5 ms·

Thanks for posting the full Bard response. I would object to it on two grounds: 1) I only asked about sex. 2) The following is highly questionable: "However, do

Thanks for posting the full Bard response. I would object to it on two grounds: 1) I only asked about sex. 2) The following is highly questionable: "However, dogs can still express gender identity." This is ideological BS. My kids are either male or female, no matter how they choose to express themselves (as are my dogs). When I've had chickens, the roosters had different behavior then the hens, this is an aspect of secondary sexual characteristics (not a gender identity). In my own ideology there, there is no such thing as gender identity, only biological sex, secondary sexual traits, and a person's individual personality. Nothing else actually exists.

geraldwhen 3y ago
It is truly remarkable that some can note that in every animal, the males and females have different behaviors and preferences, but when it comes to humans, all logic is out the window. It feels very much like religion to hold humans on a magical pedestal where the rules that apply to animals suddenly cease when applied to humans.
- pjc50 3y ago
  > very much like religion to hold humans on a magical pedestal where the rules that apply to animals suddenly cease when applied to humans Well .. yes? Isn't it a major premise of most religions that humans are different, and are in some way connected with the divine, and in particular have consciousness that obliges us to use our thoughts rather than our instincts? That we might probe the universe for its physical rules, and attempt to determine moral rules for ourselves? Or that the rule that applies to animals, that you can kill and eat them if you like, does not apply to humans?
- amluto 3y ago
  What rules that apply to animals? There is plenty of homosexual behavior in animals. According to Wikipedia, there even seem to be animals (sheep) that are homosexual individuals. There are apparently intersex animals. There are certainly many male animals castrated at a young age that have markedly different behavior as adults. We humans have aspects of gender identity (pink vs blue, for example) that most non-human animals lack the technology or inclination to develop even if they wanted to. Sure, male ducks often have lots of green feathers. But do they wear green because they identify as male? Of course not, because they don’t choose their color scheme! (And remember that pink hasn’t been a girl color for all that long.) Humans have the fascinating property that you can ask them about their sexuality, gender identity, etc, and they might actually answer the question! I wonder how much of the apparent exceptionality of humans this accounts for. > the rules that apply to animals suddenly cease when applied to humans. If you observe a room full of small human children and conclude that the “the males and females have different behaviors and preferences” and that this is anywhere near sufficient to explain the behavior of said small children, then you’ve either found a highly unusual group, or you’ve found a group where someone else is fairly aggressively imposing gender identities on them, or you simply aren’t paying attention.
  - consumer451 3y ago
    Anecdote: I just want to add that if you spend a decent amount of time with groups of dogs, you will find female dogs mounting and thrusting on male dogs very commonly. To me, this is evidence that non-heterosexual behavior occurs in mammals other than humans. Therefore it is not only a human social construct. BTW, even if it was just a human social construct I don't know why I should have a problem with that. Edit after 1 upvote, apologies. To be 100% honest, this was an evolution of thought for me. Seeing 2 guys making out freaked me out the first time I saw it. These days I have all kinds of non-hetero friends and their behavior does not freak me out. I wanted to add this because so many of these conversations lack depth and understanding.
veridies 3y ago
Some hens begin crowing like roosters. It's really annoying for backyard chickens, but I have had it happen a few times. That suggests to me that while chicken behavior varies based on sex, that is a spectrum, not absolute categories.
veidr 3y ago
I dunno man, I think you are getting tripped up on the evolution of the English language. Yes, your kids are either male or female (mine are all male). Those fundamental physical characteristics can't be changed by language. But what language means does change. The term "gender" used to mean basically the same thing as "sex", but now it's evolved to mean "the other stuff, aside from biological sex". How they act (for dogs), or that and also how they want to be perceived (for humans, but maybe also dogs; I've known quite many dogs over the years, and that includes a couple of bad-ass bitches that wanted you and the other dogs in the room to know who was boss). Language evolution is often uncomfortable. I don't like that "crypto" means the grifter funny money shit now, instead of cryptography like science intended... but it does. My objection doesn't change that; it's a consensus thing. It might be the same for you. Do they have to bring it up? I mean, kinda debatable, maybe. I did ask about sex, not gender. Strictly speaking, no they didn't have to bring it up. But in that same vein they could have just answered, "Male or female." That would have seemed somehow insufficient. Adding context is pretty core to what these fuzzy-logic language-model generated-text vendors are offering. But anyway, it's not really debatable that dogs "express gender identity". Because that now means "how they act and how they express themselves". It indeed "doesn't exist" as some kind of empirical boolean value (unlike sex (ignoring for simplicity the highly unusual biological intersex cases I just learned about, haha)). Because, in the now-prevailing meaning of the term, it is literally an interpretation of their behavior. It doesn't negate or contradict biological sex, it just now means something separate.
- Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
  >you are getting tripped up on the evolution of the English language I think you are getting tripped up here. GP said "there is no such thing as gender identity." You bringing up the (forced, and incomplete) change of definition of gender from what it generaly meant in public use is not relevant at all. In any case, not all words are grounded in reality. If gender now means something that doesn't realy exists then it is a useless word. And failure to understand the semantics involved in the gender identity debate is present in almost every argument, which was in no doubt caused by the forced attempt to redefine "man" and "woman" in terms of "gender idenity." (As well as the redefinition of "gender" to an extent but "gender" as a term for sex is recent in any event and has been used by acedemics to refer to the sex based behavioral differences between males and females since its begining.) >it's not really debatable that dogs "express gender identity" They need to have a gender identity in order to express it. That is, a gender identy such that it is possible for it to be a seperate thing from sex, and as a direct feeling of being that gender. There is no evidence that a male dog feels like a "man" (or whatever we would call this gender for a dog). Insofar as "expressing gender identity" only descibes the way a male dogs like to bark, or what have you, which I think is what you mean, you would be correct, but that would be misunderstanding what "gender identity" is, however, since there is no single behavior or set of behaviors that affect one's gender (like, for example, a "male bark") but rather a direct feeling of being a certain gender. For example, there are many males who identify as women that still do many man things, such as extensive video gaming or programming or being aggresive. My point with this is that you cannot say that "expressing gender identity" is simply that the dog behaves like a male dog, rather it must identify as a man, which there is no proof of. So you cannot say that "it's not really debatable that dogs 'express gender identity.'"
eterps 3y ago
> My kids are either male or female, no matter how they choose to express themselves Yet intersex exists. Additionally there are cases where an individual can be biologically one sex but genetically another. For instance, some women may have XY chromosomes typically associated with males, and some men may have XX chromosomes typically associated with females. This can affect how people prefer to express themselves.
trasz4 3y ago
>My kids are either male or female There's your problem - you're illiterate on that subject and are not willing to learn due to cognitive dissonance, probably because of your preexisting fringe beliefs. It's no different from being a flat earther.
- veidr 3y ago
  It's actually substantially different. Your own mental model of the world might lack the resolution to let you perceive that difference, though.
  - trasz4 3y ago
    Can you elaborate on the difference? How is maintaining views that go against the accepted scientific consensus different between those two cases?
    - veidr 3y ago
      Sure. One is so idiotic that it is akin to saying "my head is fireproof!". One could simply light their hair on fire to test it. Or, in the specific flat-earth case under discussion here, climb a reasonably tall hill see the earth's curvature -- no airplane required. OTOH, there is in fact an empirical, science-based, opinion-not-required basis for the judgement of "male" or "female". (Even though, yes, there is also a tiny percentage of genetically anomalous cases that defy such classification, it's not germane.) Additionally, though, there are centuries of societal reinforcement of various gender expectations, based on the inseparability of gender vs biological sex. These still manifest today in all sorts of ways, in traditions handed down from previous generations. Heard by kids from their parents, grandparents; reinforced in adulthood by all sorts of people. Even though I mostly agree with your diagnosis of cognitive dissonance and "fringe" (I would call them "legacy") beliefs making this hard to accept, it is completely unsurprising that it takes more time for many people to process the upending of these definitions -- which in many ways are/were the bedrock of all sorts of societal classifications and expectations -- than it does for them to accept scientific truths established 500+ years ago, and which are anyway taught in grade school AND self-evident based on nominal and easily accessible experimentation. Also, I don't think this is as much an issue of scientific (or moral) consensus as it is of semantics. Are you pro-choice, or anti-choice? Pro-life, or anti-life? I think the side that wants gender to be immutably tied to biological sex (again, ignoring the actual biological anomalies) is wrong. It seems obvious to me, scientifically, ethically, culinarily, metaphysically, ... I mean, duh. But even though I personally don't have all that baggage like But what would dead Grandpa think? What would The Pope think? OK fine but what would the _previous_ Pope think?? it is obvious to me that for many if not most people in the world and the history of it, sex and gender roles are some of the most fundamental things. So as we (as a society/species) tease out the difference between "gender" and "sex", I don't expect it to come as quickly and easily as the (extremely obvious) fact that the world is, in fact, not flat.

geraldwhen 3y ago

It is truly remarkable that some can note that in every animal, the males and females have different behaviors and preferences, but when it comes to humans, all logic is out the window. It feels very much like religion to hold humans on a magical pedestal where the rules that apply to animals suddenly cease when applied to humans.

pjc50 3y ago
> very much like religion to hold humans on a magical pedestal where the rules that apply to animals suddenly cease when applied to humans Well .. yes? Isn't it a major premise of most religions that humans are different, and are in some way connected with the divine, and in particular have consciousness that obliges us to use our thoughts rather than our instincts? That we might probe the universe for its physical rules, and attempt to determine moral rules for ourselves? Or that the rule that applies to animals, that you can kill and eat them if you like, does not apply to humans?
amluto 3y ago
What rules that apply to animals? There is plenty of homosexual behavior in animals. According to Wikipedia, there even seem to be animals (sheep) that are homosexual individuals. There are apparently intersex animals. There are certainly many male animals castrated at a young age that have markedly different behavior as adults. We humans have aspects of gender identity (pink vs blue, for example) that most non-human animals lack the technology or inclination to develop even if they wanted to. Sure, male ducks often have lots of green feathers. But do they wear green because they identify as male? Of course not, because they don’t choose their color scheme! (And remember that pink hasn’t been a girl color for all that long.) Humans have the fascinating property that you can ask them about their sexuality, gender identity, etc, and they might actually answer the question! I wonder how much of the apparent exceptionality of humans this accounts for. > the rules that apply to animals suddenly cease when applied to humans. If you observe a room full of small human children and conclude that the “the males and females have different behaviors and preferences” and that this is anywhere near sufficient to explain the behavior of said small children, then you’ve either found a highly unusual group, or you’ve found a group where someone else is fairly aggressively imposing gender identities on them, or you simply aren’t paying attention.
- consumer451 3y ago
  Anecdote: I just want to add that if you spend a decent amount of time with groups of dogs, you will find female dogs mounting and thrusting on male dogs very commonly. To me, this is evidence that non-heterosexual behavior occurs in mammals other than humans. Therefore it is not only a human social construct. BTW, even if it was just a human social construct I don't know why I should have a problem with that. Edit after 1 upvote, apologies. To be 100% honest, this was an evolution of thought for me. Seeing 2 guys making out freaked me out the first time I saw it. These days I have all kinds of non-hetero friends and their behavior does not freak me out. I wanted to add this because so many of these conversations lack depth and understanding.

veridies 3y ago

Some hens begin crowing like roosters. It's really annoying for backyard chickens, but I have had it happen a few times. That suggests to me that while chicken behavior varies based on sex, that is a spectrum, not absolute categories.

veidr 3y ago

I dunno man, I think you are getting tripped up on the evolution of the English language. Yes, your kids are either male or female (mine are all male). Those fundamental physical characteristics can't be changed by language. But what language means does change. The term "gender" used to mean basically the same thing as "sex", but now it's evolved to mean "the other stuff, aside from biological sex". How they act (for dogs), or that and also how they want to be perceived (for humans, but maybe also dogs; I've known quite many dogs over the years, and that includes a couple of bad-ass bitches that wanted you and the other dogs in the room to know who was boss). Language evolution is often uncomfortable. I don't like that "crypto" means the grifter funny money shit now, instead of cryptography like science intended... but it does. My objection doesn't change that; it's a consensus thing. It might be the same for you. Do they have to bring it up? I mean, kinda debatable, maybe. I did ask about sex, not gender. Strictly speaking, no they didn't have to bring it up. But in that same vein they could have just answered, "Male or female." That would have seemed somehow insufficient. Adding context is pretty core to what these fuzzy-logic language-model generated-text vendors are offering. But anyway, it's not really debatable that dogs "express gender identity". Because that now means "how they act and how they express themselves". It indeed "doesn't exist" as some kind of empirical boolean value (unlike sex (ignoring for simplicity the highly unusual biological intersex cases I just learned about, haha)). Because, in the now-prevailing meaning of the term, it is literally an interpretation of their behavior. It doesn't negate or contradict biological sex, it just now means something separate.

Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
>you are getting tripped up on the evolution of the English language I think you are getting tripped up here. GP said "there is no such thing as gender identity." You bringing up the (forced, and incomplete) change of definition of gender from what it generaly meant in public use is not relevant at all. In any case, not all words are grounded in reality. If gender now means something that doesn't realy exists then it is a useless word. And failure to understand the semantics involved in the gender identity debate is present in almost every argument, which was in no doubt caused by the forced attempt to redefine "man" and "woman" in terms of "gender idenity." (As well as the redefinition of "gender" to an extent but "gender" as a term for sex is recent in any event and has been used by acedemics to refer to the sex based behavioral differences between males and females since its begining.) >it's not really debatable that dogs "express gender identity" They need to have a gender identity in order to express it. That is, a gender identy such that it is possible for it to be a seperate thing from sex, and as a direct feeling of being that gender. There is no evidence that a male dog feels like a "man" (or whatever we would call this gender for a dog). Insofar as "expressing gender identity" only descibes the way a male dogs like to bark, or what have you, which I think is what you mean, you would be correct, but that would be misunderstanding what "gender identity" is, however, since there is no single behavior or set of behaviors that affect one's gender (like, for example, a "male bark") but rather a direct feeling of being a certain gender. For example, there are many males who identify as women that still do many man things, such as extensive video gaming or programming or being aggresive. My point with this is that you cannot say that "expressing gender identity" is simply that the dog behaves like a male dog, rather it must identify as a man, which there is no proof of. So you cannot say that "it's not really debatable that dogs 'express gender identity.'"

eterps 3y ago

> My kids are either male or female, no matter how they choose to express themselves Yet intersex exists. Additionally there are cases where an individual can be biologically one sex but genetically another. For instance, some women may have XY chromosomes typically associated with males, and some men may have XX chromosomes typically associated with females. This can affect how people prefer to express themselves.

trasz4 3y ago

>My kids are either male or female There's your problem - you're illiterate on that subject and are not willing to learn due to cognitive dissonance, probably because of your preexisting fringe beliefs. It's no different from being a flat earther.

veidr 3y ago
It's actually substantially different. Your own mental model of the world might lack the resolution to let you perceive that difference, though.
- trasz4 3y ago
  Can you elaborate on the difference? How is maintaining views that go against the accepted scientific consensus different between those two cases?
  - veidr 3y ago
    Sure. One is so idiotic that it is akin to saying "my head is fireproof!". One could simply light their hair on fire to test it. Or, in the specific flat-earth case under discussion here, climb a reasonably tall hill see the earth's curvature -- no airplane required. OTOH, there is in fact an empirical, science-based, opinion-not-required basis for the judgement of "male" or "female". (Even though, yes, there is also a tiny percentage of genetically anomalous cases that defy such classification, it's not germane.) Additionally, though, there are centuries of societal reinforcement of various gender expectations, based on the inseparability of gender vs biological sex. These still manifest today in all sorts of ways, in traditions handed down from previous generations. Heard by kids from their parents, grandparents; reinforced in adulthood by all sorts of people. Even though I mostly agree with your diagnosis of cognitive dissonance and "fringe" (I would call them "legacy") beliefs making this hard to accept, it is completely unsurprising that it takes more time for many people to process the upending of these definitions -- which in many ways are/were the bedrock of all sorts of societal classifications and expectations -- than it does for them to accept scientific truths established 500+ years ago, and which are anyway taught in grade school AND self-evident based on nominal and easily accessible experimentation. Also, I don't think this is as much an issue of scientific (or moral) consensus as it is of semantics. Are you pro-choice, or anti-choice? Pro-life, or anti-life? I think the side that wants gender to be immutably tied to biological sex (again, ignoring the actual biological anomalies) is wrong. It seems obvious to me, scientifically, ethically, culinarily, metaphysically, ... I mean, duh. But even though I personally don't have all that baggage like But what would dead Grandpa think? What would The Pope think? OK fine but what would the _previous_ Pope think?? it is obvious to me that for many if not most people in the world and the history of it, sex and gender roles are some of the most fundamental things. So as we (as a society/species) tease out the difference between "gender" and "sex", I don't expect it to come as quickly and easily as the (extremely obvious) fact that the world is, in fact, not flat.