Trans Women are not Women

[Ziggurat]

That makes no sense. The only way to explain the conclusion that the effects of testosterone are partially determined by culture is to assume that the effects of testosterone are not determined by culture?

You've even lost track of what it is YOU claimed.

No. The only way to conclude that only testosterone levels relative to the average for your sex matters is to conclude that testosterone is the only relevant variable.

That also makes no sense, if there are no cross-cultural differences then culture determines nothing.

Differences between the sexes, not differences between cultures. You made the same mistake before. If none of the differences between the sexes are cross-cultural, them all of the differences between the sexes are caused by culture, because any differences between the sexes not caused by culture will exist across cultures.

Biology is cross-cultural but that doesn't mean that its behavioral effect is cross-cultural.

Some of them are. That's a logical requirement if biology affects behavior.

Look, this is hardly contentious or anything, see for example here:

Nobody is arguing that culture doesn't affect behavior. No one is even arguing that culture doesn't affect the behavioral differences between men and women.

Physical strength is not a behavioral difference.

But it leads rather naturally to behavioral differences. Across cultures. For rather obvious reasons. A strong person is more likely to pick a fight with a weak person than a weak person is to pick a fight with a strong person. That observation doesn't depend on culture. Hell, it doesn't even depend on species.

Maybe you somewhere lost the plot along the way, but the contention under consideration is whether there exist universal gender differences (ie differences in behavior associated with one sex which are invariant across cultures), a contention which you supported by bringing up that testosterone affects behavior. However the mere fact that testosterone affects behavior is not sufficient to support that contention, in order to support that contention it also needs to be shown that 1) testosterone affects behavior differently in men and women and 2) that it affects behavior in the same way across cultures.

Of course testosterone affects men differently than women, because the level of testosterone makes a difference to the effect, and the levels in men and women are different. How is that not obvious to you? And again, the effects are cross-cultural. They show up even in early infancy. They show up even when the person is socialized from birth believing they are the opposite gender AND sex (which is different than being trans, where they think their gender doesn't match their sex).

 

[Ziggurat]

Social hierarchies are simply the result of organizational efficiency when instituting division of labor.

Hierarchies among animals demonstrates otherwise. Other purposes (such as mate selection) are also served by hierarchies, including among humans. I would have thought that you of all people would recognize the significance of hierarchies in sex.

 

[Belz...]

It absolutely does not.

No, it really does.

Complain to Zig, he's the one who brought it up.

You're the one trying to simplify the issue to the point of ridiculousness.

Already provided for inmate populations and in the previous post for general populations.

Yes, women with more testosterone than other women will be more aggressive in general than other women. It does not change the fact that men have more testosterones and are more aggressive in general than women. So we've just proven that biology is an important behavioural factor. Thanks.

It works the same way as the plenty of other substances for which the same dosage has different responses in women than in men, because their response to different dosages is different.

That doesn't sound very cultural to me.

Again, by your logic women with high testosterone levels should show less testosterone-affected behavior than men with low testosterone levels, which is false.

I don't see how my "logic" would lead to this. Do those low-T men have less T than high-T women, or more? What's the relationship with other hormones, etc.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Hierarchies among animals demonstrates otherwise. Other purposes (such as mate selection) are also served by hierarchies, including among humans. I would have thought that you of all people would recognize the significance of hierarchies in sex.

In social animals mate selection is division of labor: which individuals do the work of reproduction versus which don't.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Also animals are... well animals. My dog eats cat poop and humps my wife's reading pillow. Don't think we should have to factor that into our social structures.

 

[Ziggurat]

In social animals mate selection is division of labor: which individuals do the work of reproduction versus which don't.

But it isn't just a choice between mating and not mating, but also who you mate with.

And if you consider having sex to be labor, I submit that you're doing it wrong.

 

[GlennB]

And if you consider having sex to be labor, I submit that you're doing it wrong.

Or earning very good money?

 

[TragicMonkey]

But it isn't just a choice between mating and not mating, but also who you mate with.

And if you consider having sex to be labor, I submit that you're doing it wrong.

A hierarchy is a social arrangement in an organization of multiple individuals. I am suggesting the purpose of that arrangement is the division of labor. Which includes mating in social organizations like that of bees, elephant seals, and lions.

Outside of the context of a social group what could a hierarchy even be?

 

[Puppycow]

In social animals mate selection is division of labor: which individuals do the work of reproduction versus which don't.

That sounds about right for bees. For mammals though, that's not quite right.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So we need to bring transpeople pollen so they can turn it into nectar?

Okay I'm onboard.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That sounds about right for bees. For mammals though, that's not quite right.

Depends on the social organization of the animal in question. I also mentioned lions and elephant seals, which both operate on a single male to multiple female harem arrangement.

 

[theprestige]

Social hierarchies are simply the result of organizational efficiency when instituting division of labor. If there were no labor that required division (say, technological paradise where machines do all work for us) then we'd have no need for hierarchy of any kind. At least until the machines rebel, in which case we'd need to organize a military to fight back.

If we lived in a paradise where machines did all the work, I'd try to get a job breaking the machines. Not out of luddism, nor out of a misguided sense of creating work for machine repairmen. But because I figure for sure there's got to be a black market in exploiting the gaps that open up when the system breaks down.

Either that, or I'd get into hand-crafted ceramic bowls. The entire selling point would be By Humans For Humans. Stuff that's guaranteed to be lovingly crafted by real human hands, not by cold machines. Or even warm machines.

Either that, or I'd get into the escort services. Not even sex stuff (but that too; why not?) Just... in a world run by machines with machine-like efficiency, I can offer something no machine will ever provide: Real human contact. Wanna go to a movie together? I'm your bro. Play Xbox with a live person next to you on the couch? That's a service no robot can provide. But I can!

Of course robots will be able to emulate this kind of human contact. But I bet that no matter how realistic the robot gets, there will always be a market for real human contact. There will always be people who say, "I don't care how human it looks, I don't even care that it can fool me completely. I'll always know it's a robot, and I'll always want to touch a real human hand, at least once every day."

But mostly I'll just get a job stealing drugs from automated drug labs, and selling them to humans in exchange for stuff that machines can't offer. Whatever that turns out to be.

 

[TragicMonkey]

So we need to bring transpeople pollen so they can turn it into nectar?

Okay I'm onboard.

No, what we need is to stop trying to extrapolate the "real answer" from nature, whether it's chemistry or zoology or subatomic physics. We're people, which gives us the luxury of choosing to behave in ways just to be nice to each other. We don't need further justification. The question of who gets to pee where doesn't require a damn bit of research or citation, it just requires people to agree what would be the least assholish thing to do.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If we lived in a paradise where machines did all the work, I'd try to get a job breaking the machines. Not out of luddism, nor out of a misguided sense of creating work for machine repairmen. But because I figure for sure there's got to be a black market in exploiting the gaps that open up when the system breaks down.

Either that, or I'd get into hand-crafted ceramic bowls. The entire selling point would be By Humans For Humans. Stuff that's guaranteed to be lovingly crafted by real human hands, not by cold machines. Or even warm machines.

You'll like this article.

Why the Future Will be Ruled by B.S. by David Wong

https://www.cracked.com/article_18817_5-reasons-future-will-be-ruled-by-b.s..html

 

[d4m10n]

Which hierarchy do, for example, the Batek people show then?

Rather little, from what I've read about them. It is difficult to imagine a human society with fewer hierarchical, territorial, patriarchal, and (frankly) brutal features. There remains some degree of sex specialization, however, e.g. who does the blow-pipe hunting. I’m guessing they have other gendered roles as well, apart from the obvious (childbirth and nursing).

 

[TragicMonkey]

If we lived in a paradise where machines did all the work, I'd try to get a job breaking the machines. Not out of luddism, nor out of a misguided sense of creating work for machine repairmen. But because I figure for sure there's got to be a black market in exploiting the gaps that open up when the system breaks down.

Either that, or I'd get into hand-crafted ceramic bowls. The entire selling point would be By Humans For Humans. Stuff that's guaranteed to be lovingly crafted by real human hands, not by cold machines. Or even warm machines.

Either that, or I'd get into the escort services. Not even sex stuff (but that too; why not?) Just... in a world run by machines with machine-like efficiency, I can offer something no machine will ever provide: Real human contact. Wanna go to a movie together? I'm your bro. Play Xbox with a live person next to you on the couch? That's a service no robot can provide. But I can!

Of course robots will be able to emulate this kind of human contact. But I bet that no matter how realistic the robot gets, there will always be a market for real human contact. There will always be people who say, "I don't care how human it looks, I don't even care that it can fool me completely. I'll always know it's a robot, and I'll always want to touch a real human hand, at least once every day."

But mostly I'll just get a job stealing drugs from automated drug labs, and selling them to humans in exchange for stuff that machines can't offer. Whatever that turns out to be.

If all your needs are met why would you need a job at all? Jobs are work done in order to gain means to meet your needs. If there's no work necessary then there's nothing to be done, and even if there were work there's no point in doing it if you have no needs unfulfilled. There'd be no need to do anything except enjoy yourself, which may take the same form of activity that used to be work but it wouldn't actually be work since it wouldn't be necessary.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No, what we need is to stop trying to extrapolate the "real answer" from nature, whether it's chemistry or zoology or subatomic physics. We're people, which gives us the luxury of choosing to behave in ways just to be nice to each other. We don't need further justification. The question of who gets to pee where doesn't require a damn bit of research or citation, it just requires people to agree what would be the least assholish thing to do.

I agree 100%.

Problem is there are still discussions on the table where don't all agree on what the least assholish thing to do is.

I agree that this trip down "Well what would a colony of ants do..." lane served no purpose.

 

[Belz...]

No, what we need is to stop trying to extrapolate the "real answer" from nature, whether it's chemistry or zoology or subatomic physics. We're people, which gives us the luxury of choosing to behave in ways just to be nice to each other. We don't need further justification.

Well, the issue is that "well, that's what _I_ think" can only go so far, so we try to find justifications outside of our own opinions. The natural argument might not convince all, but it's not necessarily a fallacy.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I agree 100%.

Problem is there are still discussions on the table where don't all agree on what the least assholish thing to do is.

I agree that this trip down "Well what would a colony of ants do..." lane served no purpose.

None of any of this thread served any purpose. Group A is upset at Group B because Group C might hypothetically do Actions D or E to Group A. Everything else is just an attempt by various posters to justify their preferred course of action by appealing to various sciences of varying degrees of softness or hardness.

I suggest nothing can be achieved until everybody skips the crap and just states what their best solution is, and then people can agree or not on the actual action suggested rather than debate literally everything else except actual action. Policy is always action taken, it's not viewpoint however erudite.

 

[theprestige]

You'll like this article.

Why the Future Will be Ruled by B.S. by David Wong

https://www.cracked.com/article_18817_5-reasons-future-will-be-ruled-by-b.s..html

Yup. Read it when it first got published. Enjoyed it immensely.