Today's Random News

[Dunlap]

I think that's more hypothesis than theory.

[Drewbacca]

It is definitely. It’s based on language analysis though, which has provided a lot of gems since the 90s.

[Mzo]

That Joe Rogan video was infuriating. They're both idiots talking way past each other.

I'm glad he brought up the guy dog and girl dog comparison, though. Let's talk about all the girl dog only toys and the girl dog only activities because biology is the same thing as gender roles, right? I wonder if Joe Rogan treats a girl dog different than a boy dog (apart from possibly fucking it.)

[Drewbacca]

I didn’t take that at all. He was just saying these classifications come from clear observable criteria of the physical world, not as social constructs. They establish a baseline. Stereotypes definitely and often inform gender behaviour decisions, but that doesn’t belay the entire classification structure. Buying only male dogs can predict the outcome that you won’t have to deal with pupppies. Doesn’t deny that your dog won’t hump another male dog for funsies.

Thaddeus has a hard time hearing that without projecting in to it that it’s dismissing alternative lifestyles. But it isn’t. It’s not denying the freedom of choice for people that want alternatives. You just acknowledge those classes too.

[Mzo]

Sure, genitalia are based on chromosomes and even those get confused and sometimes don't come out right. What's his point? That the simplified biology he was taught 40 years ago in 6th grade is the only hard science behind this?

I actually don't care. It was awful to listen to.

[Satsuki]

I didn’t take that at all. He was just saying these classifications come from clear observable criteria of the physical world

this can work in the animal kingdom but humans have virtually no sexual dimorphism soooooooo

it's not clearly observable

[kedawa]

I can tell the difference...

[Drewbacca]

Sure, genitalia are based on chromosomes and even those get confused and sometimes don't come out right. What's his point? That the simplified biology he was taught 40 years ago in 6th grade is the only hard science behind this?

I actually don't care. It was awful to listen to.

It was a clear response to Thaddeus’ assertion that there isn’t anything objective behind the classification of men and women (which he walked back from a bit later on).

Again, no one in that chat or this one is denying alternatives to these simple classes exist.

this can work in the animal kingdom but humans have virtually no sexual dimorphism soooooooo

it's not clearly observable

What do you mean? Aside from the obvious differences in genitals medical analysis can determine the sex of a human from skeletal structure of the pelvis. Other traits in joints and facial structure can inform tendencies between the sexes as well (though some of that is activity based so I wouldn’t include it in solely biology).

These techniques are sometimes used in forensics to identify sex.

[Drewbacca]

I can tell the difference...

I think what they’re saying is the difference is negligible and shouldn’t influence social structure to a large degree. Which is somewhat fair I think.

But the way they’re framing this social skepticism sounds just completely batshit insane.

[Satsuki]

What do you mean? Aside from the obvious differences in genitals medical analysis can determine the sex of a human from skeletal structure of the pelvis. Other traits in joints and facial structure can inform tendencies between the sexes as well (though some of that is activity based so I wouldn’t include it in solely biology).

These techniques are sometimes used in forensics to identify sex.

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?