gaiusamericanus.bsky.social
52 posts
3 followers
1 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
Do you assume that all associations are bidirectionally equal?
comment in response to
post
😆 🤣 😂 😹
comment in response to
post
You lost!
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis
comment in response to
post
Okay, you are not using ChatGPT. Come on dude!
comment in response to
post
Behavior can be broken down using the ABC method. This is commonly used by Psychologists.
Affect: Expressions
Behavior: Someone's reaction to the world around them
Cognition: SOmeone's thoughts about the world around them and their place in it.
You are still describing behavior.
comment in response to
post
For four years! To top that, he is not running again. This means his legacy is no longer something you can tarnish.
comment in response to
post
Any indicator of a "gender identity" can be behaviorally summarized. In this way, we can consistently define it.
comment in response to
post
He is your President again, so.............. perhaps quite effective! You just do not have the stones for it. This is why he is your President.
comment in response to
post
Behavior. You are describing behavior. Behavior clearly does not always align to sexual correlations.
comment in response to
post
You are going to resist by crying and coping online? Shit, the MAGA crazies stormed the capitol. You cannot tell me you have the chutzpah to do that.
comment in response to
post
Plumbing has a correlational coefficient to sex (even in your model) of somewhere greater than .98. Thus, not a bad model.
comment in response to
post
Actually, I am male by definition. I am an adult human male. Wearing a dress would not change this. Me claiming I am not would not alter this. It is not a matter that I have a choice in.
comment in response to
post
If it can be defined, then yes. But your definition is collapsing under the weight of logical inconsistency.
comment in response to
post
Until then, orange man is your President. When you wake up in the morning, he is your President. When you go to bed at night, he is your President. While you sleep, he is your President.
Cope harder!
comment in response to
post
I do not think gender exists. There are too many counterexamples and it seems far too subjective. If it does not exist, then this leaves us with just sex.
comment in response to
post
Here is the counterexample. If I apply makeup, wear a dress, and still identify as a man, then your moral philosophy still classifies me as a man. Your definition is negated by your own acknowledgment.
comment in response to
post
Actually, no. The prevalence of aneuploids is about 1 per 1,000 people (a differing number of sex chromosomes from 2). If you multiply this out to a figurative population of 10,000, you get about 35 standard deviations between 1 and 2 or 2 and 3. Two SD is a typical outlier.
comment in response to
post
Is that your dose of copium?
comment in response to
post
If the definitions have expanded, then please provide the expanded definitions. If they are logically consistent, I might accept them.
comment in response to
post
Counterexamples. Physiology is an essentialist perspective. A behavioral perspective is also bad. This would suggest that a man is anyone who behaves like a male. The same person would not call a man a woman who behaves masculine but claims to be a woman.
This is an example of a counterexample.
comment in response to
post
I cannot find a logical foundation to define them as otherwise. I am inviting you to define man, woman, male, and female in whats which can allow for this. The definitions should not have negating counterexamples.
comment in response to
post
You say you cannot define me because I am unknown. This is a fallacy rejecting that things can exist for which you are unaware.
If there exists a functionalist worldview for gender, then there should be a logical foundation for it.
So far, I cannot find one. You have not demonstrated it.
comment in response to
post
This is a female. An adult human female. Which, if plugged into the man and woman definitions, make the person a woman.
Either offer your own definitions. My definitons are not full of counterexamples.
comment in response to
post
This is called a female.
comment in response to
post
You are citing a knowledge gap. When I argue with radical Christians, I call this the "God in the gap" argument.
comment in response to
post
Then per the definition I gave, this is a female.
comment in response to
post
These are exceptions of reproductive defect. Similarly, your morality would not permit you to tell a random infertile man or woman that they are not male or female.
comment in response to
post
That is bogus. You can define me easily.
comment in response to
post
Not exactly. Read the definitions of male and female. Unless you have endowed a "former male" with the ability to produce eggs or bear offspring, then you have not. The same applies in reverse.
You need to offer alternative definitions to male and female.
comment in response to
post
Nature gatekeeps who can get pregnant. Not me, not you. Just pure biological reality unbound by the whims of human morality or ideology.
comment in response to
post
To me, it is easy. To you, I am unsure that you can acknowledge the existence of anything while following the dictates of your own moral logic.
comment in response to
post
Man: Adult human male.
Woman: Adult human female.
Male: An organism of a species class that produces small mobile gametes for reproduction.
Female: An organism of a species that can either carry offspring and or produce eggs.
comment in response to
post
If it cannot be defined, then it cannot exist.
comment in response to
post
I am talking about people who are perpetually morally outraged as a means to signal virtue or compliance with groupthink.
comment in response to
post
I get that, but what does it mean to be male? What does it mean to be female?
comment in response to
post
Are you saying that transwomen are not females? A bit bigoted.
comment in response to
post
Assigned female at birth?
What is female?
comment in response to
post
That describes every remaining hominid. This would be a human.
What do you mean when you say "trans man?"
comment in response to
post
What is a man?
comment in response to
post
Not really. I came to this platform to see what the insufferable scolds were up to.
comment in response to
post
There it is! No, they cannot.
comment in response to
post
I do not subjugate my critical thinking to any matter of identity. Nor do most of us. This is why he will soon be your President.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Only if you want to. Sentient beings (like me and most others) are capable of epistemological reasoning and metacognition. This means that we can think about things logically that are not immediately experienced by us.
comment in response to
post