> I am really confused with the fights around gender of the last 5 years. As a doctor I have a solid grasp of the five dimensions of gender (genital organs, genetic, social, psychological and legal). So there can be 2^5 = 32 genders
Biological sex has multiple dimensions, ascribed gender (which is social, and of which legal gender is one of many forms) has a number of dimensions per form that depends on the particular social milieu, gender identity (which is a mix of social and psychological) has multiple dimensions that vary, again, at least by social milieu, and many of the dimensions involved are not strict binaries. So both the base and exponent in your formula are unjustified.
So, no, doctor (of what?) or not, I don’t think you have a solid grasp of anything relating to gender.
There is no need to repeat the word social so often. We can argue infinitely at any level of substraction. In humans there are two sexes. In some other species there are eight. Start from there and build your way up.
> In humans there are two sexes.
You claim to be a doctor (again, of what?). Have you even heard the word intersex before?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
I am neurologist. There is a spectrum between but the result situation is either a disease, infertile, unsustainable long term or... made up for hype. If you can point a person that has distinct characteristics and not a mix/overlap, then I admin there is a third sex.
I have taught sex ed over the past ten years. The curriculum (which we are forbidden to alter) embraces ideas of many dimensions to sex, but I found that there is not one empirical scientist in their list of authors, reviewers, or source material. The definition of “evidence-based” is that a lesson. has been tested in a classroom. (In other words, kids learned it.)
Intersex is a concept that bears looking into. We’re taught that it is as much as 0.4% of population, which is arrived at through removing context multiple times. Nowadays it is used to argue that there is a spectrum, not a sex binary, but this was not its meaning empirically. (Same thing with “sex assigned at birth”). You’re getting down to some very rare “differences of sexual development” (example: Y chromosome not getting expressed) whereas intersex individuals empirically belong to one or the other genotype. And the majority do not identify as “non binary” and don’t want to be used as examples.
I’m sure I’ll be debated, one comment can’t carry all the proof, but read some sports medicine papers on sex differences, that area has the facts.
The only forms of matter are gases, liquids, and solids.
Anyone speaking about “plasmas” and “Bose-Eisenstein condensates” is just spewing woke horse shit they must have learned in a liberal indoctrination center(universities )
Sarcasm aside, a lot of people seem to act like no new information can be discovered by humanity beyond what was taught to them as a child in k-12
More to the point: when it does you no harm to address someone in the manner they would like, and it does them some good, then why not do so?
It's debatable that this causes no harm. Plenty of examples in recent years that it does.
Those examples being? (I'm not in the States, so maybe I don't have your "common knowledge")
(this may be related to my obs that the high left can only romanticise^W glamourise^W aestheticise^W "semi-stabilise" the injustice ("a thing to a people") giving the low ample room to troll them -- & get the mid to switch
(In the other direction, it was easy for Bob to troll Ayn and get VC wannabes to take a course on^W^W^W^W melt their own alloys?))
Better expressed here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
>Just because I practice Foxwork and channel an entity which might be a different gender than myself means I need to endorse the self-described 'egg-hatcher' who persuaded a neurodivergent friend of my son to go down a path that hasn't solved his [2] real problems but has added more problems.
Visualising the harm: https://youtu.be/_VwO2_7oB_8
(That was before "Human-VLLM" was even in the air so this could well be another "a thing to a people")
Has Mahatma The Patched.
Modding golden rule to address the havers (not only the doers) could be left to others.. but
is a drop-in for
(no contrived symmetries; for MAGA studies too)
I saw some deer and fox tracks this very morning!
Still not sure what we're talking about here, because I have no idea what an egg-hatcher may be (and all I get from searches are normal incubators)
eg https://www.heka-brutgeraete.de/en/products/heka-favorit-oly...
Anyway, note that I used "when" in the ancestor statement. Can we at least agree on that part? Maybe more explicitly as "in the cases when it does you no harm... , and ..."?
(if we wish to discuss how relatively often that is or should be, I think I'll need more specific details)
PS. wow, and that's early Noon, too; not as dark as late Noon if rumours be true...
egghatcher-- gender transition peer-groomer?
The way I interpret it.. it's the opposite of..
https://youtu.be/yhZniPkGm8w?t=2m10s
(Advice that declares "no downside!" vs non-advice that messes with the weights pre-surgery-- & are you going to ask them if they'd undergone?
Nice tone from Graham!)
Wow; I think the O.C. has jumped the shark.
(again, this sounds like a good argument to have multiple parties, but good luck getting anything like that off the ground. I wonder how many primaries are open? With a closed primary, I'd think a "center party" might actually appeal to those who are getting whipped to the edges — if there are any of them left, that is)
Someone like Mamdani is strangely centre enough to get some of the "right-leaning" Gen Zs (mid or even lower high trollsters) to bounce off of Trump.
He just ain't the sorta centrist Scott was looking for.
Remember "Bernie bros"?
Bernie and Zohran don't have that school marm look.. Zohran beats Bernie in the semitic dept because (modal male urban "areligious") Gen Z Jew will vote for Zohran (!!!) over what the Dems might offer. Millennial Jews hesitated because Bernie was Jewish.
My hunch only ofc. (From anecdata >> polls)
We might have to go back to Tocqueville to see if, since 1775, American genius don't just think better, they just don't have to think!