Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[Manger Douse]

You think people are as simple as "Males ware trousers and have short hair, Females ware dresses and have long hair"?

 

[d4m10n]

My parsing of your argument is that it is wrong for people to judge others for denying a person's statement of their correct pronouns.

Judge all you want! I'm not going to agree (especially since you refuse to give an argument for "correct pronouns") but I also don't think you are harming or helping anyone thereby.

If the 'basking' part is sarcasm, then you do in fact judge others for judging others.

Bzzzzzt. Can I quickly note the irony of trying to tell someone else what is happening in their own head, while arguing for uncritical acceptance of people's ability to introspect on the matter of gender?

I take it you don't object to a paraphrase of your argument being 'you get to pick what pronouns are correct for other people using any method you like'

Nope, I have more constraints than that and I even spelled them out: "All that matters to me is that I can tell which pronouns are pointing to which nouns in any given flow of conversation."

ETA: I'll ask again about poor ignorant Carl, the proverbial freshman at CU Boulder. What is the best argument that he needs to update his heuristic for pronoun assignment, aside from "We will judge you morally inferior if you don't comply."

 

[Upchurch]

You think people are as simple as "Males ware trousers and have short hair, Females ware dresses and have long hair"?

Nope

 

[Manger Douse]

Nope

So how do you think humans tell the sexes apart?

 

[Paul2]

Do you often meet entire people, not just their faces, in highly controlled laboratory conditions?

eta: Did the study measure the effect of adding gender attributes to the faces on the accuracy of the sex identification, perhaps including non-conforming gender attributes?

For your consideration:

The human face presents a clear sexual dimorphism 7., 10., 11., 18., 19.. Face gender recognition is an extremely efficient and fast cognitive process [6]. Even when images are cropped to remove all cultural cues to gender such as hairstyle and make-up, gender classification is correct in almost 100% of the cases in adult subjects [6], whereas 7-years-old children already reach 80% accuracy in the same task [21]. These data clearly indicate that biological cues in facial anatomy are sufficient for a very efficient gender recognition and this ability is acquired early during childhood.

"Even when" implies efficient and fast ID when cultural cues (hairstyle, etc.) remain.

Source

 

[Upchurch]

For your consideration:


"Even when" implies efficient and fast ID when cultural cues (hairstyle, etc.) remain.

Source

Yes, that’s the entire point. They tested for accuracy when there were no gender clues, which is inherently cultural. They did not test for accuracy when those clues are present.

Those results aren’t applicable in our everyday world without further research about how cultural clues effect the accuracy.

 

[Manger Douse]

So how do humans tell the sexes apart?

 

[Paul2]

I used Google's text preview to see what the subsequent papers that cited yours cited them for, and that was the best I could do. There isn't a guarantee that this was what the paywalled paper said, but if you want to dispense with your own citation I won't blame you.

Do you remember the name or author of any of the subsequent papers, or have a link, so I don't have to paw through each one? The first one I looked at didn't say anything about 94%.

 

[Upchurch]

For your consideration:


"Even when" implies efficient and fast ID when cultural cues (hairstyle, etc.) remain.

Source

My mistake. I understand what you’re saying now. Did they test with gender-fluid or gender non-conforming gender clues?

 

[Trausti]

So how do humans tell the sexes apart?

Millions of years of human sexual dimorphic evolution occurred for no reason whatsoever.

 

[Manger Douse]

Millions of years of human sexual dimorphic evolution occurred for no reason whatsoever.

I'm wondering how Ug knew who to clobber over the head and drag back to his cave

 

[Paul2]

nvm

 

[Paul2]

My mistake. I understand what you’re saying now. Did they test with gender-fluid or gender non-conforming gender clues?

I strongly suspect they did not test with those populations, which would clearly reduce accuracy.

But to get overall accuracy you'd have to randomize with respect to gender-confirming and gender-non-conforming which, statistically, isn't going to change the results that much from test that contain no gender-non-conforming folk because their percentages in the entire population are relatively small. It *would* matter if anyone claimed that accuracy was 100%, but I don't think anyone is (or should) do that.

 

[Paul2]

Millions of years of human sexual dimorphic evolution occurred for no reason whatsoever.

There is a strong evolutionary argument to make there. The DNA that encodes for sexual dimorphism has an obvious evolutionary explanation, especially before the development of language in porto-humans, which DNA is largely carried over into humans.

 

[Upchurch]

I strongly suspect they did not test with those populations, which would clearly reduce accuracy.

Clearly. The question is by how much and why I question claim of “I can just tell”. I don’t see how this study supports the claim.

But to get overall accuracy you'd have to randomize with respect to gender-confirming and gender-non-conforming which, statistically, isn't going to change the results that much from test that contain no gender-non-conforming folk because their percentages in the entire population are relatively small. It *would* matter if anyone claimed that accuracy was 100%, but I don't think anyone is (or should) do that.

In general, I agree, but the population of people who don’t conform to gender norms is larger than just trans folks. “Butch” women/tomboys come to mind, for example.

But the claim is that humans are really, really accurate, specifically, at telling the biological sex of transgender folks. This study just doesn’t address that question.

 

[Trausti]

But the claim is that humans are really, really accurate, specifically, at telling the biological sex of transgender folks. This study just doesn’t address that question.

Is this before they put on their costume or after? A biological woman doesn't need to put on a costume, inject herself with hormones, and cut up her body for us to see she's a she. A guy in a really good bear costume is still just a guy in a bear costume.

 

[Trausti]

One of these two is a guy in a costume. Impossible to know which one.

 

[Upchurch]

There is a strong evolutionary argument to make there. The DNA that encodes for sexual dimorphism has an obvious evolutionary explanation, especially before the development of language in porto-humans, which DNA is largely carried over into humans.

There was also a strong evolutionary argument to make against the existence of gay people until evolutionary psychologists realized there is an evolutionary advantage on a community level. I don’t know if there is also one for non-gender conforming people, but I wouldn’t make the association there couldn’t be one.

 

[Manger Douse]

Upchurch - How do you think humans tell the sexes apart?

 

[theprestige]

There was also a strong evolutionary argument to make against the existence of gay people until evolutionary psychologists realized there is an evolutionary advantage on a community level. I don’t know if there is also one for non-gender conforming people, but I wouldn’t make the association there couldn’t be one.

Your appeal to the evolutionary argument is interesting. It's hard to make an evolutionary argument against an erection at the prospect of a sexually compatible encounter. But here you are, dismissing the evolutionary argument for humans being innately adept at identifying such partners at a glance.