Today's Random News

[kedawa]

Tits.

[Dunlap]

Who has trouble identifying female and male?

[Satsuki]

Same person. Looks alone don't mean shit except in a socially constructed sense.

[Josh]

Are you saying the person on the left doesn’t look like a dude with that neck?

[kedawa]

You could put a dress on that bird, too.
I'm not sure how we got here from wage gap talk, but there are a lot of differences that aren't visible.
Even if there were no visible differences at all, there would still be differences in the endocrine system that affect the brain.

[Andrew]

Whoops, this is my mistake--it was Andrew who was vehemently refusing to call someone by their preferred pronoun in that thing a while ago, not you. I went through my post history foaming at the mouth to find the post in question only to see it beside the blue slime guy, not you. Sorry, Drew!

I was vehemently denying the government’s right to compel the preferred pronoun thing. I was also denouncing the notion that one’s livelihood or good name should be impugned for having beliefs that were actually quite commonplace for millennia, and only changed very recently.

What I did not do was promote being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole. But we live in a climate where any slight deviation from the Gospel of the Woke brands one an auto-fascist, so color me unsurprised.

[kedawa]

Get used to it, Hitler.

[Drewbacca]

This is why people can't completely separate the social constructs from the biological.
Dimorphism - distinguishable characteristics that separate sex. For instance, this is a female and male pheasant (female on left.)


In the animal kingdom, many species have a high degree of sexual dimorphism. They clearly display size and color differences - and this commonly refers to observable (i.e., aesthetic characteristics.) Humans have a very low degree of sexual dimorphism, which means we do not display remarkable size and color differences between the sexes. But there's also a big, big social qualifier in there: animals (usually) don't wear any sort of body coverings. Humans almost always do. If you do not examine genitals or skeletal structure (neither of which most people can see with their naked eye.............usually, unless superman) determining "male" or female" on looks alone is next to impossible. "Observable characteristics" is going to be highly dependent on the arena in which the observing takes place. On an autopsy table? sure. At the mall? probably not. You can't just say "observable characteristics," without qualifying: who is observing and why?

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.

[kedawa]

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?

Sounds like Heaven's Gate. I wouldn't drink that water, that's for sure.

[Drewbacca]

You’re just saying that to save all of this delicious water for yourself!