111–120 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>biological genders The word you're looking for is "sex." There's no such thing as a "biological gender."
There are not even genders on humans, just sex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's incorrect.
It’s worth considering that although the absolute incidence of violence female->male is higher, common sense dictates that the incidence of terrifying and potentially seriously injurious violence is much higher male->female, which is why more concern is directed at it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>biological genders The word you're looking for is "sex." There's no such thing as a "biological gender."
"a term for a grammatical subclass to join sex in referring to either of the two primary biological forms of a species" Don't try to rewrite grammar to fit trends. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
Language is fluid, or we would all be speaking some variant of old German on this forum (try reading Beowulf in the original).
It's not grammar, it's semantics.
Words are social. When one person tries to rewrite the meaning of a word, unless they have significant social clout they are just going to be misunderstood. When many people rewrite the meaning of a word, they change the meaning of that word.
Edit: flagging a personal opinion, right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the first paragraph you're asking for causal explanation. Then in the second paragraph you're dishing out a bunch of potential causal explanations as confounders. Some researchers would deem it over-reaching to dish out causal explanations willy nilly. Most of those questions should be relegated to follow-up studies or a BRIEF mention in the discussion section. It's perfectly okay science to simply observe a pheno…
If you don't have the causal explanations then you cannot generalize beyond the population you sampled. What does that mean? That the correct conclusion to draw is very narrow: Men View Their Ex-Partners More Favorably Than Women Do [in Graz, Austria, in the year 2019]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> wondering whether their sample acknowledges the disproportionate number of men who murder their ex-female-partner Curious how this is relevant to the study? Roughly 0.001% of women are killed by a male partner each year in the US and - while terrible in of itself - I can't see it affecting the results of this study in any significant way.
Among US women, fear/wariness-of and preparedness-for attempts at bodily harm and abusive behavior by men appears to be near-universal. EDIT: Removed bad pre-coffee math. See replies below for better math. I hope this helps you see why such a consideration could be considered relevant to the study.
You're high by a factor of 100.
Anecdotal, however I find that in my lifetime I was/am able to 'move on' and forget about things such as minor disagreements between partners where they (female partners) have tended to dwell on things longer than my male friends. Could have been the same if I had male partners I suppose, although that isn't my personal taste. Not just in relationships but even among co-workers I notice there is a lot more gossip bet…
Oh boy, research showing differences between biological genders. This is going to either be ignored or absolutely explode.
This is an unsurprising position to hold when you don’t know (or refuse to acknowledge) the difference between gender and sex. Do you think people who transition to a different gender think there’s no difference between the two?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's absurd to group half the population into one group, and then try to work out what makes that group as a whole tick.
It makes a lot of sense however, to separate people based on a criterion and find out how the resulting groups differ from each other.