Today's Random News

[Satsuki]

The idea that people can’t distinguish with sample images that are designed to show the most extreme examples is misleading.

If you took 100 men and 100 women and dressed them in medium sized black sweaters, regular jeans (nothing to overtly advertise tits or hips but not deceive that they don’t exist either), and had no makeup on their face and they all had long hair let’s say... do you not believe most people of average or above intelligence would be able to distinguish at least 80% of the people in to male or female categories? In person with discussion and movement or even basic tasks like carrying a weighted box or pouring glasses of water? I believe most would accurately categorize these people.

The idea that all gender is imaginary seems like delusional quackery. It seems so agenda-driven.

You mean my agenda of appearing on the Joe Rogan show to sell my self help book?

Again, are we talking 100 men and women in America? A Random sampling of people throughout the world?

What about 100 men and women of the Massai tribe in Africa?


Or the Kung in Namibia?


Or 100 who identify as fa'afafine? None of the people in this photo would categorize themselves as men *or* women, and both sets of genitals are most likely present in this photo.


I mean, sure, maybe you could assume the biological sex of a few. But when you remove yourself from the society you are comfortable in, it gets more difficult. Not everyone looks like the families on Leave it to Beaver where guys are strong and tall with broad shoulders, and the women are curvy with hourglass figures. There are women with no breasts. There are short men. There are women who look like guys, and guys who look like women. Gender is varied, sex is varied.

[Satsuki]

Also josh proves my point - the person in the original photo was born a female.

[bbobb]

Your mom was born a female.

[Satsuki]

lol

[Drewbacca]

You mean my agenda of appearing on the Joe Rogan show to sell my self help book?

Again, are we talking 100 men and women in America? A Random sampling of people throughout the world?

What about 100 men and women of the Massai tribe in Africa?


Or the Kung in Namibia?


Or 100 who identify as fa'afafine? None of the people in this photo would categorize themselves as men *or* women, and both sets of genitals are most likely present in this photo.


I mean, sure, maybe you could assume the biological sex of a few. But when you remove yourself from the society you are comfortable in, it gets more difficult. Not everyone looks like the families on Leave it to Beaver where guys are strong and tall with broad shoulders, and the women are curvy with hourglass figures. There are women with no breasts. There are short men. There are women who look like guys, and guys who look like women. Gender is varied, sex is varied.

Again you’re picking pretty extreme photos to argue against broad categorization. Photos are also a terrible litmus test because we have 4 other senses to discern with.

For the experiment a general cross sampling of born-female and male humans and since different cultures can have different expectations let’s localize that to the US (i’d bet Massai men and women could identify each other under similar conditions too btw). That could include any fa'afafine or African immigrants. We don’t know. That’s the point of cross sampling. They could be gay or lesbian, etc. Who cares? You said that there’s little distinction between male and female. Broadly speaking it’s probably false that humans wouldn’t be able to distinguish between these sexes spending even a few hours doing basic tasks together. I highly doubt the margin of error would out number the margin of success.

If you are solely going to look at the extremes maybe it becomes more difficult to classify. Thats the definition of the edges—less boxes of a category are checked there. Thats ok. We can have exceptions too. It doesn’t defeat the category.

[Satsuki]

Moving the goal post. You said "observable," not "after spending time with." If you're claiming that we can distinguish people's sex after spending some time with them, then you're introducing the fact that social factors, not just biological ones make a difference. And if you are, then yes - I agree. That's my whole point.

[Drewbacca]

What is your definition of “spending time with”? I’m selecting ideas for tasks that are not inherently gendered. Pouring water or moving a semi-heavy box, etc. None of these are social constructs. I picked them for that very reason. All of them carry observation (ie knowledge in the world).

If you’re going to limit human observation to one sense with a photo you’re already tainting your whole concept IMO. Humans observe minute details in face and body movement - and voice. That’s why animators struggle with the uncanny valley. Society didn’t invent the way a woman or man moves. And I don’t think those tasks are above the bar of what would constitute fair observation.

[Satsuki]

“Humans observe minute details in face and body movement- and voice”

You mean social factors?

[Drewbacca]

I understand speech is often social. I’m saying the tone of a voice isn’t. Some tasks are socially gendered, sure (dancing being an obvious one) but the mechanics of the way a woman moves can in part identify them as women.

How is watching people dressed in a gender neutral way doing gender inspecific tasks a bridge too far here? The observer doesn’t even need to be directly interacting.

Unless you’re literally saying observing takes 2 people so that interaction in itself is social. Which means you’ve undermined the whole concept of simple observation in the first place. The parameters for your own definition of observation would be so low it’s inevitable to verify the outcomes you want it to reach. Which is poor scientific method.

[kedawa]

Let's see some nudes if we're comparing bodies. This is fucking ridiculous.