YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki Gets 'Freedom Expression' Award Sponsored by YouTube

But in many contexts biological sex is irrelevant. There's room to debate exactly what contexts -- e.g., in professional sports that are segregated by sex so that women can have competitions in which they aren't obliterated by men who are just stronger, you might want to keep people with Y chromosomes out of the women's events, or maybe you should do that by measuring testosterone levels or something. But by and large, if you aren't (1) providing medical care to someone or (2) having sex with them, you get better outcomes for everyone by paying attention to how they prefer to live than to their chromosomes when those diverge.

"But people are getting cancelled just for saying that biological sex is real!" Eh, no. But to whatever degree anything like that is happening, a key part of the reason is that it turns out that people who make a big deal about how biological sex is real almost always actually have a bigger agenda that goes way beyond affirming that biological sex is real. If e.g. you want to keep trans women out of women's public bathrooms, or make sure gender-dysphoric teenagers aren't put on puberty blockers, or not have to call someone "he" if they look more like a "she" to you -- none of those things follow from "biological sex is real".

https://archive.md/wWaat#selection-1333.275-1347.126

> The orders also reference "biological sex," a disputed term that refers to the sex as listed on students' original birth certificates.

> It's not possible to know a person's gender identity at birth, and there is no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth.

i wasnt searching for anything related to my friend's suicide. i was in shock

based on my description, its clear as day to me that google's algo absolutely did parse the fact that my friend had died from suicide and did show me content that was intended to align with his tragic life. it wasn't friendly or empathetic content; it mocked him and gaslighted me.

This isnt something I am letting go. I will take this to the tucking grave and put it along with all of my other observations if I have to, on my socmed memorial. all my childhood genius classmates will catch up to my memorial eventually and will have questions.

Google employee, can you help me out by looking into this?

No response is likely to be forthcoming -- they will never admit if it was some intentional malice, so they rely on the speculation of outsiders adhering to rational conclusion of incompetence over malice observations of entropy.

Google, I am assuming you engaged in a malicious psychological experiment on me using the data point of the news about suicide of a childhood friend to cybergaslight me. Until someone from google opens their data and algos and logs to prove otherwise, I am assuming based on my experience that you engage in premeditated malice on US citizens with their personal data

google and friends have too much data, too much power, and too little accountability. simply put, if they fail to help me to understand this, then they will be empowered to engage in any degree of malicious psychological experiments on unsuspecting US citizens with total impunity.

gaslighting me about tragic incidents or personal family:

Suicide (google), death of a parent while homeless (ok hes listening now..), threaten my nephew (clearance job), public utils nalo gaslighting (duff) -- google i'll give you a chance to look into this and get back to me. You fucked with my life and did nothing at all for me, are worth trillion(s). take some responsibility and help me out. please.

this isnt the appropriate venue for me to disclose my encounters with tech billionaires or celebrities and the associated threats I received, and i dont want to weave together speculative narratives between disjointed parties. google, please do the right thing and help me out here.

I make the claim that google engaged in a malicious psyop, and its on me to prove it.

yet, only google has the logs to prove/disprove the claim.

Proposition A: "Chromosomes, genitals, and sex hormones are real things. For the large majority of people, each of these falls into one of two fairly well separated classes, and they agree with one another. In some contexts -- e.g., providing someone with medical care, or having sex with them, or predicting how much weight they will be able to lift if they train hard -- these things provide useful information."

Proposition B: "The term 'biological sex' has a clear and universally agreed-on meaning, and refers to something that is useful in some contexts, as in Proposition A."

Proposition C: "The term 'biological sex' has a clear and universally agreed-on meaning, and refers to something that is useful in some contexts, and is the only thing we should care about when deciding whether to refer to someone as a man or a woman, or choosing what pronouns to use for them, or deciding what contests they can enter, what bathrooms they can use, etc."

Proposition A is uncontroversially true, and (I claim) essentially no one disagrees with it.

Proposition B is fairly uncontroversially false, because in fact there isn't a universally-agreed way to decide someone's "biological sex" in complicated cases such as when they have complete androgen insensitivity. But for many purposes it's approximately true.

The bit of Proposition C that goes beyond Proposition B is highly controversial.

I originally took your statements about "biological sex" to be expressing Proposition A. The author of the CNN article is denying Proposition B.

Perhaps you always meant Proposition B (or even Proposition C), in which case I retract my statement that no one disagrees with that, but instead point out the bit of Proposition B that's controversial is not expressing a "fundamental truth" about reproduction but a highly disputable claim about language, and that the further bits of Proposition C that are controversial are again not expressing "fundamental truths" about reproduction but controversial and essentially political claims about how we should relate to people for whom "biological sex" and "gender identity" don't tell a single simple coherent story.