesy we can extend even to vague acquaintances. And, you know-- if you screw up in good faith, they should be understanding. Of course, there's enough people screwing it up on purpose to be hostile for political and ideological reasons that it's harder for people in this situation to discern whether it's really good faith.
    - lmm 4y ago
      > And if they're deeply uncomfortable with this, and would prefer you remember to use "they", you're not harmed and should defer. And what if I'm just as deeply uncomfortable with saying what they want me to say? Are we now a dictatorship of the most fragile?
      - mlyle 4y ago
        Sorry, if someone doesn't like being called "she", and you really want to call that person "she" -- that's on you. You have other choices, after all.
        lmm 4y ago
        My other choice is to lie, to willfully mislead whoever I'm talking to (probably a friend). Again, people might not like being called rich or privileged or out of touch, but we would never dream of saying this means you shouldn't call them that.
mlyle 4y ago
> Are you harmed so much by saying there are five lights when there are four? Definitions and language change. I know of people who get deeply offended when "decimated" is used to not strictly mean exactly a 10% reduction, despite language not meaning quite that forever. "He" meaning "chooses to present as male and/or would really like to be referred to in ways that are associated with maleness" rather than "was born with a penis" seems OK. Insisting on labelling someone based on your historical idea of language and what you think they should be called is not really a great way to choose to do things. I mean, you can insist on calling someone the N-word because that's "just calling a spade a spade", but... > A mention of gender in code is probably not talking about the author's gender. It's probably talking about a user's or a customer's gender. e.g. eventually getting in someone's face with it. > for assuming that the same dynamics don't apply in other areas. Virtually everything that we're able to objectively measure, we find significant sex differences. I struggle to respond to this one. I mean-- really, really seriously-- "so what?" I mean, it seems that you're upset that stereotypes might not work as well. Basically every simple characteristic A we measure about humans is correlated with many different complex outcomes B with terrific variation. Yes, people who present with female characteristics at birth are shorter than me on average, but not all. Most are worse at basketball than the average man, but not all. There are some differences in spatial tasks on average than men, but some outperform most men. Most show lower measures of aggression than men, but... Etc. I mean, do you need to get gender of birth correct- or race, or natural hair color, or nation of upbringing, etc, so you can make judgments based on stereotypes better (which may be real biological correlates)? I think we should always be acting based on the actual individual ahead of us based on the actual measure in question, rather than some proxy. And even if you really, really want stereotypes to work-- people born male who choose to present as female vary on a whole lot of measures, on average, from the overall male average. And sex hormones change a number of these measures, both immediately and with sustained usage. So, the measure is pretty broken in the first place, because of terrific individual variation and being affected by the gender transition process.
- lmm 4y ago
  > I know of people who get deeply offended when "decimated" is used to not strictly mean exactly a 10% reduction, despite language not meaning quite that forever. You can't expect to force someone else to use the words you want. But it would be deeply wrong to force someone who felt that way to say "decimate" when they meant something different. > Insisting on labelling someone based on your historical idea of language and what you think they should be called is not really a great way to choose to do things. I'm not insisting on using the same word (though I'd appreciate it if words weren't changed under me by fiat and I wasn't gaslit about what I'd been taught they meant), but I do insist on being able to convey the concept of looking and seeming like a woman/man irrespective of the person's own opinions, and that's what people really object to - nelogisms like moid/foid attract just as much criticism as "misgendering". (It's reminiscent of the way airports in China will have an "International plus Taiwan Terminal" and a "Domestic except Taiwan Terminal"). > It's probably talking about a user's or a customer's gender. e.g. eventually getting in someone's face with it. The user is never going to see the code though. > I struggle to respond to this one. I mean-- really, really seriously-- "so what?" I mean, it seems that you're upset that stereotypes might not work as well. > I mean, do you need to get gender of birth correct- or race, or natural hair color, or nation of upbringing, etc, so you can make judgments based on stereotypes better (which may be real biological correlates)? I think we should always be acting based on the actual individual ahead of us based on the actual measure in question, rather than some proxy. I'm upset at deliberately limiting my ability to draw inferences from the information available. There is simply no way to know 7 billion people in their full human depth, we all make assumptions and take shortcuts, make the best guess we can based on the superficial information we have available - there's simply no other way to live. The idea that we would always be able to directly measure the individual is a pipe dream. As you say, even our best guesses are pretty bad, so why make them worse? > And even if you really, really want stereotypes to work-- people born male who choose to present as female vary on a whole lot of measures, on average, from the overall male average. And sex hormones change a number of these measures, both immediately and with sustained usage. So, the measure is pretty broken in the first place, because of terrific individual variation and being affected by the gender transition process. The fact that people object to anyone actually trying proves that we all know that the stereotypes actually work pretty well.