Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Taking Sex Differences in Personality Seriously (2019)

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 199 posts

Re: Taking Sex Differences in Personality Seriously (2019)

#171

Post by TaylorAlexander »

AstixAndBelix wrote: post #45
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope more people do this because for me it feels really right, and I find it beautiful. It’s also helping me understand women more. I think our society would benefit from a better understanding of the experiences of the opposite sex, and people who do this can help share this with others so we all have a better understanding. I don’t see any downsides to more people doing this.

Would you be in favor of giving people schizophrenia-inducing drugs, with the risk of having permanent mental effects, so people can understand mental health issues better? These drugs you are taking are no joking matter and your fortuitous lived experience doesn't make your claim less preposterous

It’s a pretty bad example, because the “risk of permanent mental effects” is not a desirable goal, whereas the permanent changes I’m experiencing are things I want. I’m not suggesting that people who don’t want hormone changes try it. I’m suggesting more trans people come out of the closet and try this.

Re: Taking Sex Differences in Personality Seriously (2019)

#172

Post by TaylorAlexander »

bbbbbp wrote: post #165
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue which people react so allergic to is the complete lack of tolerance by the transgender community. I doubt that is the main reason. Society has been pretty clear for a long time that certain people found trans people too strange to accept them. Gay people have been treated the same way. I think most people that don’t like trans people are probably also uncomfortable with gay people even if they are more li…

[flagged]

I’ve noticed that you’ve failed to take to heart the one main thing that I said can avoid this issue for you: an understanding that sex and gender are different concepts.

What clothes you wear are part of a performance where the entirety of the performance represents your gender. But not your sex! Changing one thing doesn’t change your gender. But if you change the whole performance, that’s changing your gender. And I don’t really like these concepts of gender, but it’s more of a description of how society views a person. I never got called “ma'am” or “miss” until I started wearing dresses. I’m not really saying that wearing a dress makes you a woman, but I’m saying that wearing a dress and doing the other things makes other people read you as a woman.

Until you’re able to separate the two concepts of sex and gender in your mind you’re going to continue to run in to this issue.

When someone says “trans women are women, not men” they’re talking about gender, not sex. And gender as theorized by Judith Butler is something that we can easily change. Whether we can change sex is a different question and one I’m less qualified to discuss, but it’s irrelevant to the question of changing gender.

Re: Taking Sex Differences in Personality Seriously (2019)

#173

Post by apienx »

monlockandkey wrote: post #137
alangibson wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our eyes lie all the time and experience is wide open to interpretation. That's why we have science so we can objectively and progressively determine what is true and what is not. Relying on our gut like our ancestors, who for example believed in the obvious reality of witches, is the best way to be ignorant of what is really true.

Science is a tool to explain mechanisms of the natural of world. It can NOT be used to find the truth about objective morality. For example I can point you the the hordes of research papers done on the effects of alcohol. The source of cancers, 40-50% of violent crimes are done under the influence of alcohol, predisposition to evils such as gambling, assualts, SA, domestic abuse, drink driving, effects on mental and…

> How is it possible that civilization all across the globe without contact have some sort of ghosts, spirits, demons, Jinns in their world view.

This is an argument from incredulity, a common logical fallacy.

The consensus (across many scientific disciplines) is that our brains are more "buggy"than we realize. We routinely fall for biases, fallacies, superstitions, mass hysterias/hallucinations and other silly behaviour.

We're intellectually sophisticated compared to our ancestors. Yet, many of our contemporaries still "see" ghosts. "The Believing Brain" by Michael Shermer is a very approachable intro to the topic of how this phenomenon came about and why it persists.

> How many times do people pull out their microscope and scientific instruments to verify the world around them using the scientific method

It's a regular occurrence in schools around me. YMMV

> Essentially we can assign high probability something is the truth with testimonials of individuals.

This statement is another example of fallacious logic (specifically, argumentum ad populum).

The business of truth is not a democracy.

> Why do we discard their testimony instead on saying what is the probability that civilization without contact all have belief in a super natural entities?

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Re: Taking Sex Differences in Personality Seriously (2019)

#174

Post by bbbbbp »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #172
bbbbbp wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I’ve noticed that you’ve failed to take to heart the one main thing that I said can avoid this issue for you: an understanding that sex and gender are different concepts. What clothes you wear are part of a performance where the entirety of the performance represents your gender. But not your sex! Changing one thing doesn’t change your gender. But if you change the whole performance, that’s changing your gender. And…

I disagree. If a man attempts to masquerade as a woman, and someone is led to believe that he is a woman, that doesn't make him a woman. It just means his pretence managed to fool someone into believing this. Behind this facade, he is still a man.

Also I'm not convinced that a man being called "ma'am" or "miss" necessarily means that the speaker thinks he's a woman, especially these days. They might be saying it because that's how you're expected to politely address men in dresses these days. Or perhaps, they are being quietly sarcastic about the whole thing.

In summary, I don't accept this Butlerian redefinition of woman, as it's incoherent with reality and relies on guessing what's going on in people's minds. The existing definition of adult human female is fine and there's no need to change it.

Re: Taking Sex Differences in Personality Seriously (2019)

#175

Post by TaylorAlexander »

bbbbbp wrote: post #174
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve noticed that you’ve failed to take to heart the one main thing that I said can avoid this issue for you: an understanding that sex and gender are different concepts. What clothes you wear are part of a performance where the entirety of the performance represents your gender. But not your sex! Changing one thing doesn’t change your gender. But if you change the whole performance, that’s changing your gender. And…

I disagree. If a man attempts to masquerade as a woman, and someone is led to believe that he is a woman, that doesn't make him a woman. It just means his pretence managed to fool someone into believing this. Behind this facade, he is still a man. Also I'm not convinced that a man being called "ma'am" or "miss" necessarily means that the speaker thinks he's a woman, especially these days. They might be saying it beca…

Okay. Well I think I’ve figure out why you keep getting called a bigot by trans people. You just can’t accept trans people period.

Re: Taking Sex Differences in Personality Seriously (2019)

#176

Post by growse »

bbbbbp wrote: post #168
growse wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

You expressed incredulity that someone would define men/women in a reductive way (they didn't by the way, you missed their point) and then in the very next paragraph demonstrated that you have an extraordinarily reductive view of what defines a 'man'.

Come on! You can do better! I believe in you!

Re: Taking Sex Differences in Personality Seriously (2019)

#177

Post by bbbbbp »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #175
bbbbbp wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. If a man attempts to masquerade as a woman, and someone is led to believe that he is a woman, that doesn't make him a woman. It just means his pretence managed to fool someone into believing this. Behind this facade, he is still a man. Also I'm not convinced that a man being called "ma'am" or "miss" necessarily means that the speaker thinks he's a woman, especially these days. They might be saying it beca…

Okay. Well I think I’ve figure out why you keep getting called a bigot by trans people. You just can’t accept trans people period.

[flagged]

Re: Taking Sex Differences in Personality Seriously (2019)

#178

Post by bbbbbp »

growse wrote: post #176
bbbbbp wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You expressed incredulity that someone would define men/women in a reductive way (they didn't by the way, you missed their point) and then in the very next paragraph demonstrated that you have an extraordinarily reductive view of what defines a 'man'. Come on! You can do better! I believe in you!

[flagged]

Re: Taking Sex Differences in Personality Seriously (2019)

#179

Post by Octabrain »

apienx wrote: post #173
monlockandkey wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is a tool to explain mechanisms of the natural of world. It can NOT be used to find the truth about objective morality. For example I can point you the the hordes of research papers done on the effects of alcohol. The source of cancers, 40-50% of violent crimes are done under the influence of alcohol, predisposition to evils such as gambling, assualts, SA, domestic abuse, drink driving, effects on mental and…

> How is it possible that civilization all across the globe without contact have some sort of ghosts, spirits, demons, Jinns in their world view. This is an argument from incredulity, a common logical fallacy. The consensus (across many scientific disciplines) is that our brains are more "buggy"than we realize. We routinely fall for biases, fallacies, superstitions, mass hysterias/hallucinations and other silly behav…

Just logged in to answer to your comment and say that I found that "The business of truth is not a democracy." quote of yours simply brilliant.

Re: Taking Sex Differences in Personality Seriously (2019)

#180

Post by growse »

bbbbbp wrote: post #178
growse wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You expressed incredulity that someone would define men/women in a reductive way (they didn't by the way, you missed their point) and then in the very next paragraph demonstrated that you have an extraordinarily reductive view of what defines a 'man'. Come on! You can do better! I believe in you!

[flagged]

We get it. You think sex and gender are the same thing, and have very narrow views on how they're defined and a woeful lack of acknowledgement that there's even a sliver of complexity here.

But you're not even trying to argue this or convince anyone of anything. You're just saying "nuh huh. What I believe in true and applies to everyone whether they like it or not".

I'm guessing there's nothing out there that'll change your mind. You've taken a fundamentalist position, which begs the question why are you here?

Post reply on HN