Current Events > If gender is a social construct, you don't get to decide what your gender is

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
MedeaLysistrata 12/16/17 4:07:10 AM #51:	nicklebro posted... But to me, when you're getting that nitpicky, you're eventually going to have to acknowledge that every individual is separate from every other individual, and then acknowledge the reason we have genders anyways. It isn't to make people feel good or anything like that, it's simply for communicative purposes, and to make it too convoluted makes it detrimental to that purpose. don't you think making attempts to develop a more robust conception of sex-based performativity is actually a positive step toward reflecting people's individuality? it might actually also make our communities stronger, in a best-case scenario. it's pretty clear that the gender studies programme has not caught on and likely will not catch on outside of administrative spaces. but i think that post-3rd wave feminism has more or less crystalized a general concept like Identity as being ontologically equivalent to things like Society or Economy, and we need to have a strong philosophical foundation to respond to such a change in our conceptual matrix. --- let's positive thinking <cite>MedeaLysistrata posted [p:892312770] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>But to me, when you're getting that nitpicky, you're eventually going to have to acknowledge that every individual is separate from every other individual, and then acknowledge the reason we have genders anyways. It isn't to make people feel good or anything like that, it's simply for communicative purposes, and to make it too convoluted makes it detrimental to that purpose.</quote> don't you think making attempts to develop a more robust conception of sex-based performativity is actually a positive step toward reflecting people's individuality? it might actually also make our communities stronger, in a best-case scenario. it's pretty clear that the gender studies programme has not caught on and likely will not catch on outside of administrative spaces. but i think that post-3rd wave feminism has more or less crystalized a general concept like Identity as being ontologically equivalent to things like Society or Economy, and we need to have a strong philosophical foundation to respond to such a change in our conceptual matrix.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
boxington 12/16/17 4:10:58 AM #52:	if a person's gender identity doesn't match their sex, then why should it match any sex? and idk why how the majority of trans people identify as, when they're already in the minority. just consider trans people that neither identify as male or female as a smaller subset Edit: at post 49 --- b-bb-box <cite>boxington posted [p:892312829] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote>if a person's gender identity doesn't match their sex, then why should it match any sex? and idk why how the majority of trans people identify as, when they're already in the minority. just consider trans people that neither identify as male or female as a smaller subset Edit: at post 49</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/16/17 4:13:03 AM #53:	MedeaLysistrata posted... don't you think making attempts to develop a more robust conception of sex-based performativity is actually a positive step toward reflecting people's individuality? it might actually also make our communities stronger, in a best-case scenario. no. Everyone is an individual, I don't see the need for more and more labels when all that does is eventually boil down to the individual. MedeaLysistrata posted... it's pretty clear that the gender studies programme has not caught on and likely will not catch on outside of administrative spaces. but i think that post-3rd wave feminism has more or less crystalized a general concept like Identity as being ontologically equivalent to things like Society or Economy, and we need to have a strong philosophical foundation to respond to such a change in our conceptual matrix. But there isn't an actual change that needs to be addressed, it a perceived change as our language has basically come under attack. There's still no reason whatsoever to even consider a third gender, and no pragmatic reason I can determine for us to further categorize the different (and infinitely divisible) traits of our individuality. Were all individuals, we use these broad categorizations like male and female to make communication easier. There's no need to change our vocabulary, at all. You don't need a label for exactly what you identify as, because like I said, it eventually just divides down all the way to the individual, and why do we need more than that? --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:892312870] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>MedeaLysistrata posted...</cite> <quote>don't you think making attempts to develop a more robust conception of sex-based performativity is actually a positive step toward reflecting people's individuality? it might actually also make our communities stronger, in a best-case scenario. </quote> no. Everyone is an individual, I don't see the need for more and more labels when all that does is eventually boil down to the individual. <cite>MedeaLysistrata posted...</cite> <quote>it's pretty clear that the gender studies programme has not caught on and likely will not catch on outside of administrative spaces. but i think that post-3rd wave feminism has more or less crystalized a general concept like Identity as being ontologically equivalent to things like Society or Economy, and we need to have a strong philosophical foundation to respond to such a change in our conceptual matrix. </quote> But there isn't an actual change that needs to be addressed, it a perceived change as our language has basically come under attack. There's still no reason whatsoever to even consider a third gender, and no pragmatic reason I can determine for us to further categorize the different (and infinitely divisible) traits of our individuality. Were all individuals, we use these broad categorizations like male and female to make communication easier. There's no need to change our vocabulary, at all. You don't need a label for exactly what you identify as, because like I said, it eventually just divides down all the way to the individual, and why do we need more than that?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/16/17 4:15:55 AM #54:	boxington posted... if a person's gender identity doesn't match their sex, then why should it match any sex? and idk why how the majority of trans people identify as, when they're already in the minority. just consider trans people that neither identify as male or female as a smaller subset Edit: at post 49 Because gender and sex are correlated. This idea that they're completely unrelated is a misunderstanding. The vast majority of men identify as males, were not going to completely throw the correlation away because of a few anomalies. Regardless of what your thoughts on the relationship gender and sex have, there are still just two genders and still just two sexes. The literature is very clear on this. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:892312925] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>boxington posted...</cite> <quote>if a person's gender identity doesn't match their sex, then why should it match any sex? and idk why how the majority of trans people identify as, when they're already in the minority. just consider trans people that neither identify as male or female as a smaller subset Edit: at post 49</quote> Because gender and sex are correlated. This idea that they're completely unrelated is a misunderstanding. The vast majority of men identify as males, were not going to completely throw the correlation away because of a few anomalies. Regardless of what your thoughts on the relationship gender and sex have, there are still just two genders and still just two sexes. The literature is very clear on this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Funbazooka 12/16/17 4:18:07 AM #55:	Remember when there was a descriptor called 'androgyny'. Everyone forgot about it! What a wonderful term. It describes and encompasses all this new nonsense. One word to bind them all. --- I'll defend any man's Funbazooka! <cite>Funbazooka posted [p:892312947] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote>Remember when there was a descriptor called 'androgyny'. Everyone forgot about it! What a wonderful term. It describes and encompasses all this new nonsense. One word to bind them all.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MedeaLysistrata 12/16/17 4:22:43 AM #56:	nicklebro posted... MedeaLysistrata posted... don't you think making attempts to develop a more robust conception of sex-based performativity is actually a positive step toward reflecting people's individuality? it might actually also make our communities stronger, in a best-case scenario. no. Everyone is an individual, I don't see the need for more and more labels when all that does is eventually boil down to the individual. MedeaLysistrata posted... it's pretty clear that the gender studies programme has not caught on and likely will not catch on outside of administrative spaces. but i think that post-3rd wave feminism has more or less crystalized a general concept like Identity as being ontologically equivalent to things like Society or Economy, and we need to have a strong philosophical foundation to respond to such a change in our conceptual matrix. But there isn't an actual change that needs to be addressed, it a perceived change as our language has basically come under attack. There's still no reason whatsoever to even consider a third gender, and no pragmatic reason I can determine for us to further categorize the different (and infinitely divisible) traits of our individuality. Were all individuals, we use these broad categorizations like male and female to make communication easier. There's no need to change our vocabulary, at all. You don't need a label for exactly what you identify as, because like I said, it eventually just divides down all the way to the individual, and why do we need more than that? so basically this boils down to you being a conservative about language? it seems like you're more concerned with language changing than the actual reason behind why it's changing. anyway, to address you more directly, if concepts like male and female make communication easier, then why wouldn't more robust concepts make communication even more efficient? sure, you can say mauve is the same as purple, but ultimately, when you're trying to paint your house, the concept of mauve will actually matter more than the concept of purple, to paint an analogy. --- let's positive thinking <cite>MedeaLysistrata posted [p:892313034] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MedeaLysistrata posted...</cite> <quote>don't you think making attempts to develop a more robust conception of sex-based performativity is actually a positive step toward reflecting people's individuality? it might actually also make our communities stronger, in a best-case scenario. </quote> no. Everyone is an individual, I don't see the need for more and more labels when all that does is eventually boil down to the individual. <cite>MedeaLysistrata posted...</cite> <quote>it's pretty clear that the gender studies programme has not caught on and likely will not catch on outside of administrative spaces. but i think that post-3rd wave feminism has more or less crystalized a general concept like Identity as being ontologically equivalent to things like Society or Economy, and we need to have a strong philosophical foundation to respond to such a change in our conceptual matrix. </quote> But there isn't an actual change that needs to be addressed, it a perceived change as our language has basically come under attack. There's still no reason whatsoever to even consider a third gender, and no pragmatic reason I can determine for us to further categorize the different (and infinitely divisible) traits of our individuality. Were all individuals, we use these broad categorizations like male and female to make communication easier. There's no need to change our vocabulary, at all. You don't need a label for exactly what you identify as, because like I said, it eventually just divides down all the way to the individual, and why do we need more than that?</quote> so basically this boils down to you being a conservative about language? it seems like you're more concerned with language changing than the actual reason behind why it's changing. anyway, to address you more directly, if concepts like male and female make communication easier, then why wouldn't more robust concepts make communication even more efficient? sure, you can say mauve is the same as purple, but ultimately, when you're trying to paint your house, the concept of mauve will actually matter more than the concept of purple, to paint an analogy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/16/17 4:31:57 AM #57:	MedeaLysistrata posted... so basically this boils down to you being a conservative about language? it seems like you're more concerned with language changing than the actual reason behind why it's changing. The reason behind it changing is exactly my reason for being concerned. I see no need for it at all, and I've explained why in detail. And this is more to do with people trying to make these new genders somehow equal to the two that are the only real ones anyways. If people made up all new words to describe the differences in males and other words to describe the difference in females, I wouldn't be upset or anything, I'd see it as unnecessary, and I'm sure it wouldn't catch on, but I wouldn't be opposed. But this whole "you can't refer to me as him, you must refer to me as Xim!" this is where I draw the line. MedeaLysistrata posted... anyway, to address you more directly, if concepts like male and female make communication easier, then why wouldn't more robust concepts make communication even more efficient? sure, you can say mauve is the same as purple, but ultimately, when you're trying to paint your house, the concept of mauve will actually matter more than the concept of purple, to paint an analogy. I'm not sure you're understanding the definition of efficient. I've never needed to be more accurate than the current pronouns are, and I can't imagine the reason why I would ever need to be. I don't see the need to refer to someone's... lets call it "level" of maleness or what have you. But, if this is indeed something that would benefit the language, it'll happen naturally. Its people making up words and trying to force their ideology on the world that bothers me, changes in language happen all the time out of convenience. But they never happen by force, and never for unnecessary reasons. I guess that's my main point, if this is gonna happen, then let it happen. Don't try and force it, or tell people they're pieces of shit for not using your made up words (not you personally of course, just the type of thing I see from these pushy activist types) --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:892313183] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>MedeaLysistrata posted...</cite> <quote>so basically this boils down to you being a conservative about language? it seems like you're more concerned with language changing than the actual reason behind why it's changing. </quote> The reason behind it changing is exactly my reason for being concerned. I see no need for it at all, and I've explained why in detail. And this is more to do with people trying to make these new genders somehow equal to the two that are the only real ones anyways. If people made up all new words to describe the differences in males and other words to describe the difference in females, I wouldn't be upset or anything, I'd see it as unnecessary, and I'm sure it wouldn't catch on, but I wouldn't be opposed. But this whole "you can't refer to me as him, you must refer to me as Xim!" this is where I draw the line. <cite>MedeaLysistrata posted...</cite> <quote>anyway, to address you more directly, if concepts like male and female make communication easier, then why wouldn't more robust concepts make communication even more efficient? sure, you can say mauve is the same as purple, but ultimately, when you're trying to paint your house, the concept of mauve will actually matter more than the concept of purple, to paint an analogy. </quote> I'm not sure you're understanding the definition of efficient. I've never needed to be more accurate than the current pronouns are, and I can't imagine the reason why I would ever need to be. I don't see the need to refer to someone's... lets call it "level" of maleness or what have you. But, if this is indeed something that would benefit the language, it'll happen naturally. Its people making up words and trying to force their ideology on the world that bothers me, changes in language happen all the time out of convenience. But they never happen by force, and never for unnecessary reasons. I guess that's my main point, if this is gonna happen, then let it happen. Don't try and force it, or tell people they're pieces of shit for not using your made up words (not you personally of course, just the type of thing I see from these pushy activist types)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MedeaLysistrata 12/16/17 4:56:53 AM #58:	nicklebro posted... MedeaLysistrata posted... so basically this boils down to you being a conservative about language? it seems like you're more concerned with language changing than the actual reason behind why it's changing. The reason behind it changing is exactly my reason for being concerned. I see no need for it at all, and I've explained why in detail. And this is more to do with people trying to make these new genders somehow equal to the two that are the only real ones anyways. If people made up all new words to describe the differences in males and other words to describe the difference in females, I wouldn't be upset or anything, I'd see it as unnecessary, and I'm sure it wouldn't catch on, but I wouldn't be opposed. But this whole "you can't refer to me as him, you must refer to me as Xim!" this is where I draw the line. MedeaLysistrata posted... anyway, to address you more directly, if concepts like male and female make communication easier, then why wouldn't more robust concepts make communication even more efficient? sure, you can say mauve is the same as purple, but ultimately, when you're trying to paint your house, the concept of mauve will actually matter more than the concept of purple, to paint an analogy. I'm not sure you're understanding the definition of efficient. I've never needed to be more accurate than the current pronouns are, and I can't imagine the reason why I would ever need to be. I don't see the need to refer to someone's... lets call it "level" of maleness or what have you. But, if this is indeed something that would benefit the language, it'll happen naturally. Its people making up words and trying to force their ideology on the world that bothers me, changes in language happen all the time out of convenience. But they never happen by force, and never for unnecessary reasons. I guess that's my main point, if this is gonna happen, then let it happen. Don't try and force it, or tell people they're pieces of shit for not using your made up words (not you personally of course, just the type of thing I see from these pushy activist types) we weren't talking about pronouns but it's interesting to see where your priorities are at --- let's positive thinking <cite>MedeaLysistrata posted [p:892313661] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MedeaLysistrata posted...</cite> <quote>so basically this boils down to you being a conservative about language? it seems like you're more concerned with language changing than the actual reason behind why it's changing. </quote> The reason behind it changing is exactly my reason for being concerned. I see no need for it at all, and I've explained why in detail. And this is more to do with people trying to make these new genders somehow equal to the two that are the only real ones anyways. If people made up all new words to describe the differences in males and other words to describe the difference in females, I wouldn't be upset or anything, I'd see it as unnecessary, and I'm sure it wouldn't catch on, but I wouldn't be opposed. But this whole "you can't refer to me as him, you must refer to me as Xim!" this is where I draw the line. <cite>MedeaLysistrata posted...</cite> <quote>anyway, to address you more directly, if concepts like male and female make communication easier, then why wouldn't more robust concepts make communication even more efficient? sure, you can say mauve is the same as purple, but ultimately, when you're trying to paint your house, the concept of mauve will actually matter more than the concept of purple, to paint an analogy. </quote> I'm not sure you're understanding the definition of efficient. I've never needed to be more accurate than the current pronouns are, and I can't imagine the reason why I would ever need to be. I don't see the need to refer to someone's... lets call it "level" of maleness or what have you. But, if this is indeed something that would benefit the language, it'll happen naturally. Its people making up words and trying to force their ideology on the world that bothers me, changes in language happen all the time out of convenience. But they never happen by force, and never for unnecessary reasons. I guess that's my main point, if this is gonna happen, then let it happen. Don't try and force it, or tell people they're pieces of shit for not using your made up words (not you personally of course, just the type of thing I see from these pushy activist types)</quote> we weren't talking about pronouns but it's interesting to see where your priorities are at</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/16/17 5:00:14 AM #59:	MedeaLysistrata posted... we weren't talking about pronouns but it's interesting to see where your priorities are at We were talking about language, pronouns being a part of it. And pronouns are the hot topic when it comes to this debate, Idk if you were aware of that. Anyways, was that it? You just got nothing else to say on the matter? --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:892313706] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>MedeaLysistrata posted...</cite> <quote>we weren't talking about pronouns but it's interesting to see where your priorities are at </quote> We were talking about language, pronouns being a part of it. And pronouns are the hot topic when it comes to this debate, Idk if you were aware of that. Anyways, was that it? You just got nothing else to say on the matter?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MedeaLysistrata 12/16/17 5:16:56 AM #60:	nicklebro posted... MedeaLysistrata posted... we weren't talking about pronouns but it's interesting to see where your priorities are at We were talking about language, pronouns being a part of it. And pronouns are the hot topic when it comes to this debate, Idk if you were aware of that. Anyways, was that it? You just got nothing else to say on the matter? hmm i agree that language shouldn't be absolutely forced to change over night. but there has to be a group of people advocating a change in language if it's going to happen at all. people don't randomly decide to change things one day, there's always a group of people behind it. i'm more interested in talking about how intersectionality has become a category equivalent to society or economy in terms of concepts we use to organize our world --- let's positive thinking <cite>MedeaLysistrata posted [p:892313994] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MedeaLysistrata posted...</cite> <quote>we weren't talking about pronouns but it's interesting to see where your priorities are at </quote> We were talking about language, pronouns being a part of it. And pronouns are the hot topic when it comes to this debate, Idk if you were aware of that. Anyways, was that it? You just got nothing else to say on the matter?</quote> hmm i agree that language shouldn't be absolutely forced to change over night. but there has to be a group of people advocating a change in language if it's going to happen at all. people don't randomly decide to change things one day, there's always a group of people behind it. i'm more interested in talking about how intersectionality has become a category equivalent to society or economy in terms of concepts we use to organize our world</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/16/17 5:31:44 AM #61:	MedeaLysistrata posted... hmm i agree that language shouldn't be absolutely forced to change over night. but there has to be a group of people advocating a change in language if it's going to happen at all. people don't randomly decide to change things one day, there's always a group of people behind it. i'm more interested in talking about how intersectionality has become a category equivalent to society or economy in terms of concepts we use to organize our world I wouldn't say there's a group of people behind it either. In fact I'd say the opposite. If you need to promote the change, then its unneeded. Just begin using the language, if it catches on, then it was necessary. If it doesn't, then obviously people found no use for it. And the issue with trying to categorize these, I guess I'll call them gender distributions, is that I don't see anyway to categorize them in any meaningful way that again, doesn't just continually divide down to the individual. I mean really, the absolute most I can see working is a something along the lines of Masculine male, feminine male, and something like a neutral male, and then the same for females. People already kinda use these, like saying "manly man", but even those distinctions aren't entirely necessary and are more used to add flavor than anything else. I mean people argue against the binary genders because they don't want to be put in a box, but making even further divisions in those genders just puts you in a smaller box lol. Being under the label "male" gives you so much freedom in what that means, and I think thats best anyways since people's "label" can really change with their disposition or just how they're feeling that day. So what use would it even be to make a distinction like that that changes with the wind? Look man I'm not saying I'm right, I've just had this discussion a bunch and never run into someone who's explained a logical or rational reason to think any differently. Its why I don't really agree with the color analogy you used earlier, there's a use for labeling "mauve" as something other than "purple", but genders aren't colors, and they're not used in the same way either, in fact I'd say their differences support the notion that there's no use for any further division in gender labels. If you've got some knock out point, I'd love to hear it. I'm legit open to other points of view, I really just haven't heard any that don't always resort back to "But what about how people feel?" which just isn't a good argument to me. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:892314209] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>MedeaLysistrata posted...</cite> <quote> hmm i agree that language shouldn't be absolutely forced to change over night. but there has to be a group of people advocating a change in language if it's going to happen at all. people don't randomly decide to change things one day, there's always a group of people behind it. i'm more interested in talking about how intersectionality has become a category equivalent to society or economy in terms of concepts we use to organize our world</quote> I wouldn't say there's a group of people behind it either. In fact I'd say the opposite. If you need to promote the change, then its unneeded. Just begin using the language, if it catches on, then it was necessary. If it doesn't, then obviously people found no use for it. And the issue with trying to categorize these, I guess I'll call them gender distributions, is that I don't see anyway to categorize them in any meaningful way that again, doesn't just continually divide down to the individual. I mean really, the absolute most I can see working is a something along the lines of Masculine male, feminine male, and something like a neutral male, and then the same for females. People already kinda use these, like saying "manly man", but even those distinctions aren't entirely necessary and are more used to add flavor than anything else. I mean people argue against the binary genders because they don't want to be put in a box, but making even further divisions in those genders just puts you in a smaller box lol. Being under the label "male" gives you so much freedom in what that means, and I think thats best anyways since people's "label" can really change with their disposition or just how they're feeling that day. So what use would it even be to make a distinction like that that changes with the wind? Look man I'm not saying I'm right, I've just had this discussion a bunch and never run into someone who's explained a logical or rational reason to think any differently. Its why I don't really agree with the color analogy you used earlier, there's a use for labeling "mauve" as something other than "purple", but genders aren't colors, and they're not used in the same way either, in fact I'd say their differences support the notion that there's no use for any further division in gender labels. If you've got some knock out point, I'd love to hear it. I'm legit open to other points of view, I really just haven't heard any that don't always resort back to "But what about how people feel?" which just isn't a good argument to me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MedeaLysistrata 12/16/17 6:20:09 AM #62:	nicklebro posted... MedeaLysistrata posted... hmm i agree that language shouldn't be absolutely forced to change over night. but there has to be a group of people advocating a change in language if it's going to happen at all. people don't randomly decide to change things one day, there's always a group of people behind it. i'm more interested in talking about how intersectionality has become a category equivalent to society or economy in terms of concepts we use to organize our world I wouldn't say there's a group of people behind it either. In fact I'd say the opposite. If you need to promote the change, then its unneeded. Just begin using the language, if it catches on, then it was necessary. If it doesn't, then obviously people found no use for it. And the issue with trying to categorize these, I guess I'll call them gender distributions, is that I don't see anyway to categorize them in any meaningful way that again, doesn't just continually divide down to the individual. I mean really, the absolute most I can see working is a something along the lines of Masculine male, feminine male, and something like a neutral male, and then the same for females. People already kinda use these, like saying "manly man", but even those distinctions aren't entirely necessary and are more used to add flavor than anything else. I mean people argue against the binary genders because they don't want to be put in a box, but making even further divisions in those genders just puts you in a smaller box lol. Being under the label "male" gives you so much freedom in what that means, and I think thats best anyways since people's "label" can really change with their disposition or just how they're feeling that day. So what use would it even be to make a distinction like that that changes with the wind? Look man I'm not saying I'm right, I've just had this discussion a bunch and never run into someone who's explained a logical or rational reason to think any differently. Its why I don't really agree with the color analogy you used earlier, there's a use for labeling "mauve" as something other than "purple", but genders aren't colors, and they're not used in the same way either, in fact I'd say their differences support the notion that there's no use for any further division in gender labels. If you've got some knock out point, I'd love to hear it. I'm legit open to other points of view, I really just haven't heard any that don't always resort back to "But what about how people feel?" which just isn't a good argument to me. what if it was the case that we discovered that masculine men are best paired up with masculine women and neutral men are best paired up with feminine women? wouldn't you want to know what 'complex' gender you're most compatible with? --- let's positive thinking <cite>MedeaLysistrata posted [p:892314989] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MedeaLysistrata posted...</cite> <quote> hmm i agree that language shouldn't be absolutely forced to change over night. but there has to be a group of people advocating a change in language if it's going to happen at all. people don't randomly decide to change things one day, there's always a group of people behind it. i'm more interested in talking about how intersectionality has become a category equivalent to society or economy in terms of concepts we use to organize our world</quote> I wouldn't say there's a group of people behind it either. In fact I'd say the opposite. If you need to promote the change, then its unneeded. Just begin using the language, if it catches on, then it was necessary. If it doesn't, then obviously people found no use for it. And the issue with trying to categorize these, I guess I'll call them gender distributions, is that I don't see anyway to categorize them in any meaningful way that again, doesn't just continually divide down to the individual. I mean really, the absolute most I can see working is a something along the lines of Masculine male, feminine male, and something like a neutral male, and then the same for females. People already kinda use these, like saying "manly man", but even those distinctions aren't entirely necessary and are more used to add flavor than anything else. I mean people argue against the binary genders because they don't want to be put in a box, but making even further divisions in those genders just puts you in a smaller box lol. Being under the label "male" gives you so much freedom in what that means, and I think thats best anyways since people's "label" can really change with their disposition or just how they're feeling that day. So what use would it even be to make a distinction like that that changes with the wind? Look man I'm not saying I'm right, I've just had this discussion a bunch and never run into someone who's explained a logical or rational reason to think any differently. Its why I don't really agree with the color analogy you used earlier, there's a use for labeling "mauve" as something other than "purple", but genders aren't colors, and they're not used in the same way either, in fact I'd say their differences support the notion that there's no use for any further division in gender labels. If you've got some knock out point, I'd love to hear it. I'm legit open to other points of view, I really just haven't heard any that don't always resort back to "But what about how people feel?" which just isn't a good argument to me.</quote> what if it was the case that we discovered that masculine men are best paired up with masculine women and neutral men are best paired up with feminine women? wouldn't you want to know what 'complex' gender you're most compatible with?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/16/17 4:32:05 PM #63:	MedeaLysistrata posted... nicklebro posted... MedeaLysistrata posted... hmm i agree that language shouldn't be absolutely forced to change over night. but there has to be a group of people advocating a change in language if it's going to happen at all. people don't randomly decide to change things one day, there's always a group of people behind it. i'm more interested in talking about how intersectionality has become a category equivalent to society or economy in terms of concepts we use to organize our world I wouldn't say there's a group of people behind it either. In fact I'd say the opposite. If you need to promote the change, then its unneeded. Just begin using the language, if it catches on, then it was necessary. If it doesn't, then obviously people found no use for it. And the issue with trying to categorize these, I guess I'll call them gender distributions, is that I don't see anyway to categorize them in any meaningful way that again, doesn't just continually divide down to the individual. I mean really, the absolute most I can see working is a something along the lines of Masculine male, feminine male, and something like a neutral male, and then the same for females. People already kinda use these, like saying "manly man", but even those distinctions aren't entirely necessary and are more used to add flavor than anything else. I mean people argue against the binary genders because they don't want to be put in a box, but making even further divisions in those genders just puts you in a smaller box lol. Being under the label "male" gives you so much freedom in what that means, and I think thats best anyways since people's "label" can really change with their disposition or just how they're feeling that day. So what use would it even be to make a distinction like that that changes with the wind? Look man I'm not saying I'm right, I've just had this discussion a bunch and never run into someone who's explained a logical or rational reason to think any differently. Its why I don't really agree with the color analogy you used earlier, there's a use for labeling "mauve" as something other than "purple", but genders aren't colors, and they're not used in the same way either, in fact I'd say their differences support the notion that there's no use for any further division in gender labels. If you've got some knock out point, I'd love to hear it. I'm legit open to other points of view, I really just haven't heard any that don't always resort back to "But what about how people feel?" which just isn't a good argument to me. what if it was the case that we discovered that masculine men are best paired up with masculine women and neutral men are best paired up with feminine women? wouldn't you want to know what 'complex' gender you're most compatible with? What if? Lol ok well when a reason like that magically pops up out of nowhere, my opinion will change. Until then, what ifs aren't going to be legitimate arguments. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:892336807] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>MedeaLysistrata posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MedeaLysistrata posted...</cite> <quote> hmm i agree that language shouldn't be absolutely forced to change over night. but there has to be a group of people advocating a change in language if it's going to happen at all. people don't randomly decide to change things one day, there's always a group of people behind it. i'm more interested in talking about how intersectionality has become a category equivalent to society or economy in terms of concepts we use to organize our world</quote> I wouldn't say there's a group of people behind it either. In fact I'd say the opposite. If you need to promote the change, then its unneeded. Just begin using the language, if it catches on, then it was necessary. If it doesn't, then obviously people found no use for it. And the issue with trying to categorize these, I guess I'll call them gender distributions, is that I don't see anyway to categorize them in any meaningful way that again, doesn't just continually divide down to the individual. I mean really, the absolute most I can see working is a something along the lines of Masculine male, feminine male, and something like a neutral male, and then the same for females. People already kinda use these, like saying "manly man", but even those distinctions aren't entirely necessary and are more used to add flavor than anything else. I mean people argue against the binary genders because they don't want to be put in a box, but making even further divisions in those genders just puts you in a smaller box lol. Being under the label "male" gives you so much freedom in what that means, and I think thats best anyways since people's "label" can really change with their disposition or just how they're feeling that day. So what use would it even be to make a distinction like that that changes with the wind? Look man I'm not saying I'm right, I've just had this discussion a bunch and never run into someone who's explained a logical or rational reason to think any differently. Its why I don't really agree with the color analogy you used earlier, there's a use for labeling "mauve" as something other than "purple", but genders aren't colors, and they're not used in the same way either, in fact I'd say their differences support the notion that there's no use for any further division in gender labels. If you've got some knock out point, I'd love to hear it. I'm legit open to other points of view, I really just haven't heard any that don't always resort back to "But what about how people feel?" which just isn't a good argument to me.</quote> what if it was the case that we discovered that masculine men are best paired up with masculine women and neutral men are best paired up with feminine women? wouldn't you want to know what 'complex' gender you're most compatible with?</quote> What if? Lol ok well when a reason like that magically pops up out of nowhere, my opinion will change. Until then, what ifs aren't going to be legitimate arguments.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Funbazooka 12/16/17 4:50:53 PM #64:	The bigger the pecs: Women definitely prefer buff men, study shows http://www.ajc.com/news/health-med-fit-science/the-bigger-the-pecs-women-definitely-prefer-buff-men-study-shows/mN7nZX45Q2ZbwAkbrbfIlI/ A new scientific study suggests that women definitely prefer stronger men. The research, published this week in Royal Society journal Proceedings B, had 160 women rate faceless images of male bodies. Unanimously, the women chose those that appeared physically stronger, with bigger pecs and larger arms. "We weren't surprised that women found physically strong men attractive ... what did surprise us was just how powerful the effect was," Aaron Sell, a senior lecturer at Griffith University, Queensland, Australia, who led the study, told The Guardian. "Our data couldn't find even a single woman that preferred weaker ... male bodies." For the study, the researchers created a database of photos of shirtless or tank-top wearing men, with their faces obscured. All of the men were university students, but 60 were recruited from the gym while 130 were just normal psychology students. All the men were also given tests with weights, to quantify their physical strength. Women and men were then asked to judge how strong they thought the men were, on a scale of 1 to 7, based on the images. Their guesses were strikingly accurate, correlating well with the strength tests. Furthermore, the women's ratings of the men's attractiveness correlated directly to their physical strength. "No one will be surprised by the idea that strong men are more attractive," Aaron Lukaszewski, an evolutionary psychologist at California State University at Fullerton and an author of the study, told The Washington Post. "It's no secret that women like strong, muscular guys." However, the researchers were less interested in ascertaining the obvious, and more interested in discovering. "People are going to wonder why scientists needed to study it," Holly Dunsworth, an anthropologist at the University of Rhode Island who was not involved in the research, said. "The answer would be because they want to know how these preferences evolved." The researchers point to "ancestral cues," an evolutionary relic of ancient human mating rituals. Ancient women would instinctually have chosen men who were better able to provide for and protect them and their families. It's only natural to assume bigger and stronger men would do this more adequately. But when it comes to male attractiveness, a popular theory says that there's a "sweet spot" for brawn. Beyond a certain point, too much muscle and strength becomes unattractive. This new study seems to prove the opposite. "The theory is that, yes, there would have been benefits ancestrally, in terms of the ability to acquire resources, protecting offspring, hunting and so on. But at a certain point, mating with highly dominant men, they can exert all this aggressive coercive control and there might be costs," Lukaszewski explained, pointing out that his study shows that women prefer brawnier guys, regardless of the potential downsides. --- I'll defend any man's Funbazooka! <cite>Funbazooka posted [p:892337738] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote>The bigger the pecs: Women definitely prefer buff men, study shows http://www.ajc.com/news/health-med-fit-science/the-bigger-the-pecs-women-definitely-prefer-buff-men-study-shows/mN7nZX45Q2ZbwAkbrbfIlI/ A new scientific study suggests that women definitely prefer stronger men. The research, published this week in Royal Society journal Proceedings B, had 160 women rate faceless images of male bodies. Unanimously, the women chose those that appeared physically stronger, with bigger pecs and larger arms. "We weren't surprised that women found physically strong men attractive ... what did surprise us was just how powerful the effect was," Aaron Sell, a senior lecturer at Griffith University, Queensland, Australia, who led the study, told The Guardian. "Our data couldn't find even a single woman that preferred weaker ... male bodies." For the study, the researchers created a database of photos of shirtless or tank-top wearing men, with their faces obscured. All of the men were university students, but 60 were recruited from the gym while 130 were just normal psychology students. All the men were also given tests with weights, to quantify their physical strength. Women and men were then asked to judge how strong they thought the men were, on a scale of 1 to 7, based on the images. Their guesses were strikingly accurate, correlating well with the strength tests. Furthermore, the women's ratings of the men's attractiveness correlated directly to their physical strength. "No one will be surprised by the idea that strong men are more attractive," Aaron Lukaszewski, an evolutionary psychologist at California State University at Fullerton and an author of the study, told The Washington Post. "It's no secret that women like strong, muscular guys." However, the researchers were less interested in ascertaining the obvious, and more interested in discovering. "People are going to wonder why scientists needed to study it," Holly Dunsworth, an anthropologist at the University of Rhode Island who was not involved in the research, said. "The answer would be because they want to know how these preferences evolved." The researchers point to "ancestral cues," an evolutionary relic of ancient human mating rituals. Ancient women would instinctually have chosen men who were better able to provide for and protect them and their families. It's only natural to assume bigger and stronger men would do this more adequately. But when it comes to male attractiveness, a popular theory says that there's a "sweet spot" for brawn. Beyond a certain point, too much muscle and strength becomes unattractive. This new study seems to prove the opposite. "The theory is that, yes, there would have been benefits ancestrally, in terms of the ability to acquire resources, protecting offspring, hunting and so on. But at a certain point, mating with highly dominant men, they can exert all this aggressive coercive control and there might be costs," Lukaszewski explained, pointing out that his study shows that women prefer brawnier guys, regardless of the potential downsides.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/16/17 4:53:33 PM #65:	A stronger body has nothing to do with your psychological orientation. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:892337893] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote>A stronger body has nothing to do with your psychological orientation.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 12/16/17 4:56:12 PM #66:	nicklebro posted... A stronger body has nothing to do with your psychological orientation. Actually... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:892338016] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>A stronger body has nothing to do with your psychological orientation.</quote> Actually... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EducatedGuy 12/16/17 4:56:27 PM #67:	I am glad to see intellectuals like the admiral (best poster here with trump university degrees) and TC (he knows Aristotle and Pluto and Greek wise scientists like they) <cite>EducatedGuy posted [p:892338033] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote>I am glad to see intellectuals like the admiral (best poster here with trump university degrees) and TC (he knows Aristotle and Pluto and Greek wise scientists like they)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/16/17 4:59:06 PM #68:	Mal_Fet posted... nicklebro posted... A stronger body has nothing to do with your psychological orientation. Actually... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html Do all strong men vote conservative? No? Ok then. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:892338157] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>A stronger body has nothing to do with your psychological orientation.</quote> Actually... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html</quote> Do all strong men vote conservative? No? Ok then.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FigureOfSpeech 12/16/17 5:07:05 PM #69:	There's no such thing as gender --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>FigureOfSpeech posted [p:892338504] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote>There's no such thing as gender</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 12/16/17 5:10:25 PM #70:	nicklebro posted... Mal_Fet posted... nicklebro posted... A stronger body has nothing to do with your psychological orientation. Actually... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html Do all strong men vote conservative? No? Ok then. It still indicates that a strong body has something to do with your psychological orientation. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:892338631] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>A stronger body has nothing to do with your psychological orientation.</quote> Actually... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html</quote> Do all strong men vote conservative? No? Ok then.</quote> It still indicates that a strong body has something to do with your psychological orientation.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/16/17 5:32:50 PM #71:	Mal_Fet posted... nicklebro posted... Mal_Fet posted... nicklebro posted... A stronger body has nothing to do with your psychological orientation. Actually... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html Do all strong men vote conservative? No? Ok then. It still indicates that a strong body has something to do with your psychological orientation. No it doesn't. It had to be one or the other. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:892339676] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>A stronger body has nothing to do with your psychological orientation.</quote> Actually... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html</quote> Do all strong men vote conservative? No? Ok then.</quote> It still indicates that a strong body has something to do with your psychological orientation.</quote> No it doesn't. It had to be one or the other.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 12/16/17 5:34:31 PM #72:	nicklebro posted... Mal_Fet posted... nicklebro posted... Mal_Fet posted... nicklebro posted... A stronger body has nothing to do with your psychological orientation. Actually... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html Do all strong men vote conservative? No? Ok then. It still indicates that a strong body has something to do with your psychological orientation. No it doesn't. It had to be one or the other. No, it doesn't. Strong people having a statistical tendency towards conservative values is indeed evidence that the two are related in some way. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:892339755] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>A stronger body has nothing to do with your psychological orientation.</quote> Actually... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html</quote> Do all strong men vote conservative? No? Ok then.</quote> It still indicates that a strong body has something to do with your psychological orientation.</quote> No it doesn't. It had to be one or the other.</quote> No, it doesn't. Strong people having a statistical tendency towards conservative values is indeed evidence that the two are related in some way.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/16/17 5:37:47 PM #73:	Mal_Fet posted... nicklebro posted... Mal_Fet posted... nicklebro posted... Mal_Fet posted... nicklebro posted... A stronger body has nothing to do with your psychological orientation. Actually... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html Do all strong men vote conservative? No? Ok then. It still indicates that a strong body has something to do with your psychological orientation. No it doesn't. It had to be one or the other. No, it doesn't. Strong people having a statistical tendency towards conservative values is indeed evidence that the two are related in some way. Lol have you ever taken a statistic course in your life? --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:892339928] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>A stronger body has nothing to do with your psychological orientation.</quote> Actually... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html</quote> Do all strong men vote conservative? No? Ok then.</quote> It still indicates that a strong body has something to do with your psychological orientation.</quote> No it doesn't. It had to be one or the other.</quote> No, it doesn't. Strong people having a statistical tendency towards conservative values is indeed evidence that the two are related in some way.</quote> Lol have you ever taken a statistic course in your life?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/16/17 5:38:59 PM #74:	Lmao the only way they can't be related if it's split exactly 50/50 according to Mal. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:892340011] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote>Lmao the only way they can't be related if it's split exactly 50/50 according to Mal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 12/16/17 5:58:30 PM #75:	nicklebro posted... Mal_Fet posted... nicklebro posted... Mal_Fet posted... nicklebro posted... Mal_Fet posted... Actually... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html Do all strong men vote conservative? No? Ok then. It still indicates that a strong body has something to do with your psychological orientation. No it doesn't. It had to be one or the other. No, it doesn't. Strong people having a statistical tendency towards conservative values is indeed evidence that the two are related in some way. Lol have you ever taken a statistic course in your life? Yeah, and generally speaking, patterns indicate a connection. What statistics courses have you taken? --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:892341014] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote> Actually... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html</quote> Do all strong men vote conservative? No? Ok then.</quote> It still indicates that a strong body has something to do with your psychological orientation.</quote> No it doesn't. It had to be one or the other.</quote> No, it doesn't. Strong people having a statistical tendency towards conservative values is indeed evidence that the two are related in some way.</quote> Lol have you ever taken a statistic course in your life?</quote> Yeah, and generally speaking, patterns indicate a connection. What statistics courses have you taken?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/16/17 6:32:12 PM #76:	Mal_Fet posted... Yeah, and generally speaking, patterns indicate a connection. Lmao, and that's enough out of Mal. Anyways. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:892342661] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote> Yeah, and generally speaking, patterns indicate a connection.</quote> Lmao, and that's enough out of Mal. Anyways.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 12/16/17 8:08:39 PM #77:	Me: "Red is red" CE: "Omg r u srs" Me: "Yes, I'm pretty sure that's true" CE: "Lol mal is a shitposter" ^ My existence on this board. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:892347127] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote>Me: "Red is red" CE: "Omg r u srs" Me: "Yes, I'm pretty sure that's true" CE: "Lol mal is a shitposter" ^ My existence on this board.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
literal_garbage 12/16/17 8:11:37 PM #78:	nicklebro posted... Mal_Fet posted... nicklebro posted... Mal_Fet posted... nicklebro posted... Mal_Fet posted... nicklebro posted... A stronger body has nothing to do with your psychological orientation. Actually... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html Do all strong men vote conservative? No? Ok then. It still indicates that a strong body has something to do with your psychological orientation. No it doesn't. It had to be one or the other. No, it doesn't. Strong people having a statistical tendency towards conservative values is indeed evidence that the two are related in some way. Lol have you ever taken a statistic course in your life? if two things have a correlation, then one of the variables has to be causing the change in the other. You dont need a class to be able to suss that one out --- - literal garbage <cite>literal_garbage posted [p:892347287] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote>A stronger body has nothing to do with your psychological orientation.</quote> Actually... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html</quote> Do all strong men vote conservative? No? Ok then.</quote> It still indicates that a strong body has something to do with your psychological orientation.</quote> No it doesn't. It had to be one or the other.</quote> No, it doesn't. Strong people having a statistical tendency towards conservative values is indeed evidence that the two are related in some way.</quote> Lol have you ever taken a statistic course in your life?</quote> if two things have a correlation, then one of the variables has to be causing the change in the other. You dont need a class to be able to suss that one out</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Deadpool_18 12/16/17 8:12:39 PM #79:	I immediately hear white noise when I read the words social construct. --- We're whalers on the moon, we carry a harpoon, but there ain't no whales, so we tell tall tales, and sing our whaling tune. <cite>Deadpool_18 posted [p:892347318] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote>I immediately hear white noise when I read the words social construct.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 12/16/17 8:56:27 PM #80:	Correlation does not imply causation is perhaps the foundational rule of statistical analysis. --- PSN: kazukifafner <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:892349322] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote>Correlation does not imply causation is perhaps the foundational rule of statistical analysis.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FigureOfSpeech 12/16/17 9:54:05 PM #81:	Mal_Fet posted... Me: "Red is red" CE: "Omg r u srs" Me: "Yes, I'm pretty sure that's true" CE: "Lol mal is a shitposter" ^ My existence on this board. Bleeeb slorbnin, goople gwrop. Blehlrerrrbldle scrauw wepnebnt kgnirp phlaarlaark? Dreipsnim :P --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>FigureOfSpeech posted [p:892352222] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Me: "Red is red" CE: "Omg r u srs" Me: "Yes, I'm pretty sure that's true" CE: "Lol mal is a shitposter" ^ My existence on this board.</quote> Bleeeb slorbnin, goople gwrop. Blehlrerrrbldle scrauw wepnebnt kgnirp phlaarlaark? Dreipsnim :P</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnholyMudcrab 12/16/17 9:55:27 PM #82:	Why do you guys continue to take Mal's bait? --- http://i.imgur.com/VeNBg.gif http://i.imgur.com/gd5jC8q.gif http://i.imgur.com/PKIy7.gif http://i.imgur.com/3p29JqP.gif <cite>UnholyMudcrab posted [p:892352287] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote>Why do you guys continue to take Mal's bait?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/17/17 12:49:11 AM #83:	literal_garbage posted... if two things have a correlation, then one of the variables has to be causing the change in the other. You dont need a class to be able to suss that one out Lmao Dragonblade01 posted... Correlation does not imply causation is perhaps the foundational rule of statistical analysis. And you'd think it'd be so well known as to call it common sense. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:892360679] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>literal_garbage posted...</cite> <quote> if two things have a correlation, then one of the variables has to be causing the change in the other. You dont need a class to be able to suss that one out</quote> Lmao <cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Correlation does not imply causation is perhaps the foundational rule of statistical analysis.</quote> And you'd think it'd be so well known as to call it common sense.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 12/17/17 12:58:29 AM #84:	I love radical subjectivism Really makes it easy to have a position on everything...because it feels Right! <cite>Romes187 posted [p:892361031] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote>I love radical subjectivism Really makes it easy to have a position on everything...because it feels Right!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 12/17/17 12:36:25 PM #85:	nicklebro posted... literal_garbage posted... if two things have a correlation, then one of the variables has to be causing the change in the other. You dont need a class to be able to suss that one out Lmao Dragonblade01 posted... Correlation does not imply causation is perhaps the foundational rule of statistical analysis. And you'd think it'd be so well known as to call it common sense. Pretty sure he's just trolling/playing a gimmick. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:892378818] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>literal_garbage posted...</cite> <quote> if two things have a correlation, then one of the variables has to be causing the change in the other. You dont need a class to be able to suss that one out</quote> Lmao <cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Correlation does not imply causation is perhaps the foundational rule of statistical analysis.</quote> And you'd think it'd be so well known as to call it common sense.</quote> Pretty sure he's just trolling/playing a gimmick.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nicklebro 12/17/17 3:00:13 PM #86:	COVxy posted... nicklebro posted... literal_garbage posted... if two things have a correlation, then one of the variables has to be causing the change in the other. You dont need a class to be able to suss that one out Lmao Dragonblade01 posted... Correlation does not imply causation is perhaps the foundational rule of statistical analysis. And you'd think it'd be so well known as to call it common sense. Pretty sure he's just trolling/playing a gimmick. Probably, with that username. Or maybe his gimmick is agreeing with Mal, lol same thing I guess. --- Now you can't call me a sigless user. <cite>nicklebro posted [p:892386264] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>nicklebro posted...</cite> <quote><cite>literal_garbage posted...</cite> <quote> if two things have a correlation, then one of the variables has to be causing the change in the other. You dont need a class to be able to suss that one out</quote> Lmao <cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>Correlation does not imply causation is perhaps the foundational rule of statistical analysis.</quote> And you'd think it'd be so well known as to call it common sense.</quote> Pretty sure he's just trolling/playing a gimmick.</quote> Probably, with that username. Or maybe his gimmick is agreeing with Mal, lol same thing I guess.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Notti 12/19/17 5:57:17 AM #87:	Funbazooka posted... The bigger the pecs: Women definitely prefer buff men, study shows http://www.ajc.com/news/health-med-fit-science/the-bigger-the-pecs-women-definitely-prefer-buff-men-study-shows/mN7nZX45Q2ZbwAkbrbfIlI/ A new scientific study suggests that women definitely prefer stronger men. The research, published this week in Royal Society journal Proceedings B, had 160 women rate faceless images of male bodies. Unanimously, the women chose those that appeared physically stronger, with bigger pecs and larger arms. "We weren't surprised that women found physically strong men attractive ... what did surprise us was just how powerful the effect was," Aaron Sell, a senior lecturer at Griffith University, Queensland, Australia, who led the study, told The Guardian. "Our data couldn't find even a single woman that preferred weaker ... male bodies." For the study, the researchers created a database of photos of shirtless or tank-top wearing men, with their faces obscured. All of the men were university students, but 60 were recruited from the gym while 130 were just normal psychology students. All the men were also given tests with weights, to quantify their physical strength. Women and men were then asked to judge how strong they thought the men were, on a scale of 1 to 7, based on the images. Their guesses were strikingly accurate, correlating well with the strength tests. Furthermore, the women's ratings of the men's attractiveness correlated directly to their physical strength. "No one will be surprised by the idea that strong men are more attractive," Aaron Lukaszewski, an evolutionary psychologist at California State University at Fullerton and an author of the study, told The Washington Post. "It's no secret that women like strong, muscular guys." However, the researchers were less interested in ascertaining the obvious, and more interested in discovering. "People are going to wonder why scientists needed to study it," Holly Dunsworth, an anthropologist at the University of Rhode Island who was not involved in the research, said. "The answer would be because they want to know how these preferences evolved." The researchers point to "ancestral cues," an evolutionary relic of ancient human mating rituals. Ancient women would instinctually have chosen men who were better able to provide for and protect them and their families. It's only natural to assume bigger and stronger men would do this more adequately. But when it comes to male attractiveness, a popular theory says that there's a "sweet spot" for brawn. Beyond a certain point, too much muscle and strength becomes unattractive. This new study seems to prove the opposite. "The theory is that, yes, there would have been benefits ancestrally, in terms of the ability to acquire resources, protecting offspring, hunting and so on. But at a certain point, mating with highly dominant men, they can exert all this aggressive coercive control and there might be costs," Lukaszewski explained, pointing out that his study shows that women prefer brawnier guys, regardless of the potential downsides. Gender Perception: "do u even lift?" --- http://youtu.be/q2gO4DKVpa8 http://DemocraticUnderground.com/?com=latest_threads TrumpNews http://reddit.com/r/esist/new http://reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/new <cite>Notti posted [p:892490614] in If gender ... [t:76101808]...</cite> <quote><cite>Funbazooka posted...</cite> <quote>The bigger the pecs: Women definitely prefer buff men, study shows http://www.ajc.com/news/health-med-fit-science/the-bigger-the-pecs-women-definitely-prefer-buff-men-study-shows/mN7nZX45Q2ZbwAkbrbfIlI/ A new scientific study suggests that women definitely prefer stronger men. The research, published this week in Royal Society journal Proceedings B, had 160 women rate faceless images of male bodies. Unanimously, the women chose those that appeared physically stronger, with bigger pecs and larger arms. "We weren't surprised that women found physically strong men attractive ... what did surprise us was just how powerful the effect was," Aaron Sell, a senior lecturer at Griffith University, Queensland, Australia, who led the study, told The Guardian. "Our data couldn't find even a single woman that preferred weaker ... male bodies." For the study, the researchers created a database of photos of shirtless or tank-top wearing men, with their faces obscured. All of the men were university students, but 60 were recruited from the gym while 130 were just normal psychology students. All the men were also given tests with weights, to quantify their physical strength. Women and men were then asked to judge how strong they thought the men were, on a scale of 1 to 7, based on the images. Their guesses were strikingly accurate, correlating well with the strength tests. Furthermore, the women's ratings of the men's attractiveness correlated directly to their physical strength. "No one will be surprised by the idea that strong men are more attractive," Aaron Lukaszewski, an evolutionary psychologist at California State University at Fullerton and an author of the study, told The Washington Post. "It's no secret that women like strong, muscular guys." However, the researchers were less interested in ascertaining the obvious, and more interested in discovering. "People are going to wonder why scientists needed to study it," Holly Dunsworth, an anthropologist at the University of Rhode Island who was not involved in the research, said. "The answer would be because they want to know how these preferences evolved." The researchers point to "ancestral cues," an evolutionary relic of ancient human mating rituals. Ancient women would instinctually have chosen men who were better able to provide for and protect them and their families. It's only natural to assume bigger and stronger men would do this more adequately. But when it comes to male attractiveness, a popular theory says that there's a "sweet spot" for brawn. Beyond a certain point, too much muscle and strength becomes unattractive. This new study seems to prove the opposite. "The theory is that, yes, there would have been benefits ancestrally, in terms of the ability to acquire resources, protecting offspring, hunting and so on. But at a certain point, mating with highly dominant men, they can exert all this aggressive coercive control and there might be costs," Lukaszewski explained, pointing out that his study shows that women prefer brawnier guys, regardless of the potential downsides.</quote> Gender Perception: "do u even lift?"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Current Events > If gender is a social construct, you don't get to decide what your gender is (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > If gender is a social construct, you don't get to decide what your gender is