/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6661048
Fact: nobody has ever actually thought "Wow! I bet I can have a calm and illuminating discussion of race and/or sexuality and/or gender on 4chan! They're sensible people, right?"

Nobody would ever start a thread like this if they weren't trying to troll or start a flamewar.

Now that you understand you're posting in a troll thread, feel free to continue pit shosting.

>>6661048
I always viewed gender a social construct and sex as biological. Meaning you can choose your gender as a man or woman, but never choose your sex as male or female, even after sex change operation.

>>6661061
>#rekt'em?
>damn near killed 'em

>>6661061

>Fact: nobody has ever actually thought "[blah]"

Thanks for the first SP of the thread... I guess. This may come as a shock to you, but you're wrong.

I actually saw this picture on another board and it got me thinking about it. I don't agree with it because I think that sex organs/chromosomes are good indicators of gender. However, I also am not sure how to handle transexual people. I think that male/female/transexual covers everything but I also think that transexuals are a mistake from a genetic standpoint.

>>6661077

>>>/b/
>>>/reddit/

Go meme-spout like a child there, please.

>>6661048
tranny sjw pls go

>>6661074

So, in your opinion, where do transexuals lie in terms of "sex"? They are free to identify with a gender, but what about "sex"?

>>6661090

>>>/pol/

>>6661074
I agree with this and plenty in the LGBT community do to. However I've also seen a recent rise in trans sjw's claiming they were always "biologically male/female" and saying otherwise is transphobic and oppressive. "it's scientifically proven!!! blah blah blah". You after hormones and surgeries you can be a man or woman all you want but you will always be defined biologically by what you were born.

>>6661092
They can identify themselves gender-wise as a polygonal hexomat for all I care. But their sex will always be determined by their reproductive organs. If you have been born with ovaries, you forever female, and with balls you forever male

I dont mind people going around changing social rules that do not affect me, but changing biology and science to make yourself feel better, that is a deal breaker.

>>6661102
>>6661096

What about cases of ovo-testes/true hermaphroditism such as (http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90782/7108711.html)?

At this point we have to use chromosomes, right? Sex organs aren't always going to be adequate.

>I dont mind people going around changing social rules that do not affect me, but changing biology and science to make yourself feel better, that is a deal breaker.

I agree with this statement 100%.

>recent rise in trans sjw's claiming they were always "biologically male/female" and saying otherwise is transphobic and oppressive.

This logic is what made me start thinking about this.

>>6661109
>At this point we have to use chromosomes, right? Sex organs aren't always going to be adequate

Intersex and trans are still two very different things.

>>6661109
I do not know what the official term is when it comes to sex in this case, But that is pretty much considered a hermaphrodite sexually, or am I wrong? Both male and female.

To be honest I have never read a paper about hermaphroditism in humans, so I know nothing about the official terminology and even how rare such an anomaly is

>>6661109
>At this point we have to use chromosomes, right? Sex organs aren't always going to be adequate.
This. Tired of all the transfags trying to change science.
>have an ex who is really into this shit
>she gets really offended if people don't bend to the will of this identity she's built around her gender and sexuality (it's consumed her fucking life)
>but insists she doesn't have a gender

>>6661048
>What is the future of gender from a scientific standpoint?
Uncertain,
Considering how radical/extreme leftist school of though is advancing, the standpoint of the fact that gender is an irrelevant part of human psychology - something that has happened to race, too. Possibly, subjects regarding gender research will be of debateful nature(again, like race).
Such a standpoint is completely wrong from the standpoint of evolutionary psychology and neuroscience, but still.
>What are the characteristics used to define gender?
Genitals still remain to do so, thankfully.
>Is gender a meaningful label to apply to Homo s𝘢piens?
Explicitly yes.

Penis = man
Vagina = woman
This thread is now over.

>>6661116
I'm not sure either, that's why I came to /sci/ hoping to be a little more informed. Eukaryotic sex and reproduction isn't really my focus.

>>6661121
>have an ex who is really into this shit
How mad would she be to hear that transsexuals are errors?

>>6661126
>the standpoint of the fact that gender is an irrelevant part of human psychology
>subjects regarding gender research will be of debateful nature
I'm not looking forward to the future. Politically, race has gotten a lot worse recently and under the current administration; I can't imagine what will happen to gender under Hillary.

>>6661132
b-but muh feelings

>>6661132

Apparently it isn't that simple.

Fuck off.
>>>/pol/

>>6661140
Mentally ill people don't count.

>>6661132
>>6661146
/thread

>>6661146

Is it truly mental illness when a man/woman decides they want to be the opposite sex? What is believed to be the cause of this? Hormone imbalance? Or is that now in the realm of psychology?

>>6661146
Then why are you here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3C4ZJ7HyuE

Transsexuals have a condition in the brain where, yes, they do indeed match the brain of the sex they claim to be. So it is accurate to say that a MtF is a woman.

>>6661165
But she is actually a male. You can never change that, no matter what your brain chemistry or outward appearance says.

If you want to act like a woman, go ahead. Do whatever, but don't confuse your feelings with biology.

>>6661168
>feelings are entirely independent from biology

I think the idea gender will fall by the way side in due time. I don't think dancing on social norms will win you any favors.

>>6661048
People don't have a ``gender'', they have a sex. In English, you refer to someone with the appropriate pronouns, in accordance with one of the valid genders, based upon their sex. Unfortunately, the term ``gender'' has been appropriated from linguistics by pedophile psychologists.

>>6661174
>reading comprehension isn't required for debating

Gender is a term taken from linguistics. Many languages have male and female nouns, as well as conjugations for verbs.

Sex is a little harder to pin down for every case, although in general it's binary male or female with matching chromosomes. Some people have hormonal disorders or extra chromosomes and are exceptions. Transgender individuals have a psychological disorder where they feel that they are the wrong sex, the most effective treatment for which is sex reassignment therapy.

>>6661102
Genitals are not a foolproof way to identify "sex", as there are intersex individuals. Neither are chromosomes, as there are people with disorders related to that, too.

There is no "foolproof" way, biology stinks. Generally, though, sex is either male (XY) or female (XX).

>>6661177
>People don't have a ``gender''
>you refer to someone with the appropriate pronouns, in accordance with one of the valid genders

If a gender has been attributed to them based upon their sex, they have a gender. It would seem that prevailing opinions hold that gender is not actually based upon their sex; instead based on whatever they feel like calling themselves.

>>6661181
>Transgender individuals have a psychological disorder

That wouldn't win you any friends on Tumblr. I would agree with your assessment, though.

>>6661181
>psychological disorder
[citation needed]

>>6661048
>robotics technology and medicine advance greatly over time.
>humans start augmenting themselves with robotic parts to enhance physical & mental abilities..
>everyone can now into cyborgs.
>eventually we replace so much of our organic material that we are now mostly robotic beings with a few vestigial gooey bits.
>grox.jpg
>eventually we go full robit and the idea of sex and gender become irrelevant obsolete concepts of the past.


I never asked for this.

>>6661189
Holy shit, that gif is impressive.

>>6661184

No matter what erroneous re-combination produces, if it has a Y chromosome it is male. If it lacks a Y chromosome it is female.

>>6661196
Boston Dynamics is making some crazy shit.

>>6661181

It's not a psychological disorder, it's a physical disorder. The body doesn't match their mind.

>>6661221
Mind is part of the body, though. There is no soul, faggot.

>>6661224
rekt

Gender is a property of words. It's really important to keep it distinct from sex if you aren't an English only peasant and know something like oh... Latin.

>>6661048
The future of gender from a scientific standpoint?

Unchanged. At least in serious peer-reviewed science.

The single study that started it, from that freak who worked with the boy who got his dick snipped completely from a botched circumcision, has been decried by every academic who has more than two braincells. I mean, for heavens sake: The make basically molested the poor boy and his brother as part of trying to force the kid into behaving like a girl.

He was the one who proposed the idea that gender wasn't linked to your physical sex.

The boy killed himself later on...


So no, I don't think science as a whole will redifine anything. The current tide of SJWs and transtrenders will hopefully just fade in time as they grow up and stop behaving so silly.

>>6661276
>anyone who doesn't fit my normative standards is silly
What's you're reasoning for viewing gender as a scientific construct in the first place? How can you define these people as "behaving so silly" when gender is itself ambiguous and defined by linguistic, cultural, and social norms? The posts linked to below clearly explain why gender is a linguistic/social construct. I think you're thinking about biological sex.
>>6661181
>>6661239

>>6661291
I'm not saying that gender is a scientific/social/linguistic contruct.
>I said that the guy who proposed that was a fraud who touched little boys - and nobody who understands what he actually did would ever take his work seriously.

If anything, its an evolved construct. Based on biology.

Genetic diversity is good to ensure that a population wont get wiped out be a single disease - and a two-gender solution seems to be a very efficient setup for that: Pretty much every animal on the planet uses it. Even plants do it.

And I don't expect to see a paradigm change on that topic any time soon.

>>6661196
>not knowing about this
>2014
It's literally all over the fucking internet.
ffs...

>>6661298
Aren't social constructs "evolved constructs?" Societies change in response to certain events. The mechanism is different, but the effect is the same. The same arguments can be applied to scientific and linguistic constructs.

When you say gender is an "evolved construct," what do you mean? I'm asking you to specify the mechanism by which it evolved. Is it biologically evolved? That's a scientific claim, so I'd like to see the tests behind it. Lack of prevalence of transgender individuals in history isn't an answer, because historical records aren't really available for it. Plus, in ancient history, there's transgender people all over the world. Also, historical records don't isolate just biology; they more directly implicate either society or linguistics through an analysis of different societies.

Furthermore, even if I accept gender is an "evolved construct" with a biological basis, then the assumption would have to be that gender has evolved past the binary paradigm.

Finally, there's tons of animals that don't fit the binary gender paradigm, and even more plants.

I think homosexuality is clearly correlated with male femininity and female masculinity. But due to political correctness this will never be acknowledged.

>>6661298
Forgot to answer your last point about extinction control. I think we probably have a large enough population to not have to worry about complete extinction from one bug.

Even if that isn't true, the population identifying as transgender is so small relative to the global population, it wouldn't affect the genepool too much. If you were to make the "acceptance will just make most people trans" argument, there's no reason that can't be solved by freezing sperm/eggs frozen and implanting them in artificial wombs, since that level of spread would be far in the future.

>>6661312
Societies don't change whether you are born with the anatomical gear to bear children or sire children.

Yes, the way societies treat men and women differ - a lot.

And yes, a lot of animals and plants don't fit the bi-gendered paradigm. They tend to have something VERY similar.

Take moss for example:
http://www.hiddenforest.co.nz/bryophytes/mosses/reproduction.htm

It has several stages in its existance:
>first you have a male and female one
>then what they spawn is basicaly a third non-gendered parasite plant that then creates spores that grow into new male and female plants
moss can also reproduce asexually by taking a lump of moss and ripping it in two.

And there species of lizard that are mono-gendered. AFAIK they're examples of species that predate the evolution of bi-gendered anatomy.


Anywho:

How society treats men or women doesn't change the fact that they are men or women.

Transtrender SJWs want to introduce new genders beyond just male and female - and usually also shame anyone who who dare to be just that.

See this to get an idea of the kind of tumblr SJWs who promote these demi/fluid/whatnot genders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUyZGtLny5o

>>6661329
I think we've found the disconnect. You're saying men=male and women=female, yet clearly the study of linguistics indicates man and woman are not equivalent to male and female. Masculinity and femininity are concepts for describing things through the use of language. This means that they aren't exactly "well-defined" in a mathematic or scientific framework, as they are context dependent. Since it's not a scientific concept, it can't be a biological (<span class="math">\text{biology}\subset\text{science}[/spoiler]) I would argue that the exact contents of these concepts are socially/historically constituted, though I'm sure there's actual linguists who disagree.

Male and female, however, are much more precise, despite flaw due to things such as hermaphroditism, biological classifications. Why can you equivocate the two?

You never really answered the most damning part of my critique. What do you mean by an "evolved construct?" How does that differentiate between the mechanisms which change the construction (scientific/biological, cultural/social, linguistic)? Where's your data showing that it is a biological construct? Scientific claims require scientific methods to back them up. You haven't provided any.

>>6661329
I'd like to say I don't identify as a tumblr "SJW." I don't have a tumblr or any social networking premise. Too socially awkward because the only things I'm comfortable talking about are mathematics and critical theory.

If they're not justifying their assumptions correctly, then disregard them. The problem is you're facing critical, logically constructed arguments and you have only sidestepped the most important issue.

>>6661342
Supposed to say (<span class="math">biology\suset science[/spoiler])

>>6661132

>>6661329
I'd like to say I don't identify as a tumblr "SJW." I don't have a tumblr or any social networking premise. Too socially awkward because the only things I'm comfortable talking about are mathematics and critical theory.

If they're not justifying their assumptions correctly, then disregard them. The problem is you're facing critical, logically constructed arguments and you have only sidestepped the most important issue.

>>6661342 (You)
Supposed to say (<span class="math">biology \subset science[/spoiler])

I really wish people would make a consensual agreement about this shit soon because everyone's throwing their opinions out there and I'm not sure which ones are uneducated and which ones are educated.

>>6661367
Read them and figure it out yourself. It fundamentally comes down to whether gender is a scientific construct or whether it's linguistic/social. Evaluate the evidence provided here (and elsewhere) for both sides and reach your own conclusion.

>>6661367

It isn't difficult.

Sex = genetic

Gender is the social construct surrounding the sexes.

A nation can be given a gender despite not having a sex, ie motherland or fatherland.

A boat or a gun can be given a gender despite not having a sex, ie "this boat takes on water but she is a real beauty!"

Nouns can be gendered despite not having a physical sex, ie "el plato" or whatever.

>>6661342
I meant 'evolved construct' since life evolved from a monogendered system to a bi-gendered one. Perhaps using the term construct was wrong in that sense - but I was trying to make it sound similar to the terms you were using.

And hermaphroditism is beyond rare. It doesn't warant changin the paradigm.

Anywho: You're getting into things such as masculinity and femininity now. That doesn't change what's between your leg.

Both men and women can be very butch, or very feminine. Sure, most cultures have certain cultural standards/expectations for normalcy in behavior that way around when it comes to men and women... because men and women tend to behave in slightly different ways, fulfill different roles in society, and so on...

And those roles have changed throughout history as societies and technology has changed.

But men never stopped being men, and women never stopped beyond women.


Read the story of David Reimer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
He was the dong-less boy that Psychologist John Money tried to convince that he was a girl.
>John Money's experiment is what started the whole idea that your anatomical sex doesn't have to match your gender
>It failed. The kid wanted to be a boy and an hero'd in the end
>And johny has been accused of being a pedo... who'd have thought

>>6661074
>gender a social construct
>you can choose your gender

These two statements contradict each other. Your gender is whatever other people agree is your gender.

>>6661276

You are like somebody arguing that psychology is a meritless field because Freud was a hack. Just because a couple retards got the ball rolling doesn't mean you can appeal to their errors as a falsification of all the work done on the topic since then. You are literally no different than the creationists who dig around for mistakes made by biologists and assert that because somebody screwed up you can't trust any of the WELL-ESTABLISHED SCIENCE. You clearly belong on another board.

>>6661376
Once again, you never answer the argument. Why is man equivalent to male and woman equivalent to female? Why do you draw no division between gender and biological sex? What is your basis for doing so?

>And those roles have changed throughout history as societies and technology has changed
>But men never stopped being men, and women never stopped beyond women.
Counter-example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus#Sex.2Fgender_controversy
He offered shitloads of money to doctors in exchange for making him a woman. They just didn't know how back then. It would've happened if he had modern techniques.

>>6661384
No, the statement "gender is a social construct" means that the concept of gender is defined by the society you live in and linguistics. The only way for the macro-scale entity (society) to define the gender of the individual is through collective group action. These would be things like refusing to recognize a MtF transgendered person as a woman through mechanisms like referring to her as him. The realization that gender is entirely socially constructed is what forces me to respond to you. If I didn't try to debunk your premise, normative society would still exclude and oppress those who don't fit into the binary gender paradigm. What's it to you if someone wants to be recognized as a woman, even if they were born with a penis? Why should you try to stop that?

>>6661397
>What's it to you if someone wants to be recognized as a woman, even if they were born with a penis? Why should you try to stop that?

Not him but I just think it's silly. He's not a woman. He's a man who wants to be one.

>What's it to you if someone wants to be recognized as a woman, even if they were born with a penis? Why should you try to stop that?

I am not personally offended by trans people. I do not do anything to stop people from calling themselves whatever they want.

>the concept of gender is defined by the society you live in and linguistics

So is gender a real thing or not? By real, I mean a theoretically-measurable phenomenon

>>6661397
Ok, lets take this from the top
>What's it to you if someone wants to be recognized as a woman, even if they were born with a penis? Why should you try to stop that?

Legit diagnosis of gender dysphoria would be the only situations where I'd say its ok do a gender reassignment.

Note that I say LEGIT. Teenagers on tumblr who claim to be a demi-fluid semi-sexual are simply 'transtrenders' who're looking to be special snowflakes - and its idiots like that who seem to make sensible people like you start this kind of conversations up.

I said earlier than hermaphroditism is really rare. The same goes for dysphoria. Its rare and thus falls outside of anything that justifies changing the overall gender definitions.

I would rather have a simple and robust gender system with allowances for the rare abnormality, than have a system with +9000 special snowflake genders, each with their own unique pronouns that make you sound like you're speaking klingon.

>>6661404

I think that masculinity/femininity are in some sense innate. If you take a normal baby boy and try to raise him as a girl, he would probably not act like a normal girl (be rough with his dolls, etc). I don't think the concepts of masculinity and femininity are entirely social constructs.

>>6661407

It's pathetically easy to get diagnosed. Go to an LGBT friendly therapy organization and tell them you want to be the other sex, and poof, diagnosis and approval for hormones.

>>6661421
John Money's fucked up experiment supports this quite a lot.

>>6661397
>What's it to you if someone wants to be recognized as a woman, even if they were born with a penis? Why should you try to stop that?

when they get it cut off, ill call em "her" or "she". not gonna go out of my way for people who don't even have the courage of their convictions.

>>6661404
What do you mean by "theoretically-measurable?" It falls into the fields of sociology, linguistics, and philosophy. They use different metrics for measurements, rather than the rigorous empiricism of the scientific method. Doesn't mean they're invalid. Read some philosophy of science; there are some questions that just can't be evaluated under a scientific framework. Why is something that is socially constituted not "real?" It may be abstract and not have a physical presence, but why does that determine whether it is real? If gender isn't real, then physics isn't real. That's just a scientific abstraction for evaluating the interactions between "real" objects.

>>6661403
So why should you treat them like shit by refusing to acknowledge that they're human beings and their thoughts and opinions matter too? You just admitted they don't harm anyone, so why not just do them the little courtesy of using their preferred set of pronouns? The effort you have to put in to do that is far outweighed by the effects not recognizing their gender identification.

>>6661407
We're not even talking about gender reassignment surgery. If someone feels more comfortable being identified with a different gender, why not just refer to them that way? It's no effort for you, and makes them happier.

Furthermore, why do you imbue the institution of psychology with the authority to assign gender? Why take that away from the individual? Doing so is exactly what I refer to when I talk about the oppression of the trans community. You shouldn't steal individual's agency over something that quite clearly only affects them.

>>6661421
Define normal. Then give me an example of a normal individual. The average/median doesn't encompass everyone. Why exclude everyone that doesn't fit your ideal of normal?

>>6661427
Why does that matter? It's not just about courage, but also that elective surgeries are really, really fucking expensive. Congratulations, you're both transphobic and classist.

>>6661427
Gender reassignment surgery costs a lot of fucking money so it's likely that they are eagerly willing to undergo it but do not have the money saved up for it.

>>6661424
Again, I said LEGIT diagnosis :)

You can always find quacks who'll tell you what you want to hear if you pay them enough.

But does that mean that we should come up with a new gender paradigm based on whether a person has the money to get a doc to conjure up a diagnosis?

Of course not.

>>6661428
>Congratulations, you're both transphobic and classist.
Not him but that's hardly a classist statement if he honestly believes it's just about "courage" (I'm not saying that it doesn't take courage to undergo the surgery, for clarification).

>>6661428
>Define normal. Then give me an example of a normal individual. The average/median doesn't encompass everyone. Why exclude everyone that doesn't fit your ideal of normal?

I understand that not everyone fits under normal. My point was that masculinity and femininity are in some sense innate and not entirely social constructs - people can be born with a certain amount of masculinity and femininity.

>>6661428
>So why should you treat them like shit by refusing to acknowledge that they're human beings and their thoughts and opinions matter too? You just admitted they don't harm anyone, so why not just do them the little courtesy of using their preferred set of pronouns? The effort you have to put in to do that is far outweighed by the effects not recognizing their gender identification.

I'll be polite and use their preferred pronouns in their presence. But in my head I don't consider them the sex they want to be.

>>6661428
>It's no effort for you, and makes them happie
It is most certainly effort for me if I have to remember 54 different sets of gender pronouns

Again, I refuse to start speaking klingon to satisfy some transtrender teen who just wants to feel special.

>Furthermore, why do you imbue the institution of psychology with the authority to assign gender? Why take that away from the individual?

I am now a bunny. You will address me as bun/bunny/bunself

if you think that's agreeable and not completely idiotic - then I don't think you quite get the severity of what you're willing to agree to here.

The topic of gender always made me extremely uncomfortable. I just don't get why the male-female dichotomy exists. Freaks me out that people just go along with it.

http://www.annelawrence.com/twr/brain-sex_critique.html

This is a critique of brain-sex theory. Is this actually legitimate?

>>6661437
Maybe there are some traits that are inherent to males or females on average (I'm taking no stance on this one). Then those who identify as trans are the people who don't feel comfortable under the gender typically identified with their biological sex. I don't see the point you're making.

>>6661441
That's fine. It takes time. I'm really bad about it, and I identify as trans. It's hard to overcome the instinctive response, but making an effort is what really matters. Just try to be respectful of other people and the world can be so much nicer on an individual level.

>>6661442
Because being a bunny and being a human are two biologically defined classifications. Gender is not a biological construct, or at least no real reason to view it that way has been presented. But you know what, I'd try to remember to use your preferred pronouns right and apologize when I forget to. Because why the fuck not? Your bunny argument doesn't give a reason why we should allow an institution, rather than an individual, to decide what a person's gender is.

>>6661448
It is psychology.

Psychology is desperate to pretend it is a science.

>>6661373
Personification =/= scientific fact.

There is a type of fish that can change from female to male. The head female does it when it does occur in the racial group

>>6661453

Identifying genders by their brains is neuroscience...

>>6661452
You dare critisise my choice of being a rabbit-fem? I am but a poor fluffy humanoid trapped in a human body - you have no right to say what I am.

>ok, this is getting silly - but seriously ,this is the kind of stuff that transtrenders are throwing out there. This is why you should NOT just allow it all.


fun fact: My native language of danish only has one term for sex and gender. Its one word. Because... we consider the two things the same. I guess there's your linguistic social construction... or just bloody common sense.

>>6661448
seems very legit - has some good points too

>>6661461
Alright, so your society considers the two the same because the man/woman distinction in English isn't present in your culture/language (I'd say the two are probably related). Why is changing that bad? You say it leads to the stuff like bunny identification, so you should disallow it all. I hate citing a logical fallacy, but that's a huge slippery slope fallacy. If you can't see why that argument isn't valid, I think you have bigger problems than how you view gender.

I can't just ask you why viewing gender and biological sex as two separate things is bad, though. One of the primary reasons to affirm this distinction is due to the prevalence of roles based upon gender in society. If society expects men to act a certain way and women to act a different way, why not let people decide if they're a man or woman (or neither)? As long as there is inequity in how different genders are treated and viewed, people should have a choice in what gender they are identified as. It's a decision that doesn't negatively affect anyone else, so why not maximize their comfort/happiness?

Taking drugs, getting surgery and changing the way one speaks doesn't change that you're a guy or a girl.

Trans people are fucking stupid who just have a extreme case of "grass is greener on the other side" syndrome. It shouldn't matter what gender you are

>>6661048
>>>/polgbt/

>>6661515
It shouldn't, but it does. Why do you get to define who is "a guy or a girl?" Why can't individual decide for themselves which they are? As stated in many posts, guy and girl are not equivalent to male and female.

>>6661048
You are either male or female, there is no need for these excessively vague discussions.

However I would be interested to see any research and/or statistics on why people attempt to change themselves.

>>6661528
Because male and female are biological sexes

Be as butch or girly as you want, I don't care. The future ought to be about acting how you want, not this constant encouragement of people to get on sterility-inducing hormones and get major surgeries to fit into some gender classification scheme.

>>6661528
No one needs to define themselves your body does that for you.

>>6661541
Why is "guy and girl" equivalent to "male and female?" No one in here has answered this question, yet there's tons of posts about how the concepts of man and woman are explicitly different from male and female as classifications of biological sex.
>>6661543
See above. Also, by your logic you have no control over who you are; it's all about your appearance. That's probably a bad way to view the world.

>>6661549
>Why is "guy and girl" equivalent to "male and female?"

They're equivalent to me. Sure you may fool me if you're passable, but the moment you tell me some girl is a guy I'm just going to view them as a very cute guy after that.

>>6661557
some "girl" is biologically male, rather

epic troll OP

Kay.

>>6661549

Fuck it.

The two are one and the same, I fail to see how there is a difference to being a man and being male. You can attempt to change it, but you still have the same chromosomes. If I enter a deluded state and claim I m an alien, do I become one ? No.

Definitions are secondary to the actuality. In the same vein, if I call myself it doesnt make me anymore of a ghost, I simply am.

You dont have any control over who you are, you will always be you. Your physical representation. is you. There is no room for the ethereal.

>>6661536

There is research, the current theory is brain sex (essentially they have parts of the brain that resemble the sex they want to be), other theories are ridiculously controversial.

>>6661564
So, your infographic says that gender only applies to words and there's only two biological sexes. I don't understand how it's responsive at all. Just because the origin of gender is linguistic doesn't mean it hasn't been appropriated by society in new ways. Masculine and feminine are terms used to describe people all the time. Why not let someone choose which they identify with?
>>6661557
Why should your conception of who is a guy or girl decide whether they are a guy or a girl?
>>6661574
The difference is clear. Male and female are distinct biological classifications. They are very clearly delineated. Man and woman are two loosely defined concepts that change from society to society. Some cultures define a man in some ways, others define a man in completely different ways. They very clearly don't mean the same thing. The reason you see it the way you do is because the dominant culture says a man is a male, in addition to all the other culturally defined roles. Why not just separate the two so you have biological sex as a clear, testable distinction, and gender to encompass how society views people as masculine or feminine?

>>6661581
Every other person on 4chan wants to be the little girl nowadays

If you have a dick, I'mma call you he.
If you have a pussy, I'mma call you she.
If you have both, I'mma call you over to my place because das the best of both worlds.

>>6661564

Did you not see the Youtube video posted here? >>6661165

>>6661582
We don't need identifications beyond biological fact

Stop trying to make things more complicated than they need be. We don't need two categories of masculine and feminine. Just let people be how they want to.

>>6661586
Transgender people keep making a massive deal about their brain gender, but I don't think the average person would give a shit if they happened to be born as the opposite sex with the same brain.

>>6661582
>Some cultures define a man in some ways, others define a man in completely different ways.
in what culture does "man" not mean "adult human male"?

>>6661582
Show me one culture that doesn't define a man as having a penis or a women being able to reproduce. You seem severely deluded, this has nothing to do with a dominant culture, but the nature of our humanity. If a man thinks he a woman he is deluded that is all. This deluded state can be accepted by others and allowed to continue their deluded state, however they are not a woman any more than I am a pokemon. You have created a difference between two words that mean the same thing to suit your world view.

I think trying to define all these genders is stupid. I don't believe people are born with an inner sense of being male or female.

>>6661587
By this logic, we don't need names or individuality at all, because we're all humans. What do you mean by "We don't need two categories of masculine and feminine?" There's only one category for masculine and feminine, and that's the socially defined one. There's different traits for the characteristics of the biological sexes male and female.

>>6661594
That's not all that it means. There's a lot more that goes into man other than "adult human male." First, think of cultures that have a process into manhood. You're not considered a man if you're Jewish and haven't had your Bat Mitzvah. These obviously add additional qualifiers other than biological sex. Then there's roles and expectations implicitly (or explicitly) defined for men in most cultures. Why not just separate those out from the biological sex of male so then what is biologically determined by your sex and what is culturally determined by your gender are more clear. As scientists, that makes more sense. Only accept as descriptions of males those traits that spring directly from biology. Every other description of "men" is cultural and can be lumped in with that stuff.

>>6661600
See above. Man and woman mean so much more in every society than just genitalia that we might as well separate them from male and female to distinguish which traits come from biology and which are culturally produced.

>>6661604
>By this logic, we don't need names or individuality at all, because we're all humans. What do you mean by "We don't need two categories of masculine and feminine?" There's only one category for masculine and feminine, and that's the socially defined one. There's different traits for the characteristics of the biological sexes male and female.

A feminine male is called a feminine male, not a woman. Don't conflate sex with social traits.

>>6661221
>it's a physical disorder. The body doesn't match their mind.

In my mind I'm a strong 6ft tall weightlifting champion.

Steroids please and the state can pay for it all.

I understand these people want to change their sex, but why can't they be content with the way they are? If I was a woman, I believe I could find satisfaction in being a lesbian. Why do they want to shell out a hundred thousand dollars to go through such a grueling and painful process?

>>6661621
Because they have body dysmorphia disorder

No different from people who want to get rid of their limbs or make their skin lighter or darker.

>>6661621

There are different reasons why people want to change sex. There is not one single condition of being transsexual, but rather, gender dysphoria has a few different causes

>>6661604
This is all utterly farcical nonsense, you have created a difference between a two words that mean exactly the same thing. You have failed to give a example of how these words are different, besides spouting how different cultures define a man in different ways, however the vast majority would be far more similar than they are different. You have subverted a word to mean how masculine and feminine are expressed in different cultures.

The whole debate is enmeshed in politics, sociology, religion and psychology, none of which are science, but all of which are desperate to look smart.

>>6661048
At the end of the day, why do you all care so much about someone else's genitals? The only junk that is relevant in anyone's life is their own and whoever they're docking with.

Maybe the niggas are crazy, maybe they aren't.
Maybe they're men, maybe they're women.
Point is, who gives a shit?

>>6661613
I'm not conflating sex with social traits. Woman is not a sex. Woman is defined by social roles, plus biological sex. I'm saying we should just define gender as social roles and biological sex as well, what the name implies.

>>6661634
Bullshit. The difference is that biological sex is not culturally relative, while man and woman are culturally relative descriptions. If that isn't enough of a difference to imply that two words don't mean the same thing, you've got some issues in how you define difference. I haven't subverted any words to mean how masculine and feminine are expressed in different cultures. Male and female are words to describe biological sex, man and woman describe masculine and feminine identities.

It's obvious that we'll never agree on the definitions. However, this doesn't make this argument moot. The argument at this point is whose distinction between words is best. I've provided a shitload of reasons for why man and woman should be differentiated from male and female, but you've provided no reason why it's better to have them mean the same thing.

>>6661635
Is A a girl? She has long hair after all. Must be a girl.

>>6661621

Here's the theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism

>>6661621

Same reason why we no longer pressure homosexuals to suppress their urges and pretend their straight.

Suppressing a person's identity often causes depression, usually backfires, and does little to solve the actual issue. A person's gender identity is a pretty big deal, and is not something that can simply be ignored, especially for people who feel that they are in the wrong body.

>>6661652

All unscientific bullshit.

>>6661655
There's a difference between not suppressing someone and actively encouraging them to get hormone treatments and surgeries.

We don't actively support people who hate their limbs to get amputation do we?

>>6661645
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man

First 6 words.

Just because you want a word to mean something doesn't make it so. Come up with a new word for all I care, just don't expect people to assume your personal view of what a word means.

>>6661660

Certainly doesn't stop us from cutting off foreskins.

ALL ARGUMENTS BASED ON CULTURE, SOCIETY AND PSYCHOLOGY DO -NOT- BELONG ON /SCI.

>>6661684
This discussion is about how the scientific definition of biological sex intersects with the cultural/societal definitions of gender.

>>6661669
Language isn't static. There's a lot more packed into the concept of a man in any given culture other than an adult male human.

>>6661655
I'm not saying that they should suppress their urges.

Going to a gay club, and cutting off your dick are two very different things.

>>6661689
The words you're looking for are masculinity and femininity. Its just a case of you using the wrong words.

>>6661689
>the cultural/societal definitions of gender.

Ha!

>What is the future of gender from a scientific standpoint? What are the characteristics used to define gender? Is gender a meaningful label to apply to Homo sapiens?

NO.

IT IS DIGGING AT SCIENCE FOR ANSWERS THAT ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY RIGOROUS.

>>6661709
Ah, but there are multiple definitions for the word man. Here, read 1 d). http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/man
What the argument comes down to is whose definition is more useful. I say make the man/male distinction so we can have the social construct and the scientific definition as separate entities. Why should we define them as the same?

>>6661712
You laugh at me, then make the same argument that I do. You can't scientifically, rigorously define a man because it varies from culture to culture. Thus, separate gender from biological sex so it's clear which is scientifically based and which isn't.

>>6661717
>You laugh at me,

I'm not laughing, I'm offended.

>>6661722
Offended by what? Your argument is the exact same as mine. Gender (what is a man and what is a woman) is not scientific, because cultures define them differently. We should split it from the scientific definitions of male and female to make it clear that it is not scientific.

>>6661726
Let me note that it isn't "SJW's" that have created the excess shit in the definitions of man and woman that aren't scientifically based. Society did that long before transgender issues became prominent. All I'm trying to do is claim that we should separate the scientific from the sociological.

>>6661726
You come here with questions, comments and debates that have ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE TO SCIENCE.

Understand?

A trans/whatever is welcome here if they can stay on topic, you hamplanet.

>>6661717

This must be bait, no one is this stupid.

Male means the sex, man is the HUMAN MALE. Do you understand how they mean vaguely different things but using the understanding youre talking about humanity they mean the same.

Additionally you seem to think being a man is a social construct not just the way human males are. Transgendered people are developmental mistakes. Its not a case of whose definition is more useful its about living in the real world where we have words for different things. If I want to call an pineapple a Ananas comosus it may be more useful but its obtuse, stupid and few people know what you're on about.

I could scientifically and rigorously define a man easily by checking if he has y chromosomes.

The /sci/ culture defines men the heterogametic sex and women as the homogametic sex in humans.

>>6661749
Yes, we live in the real world where we have words for different things. In this case, the word man does not just encompass human males. These extra additions vary from culture to culture. So how do we distinguish between what is culturally added and what is scientifically defined? Create two separate categories. Male corresponds to just the scientific definition, while man refers to the cultural definitions. I would love it if man just meant a human male. Unfortunately, that's not all it entails.

>>6661758
Why would you love it if man just meant male?

>>6661753

>The /sci/ culture

>culture

>>6661126
>evolutionary psychology

>>6661761
Because it would mean this whole argument wouldn't have to happen. It would mean that there weren't societal expectations for what a human with a penis should be and what a human with a vagina should be.

>>6661758

>So how do we distinguish between what is culturally added and what is scientifically defined?

WE DONT YOU UTTER MORON, THATS HOW FUCKING WORDS WORK. THEY HAVE CONTEXTUAL MEANING. LIKE THE WORD EARTH CAN MEAN THIS PLANET OR SOIL. WHATS YOUR FUCKING POINT ? ARE YOU TELLING ME YOU DONT LIKE THE WAY THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WORKS ?

or you know, you could use the words masculinity or femininity because they actually encompass the ideas you're trying to express so poorly.

captcha: thinkfo himself

>>6661441
>but in my head
damn, what a fucking alpha! you show those faggots anon

>>6661758

wah wah wah a word doesnt mean what i want it to mean

>>6661780
We all have a nice gender neutral name...

"Anonymous".

>>6661776
That's not how words are supposed to work in science. They're supposed to be well defined and should have as little context dependency as possible. The reason that having the same word for the cultural definition of man and the scientific definition of a male is uniquely bad is that it creates a false image that the culturally definition of a man is what a male must be. I don't believe that, I'm sure you don't believe that, but lots of people do. And therein lies the problem.

Masculinity and femininity do encompass the ideas I'm trying to express. However, the point is that man, as it is understood by the majority of people, now encompasses all of the culturally relative traits of masculinity.

>>6661783
Fuck, I'm not complaining that a word means something I don't want it to mean. I'm saying it has two distinct meanings: one that is scientifically, unambiguously define and one that is culturally relative. The mass majority of people then conflate these two meanings, leading to the idea that science justifies their cultural ideas. This is the exact opposite of what science should do. It should be independent of culture.

>>6661689
>>There's a lot more packed into the concept of a man in any given culture other than an adult male human.
No there isn't. You just keep pointing out that different cultures use different measures to determine when a male human becomes an adult. They don't let female humans try to go through those rituals to become adult male humans, because they have already been identified as females, which means they will become women.

>>6661788
Every scientific word has some cultural backing or etymology. You literally want to change the meaning of a word. Not going to happen. Thanks for having a completely stupid conversation.

I want everything to be free but its not going to be so why the fuck would i bring it up.

>>6661788
>>the point is that man, as it is understood by the majority of people, now encompasses all of the culturally relative traits of masculinity.

No it doesn't. That's why everyone here is arguing with you, and why everyone argues with SJW's whenever they try to pull the same shit.

If a particular male named John acts in all the ways that we expect females to act in our culture, the average person would agree with the statement "John is a man who wishes he were a woman."
You and all the other SJW's want to create a world in which everyone instead agrees to say "John is a male woman." In the real world, non one would agree with that because it is contradictory, because words don't just work however you want them to, they work the way everyone agrees to use them.

It's true that Feminism might eventually convince everyone to use words differently than they are used now, and then everyone disagreeing with you now would be happy to agree with you, but that is not the world we live in, and now what these words actually mean in our language.

>>6661788
>>6661807
>>6661817
>>6661836

clearly defined terminology
quantifiability
highly controlled experimental conditions
reproducibility
predictability and testability.

THIS SHIT IS NOT DEBATABLE OR CULTURAL YOU INSANE GIBBERING WRECKS!

>>6661807
I refer you, once more, to definition 1 d) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/man "one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood." What these qualities are can be culturally relative. In contemporary culture, the man is seen as the highest unit in a familial hierarchy, the breadwinner, etc. A woman is seen as more of domestic individual. In matriarchal societies this is flipped (yet that is no better). Trying to deny that these aren't cultural connotations with the words man and woman is just wrong.

>>6661817
That's why science creates new words to describe things all the time; it allows science to differentiate itself from that which isn't science.

>>6661836
Why the fuck can't you let John call herself a woman then? What the fuck difference does it make to you? How the fuck does it harm you? Why insist on doing something to people that only harms their quality of life and doesn't help you at all?

Also, everyone here is not a decent/average sample of the population. Try asking random people how they define what a man is. I mean random people, not just scientists. I'm sure you'll hear a whole lot more than just an adult human male. A quick google of "traits of a man" reveals so many pages of shit like this: http://www.esquire.com/features/what-is-a-man-0509

You can't just say words have a specific meaning. That's the whole point of a contextual language. People have different interpretations of words. That's why there's this disagreement. People try to reach a consensus based on what is the most useful linguistically. That's what I'm trying to do. Separating man from human male is useful because it clearly delineates cultural norms from scientific definitions. Why should they be kept equivalent?

If you have a penis, you're a male

If you have a vagina, you're a female

If you disagree, you're disillusioned

If you argue with this, you're ignorant

>>6661849
We're hashing out the clearly defined terminology. Obviously it's not too clearly defined when there's disagreements about it.

>>6661084
It's simply the result of urbanization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

>>6661860
You CAN'T have clearly defined cultural terminology.

That is like measuring happiness.

>>6661836
Let me clarify just a bit more, because I think we're almost meeting at the end of your post. I agree that the definition of a man includes an adult, human male. I also say there's more in the definition. You say that feminism might convince people to use words differently. How can it do that without this kind of argument? Imposing control of what words can and can't be used from the top-down is a poor idea. It can only come from convincing others on an individual level to use words differently.

>>6661864
I know you can't. That's the point. There is obviously scientific terminology regarding gender/sex. What we are hashing out is how to best make a distinction between the scientific terms and cultural terms.

>>6661867
>I know you can't.

Well, now you know you are a troll. Go away.

>>6661852
I am not making any normative claims about whether people should or should not choose to speak about John in the way that they do or whether John should or should not be able to behave however he wants.

Do you deny that the majority of people would respond to the sentences I described in the way I described? You can't, because you know they would. That just demonstrates that all the social ambiguity with respect to language you are talking about does not exist in the way you want it to.
You can keep pointing out that different words have different connotations, and of course they do. When people hear "H2O" they think about molecules more than they do about oceans and vice versa when they hear "water". That doesn't mean that those words don't refer to the same things.

Who the hell cares? Why are you all so insecure about your sexuality?

>>6661867
>how to best make a distinction between the scientific terms and cultural terms.

You -CAN'T-. That is my -POINT-.

"Culture" is indistinct. Anything can be a culture except white people.

>>6661853

It's not really relevant here, but there are inbetweens. One place they pop up every once in a while is female athletes who have more balls than any woman has right to, which gives them a bit of an edge. It can be surprisingly hard to say whether they're male or female, chromosomes, hormones, genitalia (internal and external), other physical characteristics can all be at odds.

>>6661876
We don't care about sexuality.

Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth.

We're defending our turf.

>>6661878
>>Anything can be a culture except white people.
Sick burn given the context.

>>6661879
Sociology problem, not a science problem.

We KNOW mutations happens.

>>6661881
You are accidentally pointing out that philosophy of science is important.

>>6661871
Do you fucking read? We're debating about whether to make the clearly defined scientific terminology explicitly different from the cultural terminology, and how to do so if we can.

>>6661875
I don't deny the majority of people would respond the same way. The argument I'm making is that we should make a clear distinction between biological sex and culturally defined gender. I think the best place to make that distinction is terminology. I don't necessarily argue that that distinction is there right now. I'm saying we should work towards it, so that the masses can't as easily claim that their culture is scientifically backed.

>>6661878
The fact that culture is indistinct and science is distinct makes culture distinct from science. That's why you can separate the two. Also, with that last line, I'm convinced you're trolling now.

>>6661881
What is the point you're making? I don't think anyone's trying to redefine science. The argument being made is that science should clearly make their term for adult human male distinct from the cultural idea of a man so that "a topic that sprinkles a few numbers around" cannot be confused with empirical science.

>>6661886
Scientific rigor is important.

Shitstain philosophy and sociology are NOT.

>>6661852
Disgustingly stupid, you have failed to understand the most basic of reasoning in favour of your own cogintive dissonance. You have no place in a discussion let alone one on a science board.

You fail to understand how all words have connatations. Give me any scientific word and i will give you some sort of cultural etamology. Most people would say the word man refers to human males, obviously being such a broad word and our collective namesake its going to have a variety of themes, however the main idea is human and male. This isn't even debatable.

What is your point ? You want to create a word for the cultural and historic idea of being a man ?

MASCULINITY. Fucking solved, you don't even need to make up a word.

You're either truly autistic or just plain stupid. John can call herself a woman all she likes, he doesn't have to expect others to because most people dont give a shit about john.

>>6661885
Sure, but if you want to define "male" and "female" as particular structures, which have certain descriptions in terms of their physical structure, then you have to realize that the structures to which you are referring:
1) actually encompass a huge number of physical structures in each category that can interact with many in the other, but wouldn't theoretically be able to interact with them all successfully and in the same conditions, and
2) can be systematically and incrementally altered until they replace each other. That is, describing a chromosome is just a system of molecules, and those molecules could be reorganized until they resembled the other chromosome.

At the end of the day you still don't have any robust thing that you can call "male" or "female" that doesn't admit to a slippery slope problem, just like all the rest of science. That's why the OP is a troll. He or she is forcing everyone to engage in philosophy.

>>6661887
>makes culture distinct from science.

NO IT DOESN'T. -CARS- CAN BE A CULTURE. FOOD CAN BE A CULTURE. PLASTIC ANIME DOLLS COVERED IN SPERM CAN BE A CULTURE.

If you've got a dick your sex is male. You can pretend otherwise all you want but your sex is male until the sausage comes off.

>>6661048
>that pic
I'm 80% certain that literally no one in the entire world would have B and C's reaction if they found out one of their friends wasn't the sex they claimed to be, including whoever made this comic.

>>6661891
You misunderstand my point. It isn't clear what counts as empirical analysis of the natural world. Humans and all of the things we do are all characteristics of the natural world. Sociology is psychology is neurology is biology is chemistry is physics is math. You can't robustly define what science is in any case, so you can't just stake out places and start saying "here's where science begins" which seems to be what you're implying.

>>6661892
I acknowledge all words have connotations. That's why scientific terms tend to use a dead language for their basis, rather than English, where those cultural connotations still exist for the majority of people who speak English.

>>6661905
You are vastly confused. Connotations exist because language is used by individuals. There is no escaping this in any circumstance where we aren't doing math. Using latin doesn't stop those latin words from having connotations for all of their present users.

>>6661901
sci·ence
ˈsīəns/

noun: science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

A science has: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

Science is clearly defined.

>>6661906
Except that most people don't speak Latin, it doesn't evolve new connotations (except for being appropriated for scientific use), and most people have no connotations with Latin words other than their scientific connotation.

>>6661905
Thanks for that useless post. Whats your point ?

>>6661901
What YOU are doing is trying to redefine science as anything.

>>6661914
That science can avoid your problem of using words with existing connotations by taking them from a dead language. Hell, that's already standard operating procedure.

>>6661909
You really think that defined in the relevant sense just means stringing together those particular words? If you can find some other words that someone else used to define science, that doesn't make it less clearly defined?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

This motherfucker knew deep down that he was male even though he was raised female. That's enough to convince me that gender is something innate and not identical to sex, which makes it seem quite possible that some people could be born with a gender that doesn't match their sex.

>>6661916
>>6661913
No this is wrong. Everyone has their own mental impressions of each act of speech and interpretation that are subtly different than each other person's. We can never get outside of language.

This is now a philosophy thread.

>>6661917
Again, what YOU are doing is trying to redefine science as anything.

>>6661909
So is theoretical physics science ?

>>6661921
You're right, interpretation will always happens on the individual end. That doesn't mean that you can't lower the variance in interpretation by inventing a new term or repurposing one from a dead language.

>>6661916
Cool thanks for reiterating something everyone here knows. But you still dont escape the fact that every word still has connotations and ideas that aren't the exact meaning of the word.

>>6661925
Screw your bait.

Is culture quantifiable?

>>6661917
>If you can find some other words that someone else used to define science, that doesn't make it less clearly defined?
Not him, but no, it doesn't. I could define science in Spainish or French or with slightly different English words and that would not make it any less clearly defined as long as they still mean the same thing.

>>6661933
Culture is completely quantifiable just the data and measurement would be too complex for you to understand.

>>6661921
>This is now a philosophy thread.

It always was.

And it does not belong on /sci/.

LEAVE!

>>6661933
>What are statistics?

>>6661886
Sociology and statistics, you mean. Scientists make better philosophers than philosophers ever did.

>>6661937
No, you're wrong. I've seen people who are part of many cultures.

>>6661941
Maths disgusting half breed cousin.

>>6661931
Yes, but you can reduce the space for misinterpretation and skew it away from the misinterpretation that culture's definition of a man is scientifically based. If you disagree, that's fine, but at that point you're dangerously close to "interpretation of words is so subjective that meaningful communication is impossible." I may or may not disagree, but I'm pretty sure that would supersede this whole argument on both sides.

>>6661941
The fact that it is split into two branches, frequency and Bayesian, is unsettling.

THERE
IS
NO
CONSENSUS.

NOT A SCIENCE.

>>6661953
Does language define thought or does thought define language ? :^)

>>6661965
Sort of both but mostly the latter?

>>6661963
>>6661943
>>6661933
>>6661923
>>6661915
If you are really this stupid you should probably kill yourself.

>>6661938
This guy gets it.

>>6661977
>If you are really this stupid

I refused to be drawn into the philosophical part of the argument, that is why my posts seem stupid.

I am also the last person you linked.

Why didn't you report the thread?

>>6661985
Well now I'm confused. You have to recognize that science is a subset of philosophy and cannot be logically separated from it.

Can I hypothesize that X% of people will respond in a certain way to a certain stimulus and then expose them to the stimulus? ("Is John a male woman? Y/N") Bam, I'm doing science.

Trying to talk about what the words really mean or might mean in the future away from us is the not science part. Talking about what words currently mean based on the brain configurations of all the speakers of English at this moment is science. There is a definite testable answer and it would demonstrate what the truth or falsity of the claim that in English, the majority of people use X word in Y way.

>>6661996
Philosophy does not belong on /sci/.

Philosophy is not a science.

-Sex and gender are not the same.
-Sex is determined by chromosomes
-Gender is determined by hormones and brain morphology

People often conflate gender expression (using a pink dress for example), which is culturally determined, with gender itself. Not only that, but SJW and retards in general often conflate personality traits that are not demonstrated or at least hinted by studies to be part of gender itself with gender. A lot of them think it is all culture and ignore things like the female preference for social oriented tasks and the male preference for system oriented tasks.

>>6661048

Definitional Clarity is important. What is gender? What is sex? Are they even the same thing?

Eradicate the sex binary.

http://www.ted.com/talks/alice_dreger_is_anatomy_destiny

http://anti-imperialism.com/2014/02/24/on-the-social-construction-of-sex-part-1/

http://alyx.io/social-justice/2014/05/24/trans-people-and-dialectics-of-sex-and-gender/

>>6661121
>>6661132
>>6661184

not all penises or vaginas come from XY or XX chromosomes, not all XY or XX chromosomes cause penises or vaginas.

#Hitlerwasright

Eradicate the multicultural binary.

>>6662031
Yes, MUTANTS happen.

Very good.

>>6661165
>no matter your brain chemistry
>don't confuse feelings with biology

this is why I chose biostatistics.

>>6661168
>no matter your brain chemistry
>don't confuse feelings with biology

this is why I chose biostatistics.

>>6661061
Well I had a civilized discussion of gay marriage on /b/ a few weeks ago. Literally no troll posts and posts were full sentences.

>>6661442
Bun's right, zevrybody should be able to decide His/Her/Ner/Ver/Zer/Eyr/Bur pronoun. And I'm deeply sorry for the pronouns I might have missed because of my ignorance.

See? Almost no overhead and everyone is happy now!

>>6662070
No, you offended me. My pronoun is spelled Eyr, but it is pronounced "THROATWARBLINGWOMBAT!!!", you privileged hatemonger.

I'm reporting you to human resources. They can expect to hear from our attorneys.

Have fun in your cardboard box.