• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

Thermal said:
*Thermal glares pointedly while mashing index fingers against each other*
Click to expand...
I'll say it if you're too coy to: Sexual relationships. As I said, one of the very few situations where it may matter. Can you think of any others where being able to tell the sexes apart is important?
 
arthwollipot said:
I'll say it if you're too coy to: Sexual relationships. As I said, one of the very few situations where it may matter. Can you think of any others where being able to tell the sexes apart is important?
Click to expand...

Making doctors appointments and giving medical information.

Assigning group changing rooms for teenagers in school.

Buying clothes.

Simple pronoun usage/reference in a group.

But I don't see why we need a list of reasons to justify a particular knowledge. It's almost never important that I have blue eyes, but that doesn't validate the argument that we should never refer to eye color, or defer to subjective beliefs about eye color self identification.
 
Upchurch said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yet the claim says,
Face gender recognition is an extremely efficient and fast cognitive process . . . .
Click to expand...
Also,

Upchurch said:
. . . . 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.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the claim to which I was offering that study (and the other one, too). My participation in this vein started here:
Upchurch said:
. . . .
Unless you have the person’s sequenced DNA, CT scan, and/or have performed an intimate physical examination, you aren’t basing it on sex at all, apparent or otherwise. You are assigning pronouns based on a person’s conformity to current social gender norms.
Click to expand...
Paul2 said:
Let's say someone was shown pictures of male and female faces, everyone with a middle-of-the-gender-road haircut, no makeup, same neutral expression on their face; that is, remove all gender-norm identifiers. If that person chose the males and females at a high rate of accuracy, that would mean that they are doing so not on the basis of gender norms, but on the basis of biological differences in the appearance of male and female faces.

What I think happens is that gender norms and biological sex differences both play a role in IDing, say, a stranger on the street.
Click to expand...
Emphasis just added.

Upchurch said:
It would mean that they have a high rate of evaluating biological differences in the absence of gender-norm identifiers. It does not mean they would necessarily be as accurate in more real-world situations when gender-norm identifiers are present.


You may think what you like. It's not evidence of anything other than that you have an opinion.
Click to expand...
Paul2 said:
I was just looking at a link from PubMed about how males and females can be identified just by their noses. Foreheads, eyebrows, skin texture, chin/jaw also help that identification.
Click to expand...
Etc.
 
arthwollipot said:
Personally, I'm a little more tolerant. I recognise that mistakes are made, and the consequences of that are minor. Never doing so is a good habit to get into though, because it's always better to not make mistakes where possible.
Click to expand...

And as I think we discussed before, I'd take not acknowledging an obvious guy as a guy would be taken as deliberately emasculating, and insulting. Not to mention telling a babe that you can't figure out if she is a guy or what, not exactly making you a hit with the ladies.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Making doctors appointments and giving medical information.
Click to expand...
Yes, good, that may be one.

Thermal said:
Assigning group changing rooms for teenagers in school.
Click to expand...
Nope. Teenagers can grow up, just like the rest of us learned to.

Thermal said:
Buying clothes.
Click to expand...
Nope. Anyone can wear clothes of any gender.

Thermal said:
Simple pronoun usage/reference in a group.
Click to expand...
Alleviated by just asking.

Thermal said:
But I don't see why we need a list of reasons to justify a particular knowledge. It's almost never important that I have blue eyes, but that doesn't validate the argument that we should never refer to eye color, or defer to subjective beliefs about eye color self identification.
Click to expand...
But it does matter if we're treating people differently depending on the colour of their eyes.
 
Upchurch said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's not what the original statement about evolution in this thread is about. It was merely that sexual dimorphism probably has an evolutionary component to it.
 
Paul2 said:
I was just looking at a link from PubMed about how males and females can be identified just by their noses. Foreheads, eyebrows, skin texture, chin/jaw also help that identification.
Click to expand...

Upchurch said:
And yet, somehow, you can't actually articulate what those sex characteristics are.
Click to expand...

Thermal said:
As Paul2 notes, facial structure and body...proportion, let's say. 100% reliable? Of course not. Nothing much is. Better than 95%, or 1 in 20? Je le crois.
Click to expand...

tyr_13 said:
His cited article is paywalled, but from what some of the cited articles say it was something like 94% when all things like hair and makeup were covered (and something like 40% accurate for children's faces, which is hilarious).

But let's go with your 95% accurate. This would mean that about 8.8% (0.0871559633027523) of the people identified as transgender would actually be transgender. The rest would be cisgender incorrectly identified as transgender.
Click to expand...

To those interested in the paper, this is the way....

https://sci-hub.se/10.1068/p220131
 
arthwollipot said:
Yes, good, that may be one.
Click to expand...

There's no "may" about it. It could literally be a matter of life and death.

Nope. Teenagers can grow up, just like the rest of us learned to.
Click to expand...

I didn't learn by putting the cheerleaders in the showers with the football team. That's a kind of learning that should have a longer curve.

Nope. Anyone can wear clothes of any gender.
Click to expand...

Y'all ain't been clothes shopping lately, I take it? Sizing and cuts are radically different pertaining to sex. You might argue that it shouldn't be so, but to say it isn't so is not realistic.

Alleviated by just asking.
Click to expand...

Sometimes. Yet sometimes you are pointing out a person far away or not present at all. Pronouns can sometimes be our friend.

But it does matter if we're treating people differently depending on the colour of their eyes.
Click to expand...

We are not talking about treatment. We are talking about acknowledging a physical trait, even if unimportant.

I'd say it's unimportant if you pointed me out in a group as "that remarkably good looking guy" or "that weirdo". I'm not even a party to that discussion. Call me what you will out of my earshot.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
The paper points to great accuracy in determining sex through unadorned faces only. Not exactly a realistic restriction. I personally find that the body and voice are more accurate tip-offs.
Click to expand...
But not 100% reliable. And like I said, it's in those cases that it's so important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom