Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis

[CharonY]

30 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yet every Biology textbook will refer to the male and female of a species, according to their physical, hormonal, and even brain structure differences ...

More likely introductory textbooks where simple basic concepts are explained. The more you learn the more specific your definitions become. What you do now is akin to me making grand claims regarding GR based on what little introduction to physics I might remember. Also note that a claim that a textbook refers to a certain concept still does not make it an universal concept in biology.

I am not sure what your overall claim here is. Sex dimorphisms exist, but they are not a universal concept. Heck, sexual reproduction is not an universal concept. As we can find exceptions for basically anything we need to make case-by-case distinctions whenever they become relevant. If you have the rigid idea in your head that every species has two sexes, and try to apply to every species on earth you obviously will end up with many with categorizations that simply won't follow the actual biology (I mean, good luck distinguishing female from male snails).

 

[koti]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

This is also wrong. It would ignore hermaphrodite species as well as species that are able to change their sex. Also how do classify a species according to their sex? That only works on individuals?  If we move away from animals it gets even trickier. Also may I note that it is weird that you contradict yourself in the same sentence and then just ignore that?

So by far not an universal concept that can be applied the same way to all species. Also, you are aware that the species concept is also a human construct (ring species, microbial concept of species etc.)? As Arete and I have said many times here, the use of such concepts is often useful , but nature does not really care about our neat categories. So even if such a seemingly strict category such as species is not really universal, why would you expect to find many universal concepts in biology to begin with?

And this is also wrong of course as there are many, many (animal) species were there are barely any outward sex markers and then there are animals who use camouflage to appear like the different gender. 

 

And here is another strawman. No one said that there are no gender dimorphisms. Just that in nature these differences are not as rigid and universal as you think they are.

Assuming that biology follows rigid made-up structures and force your assumptions on your observations would be bad science, not following the evidence.

And obviously we are again on the presumed issue of enforced speech and I would really like to see some evidence here.

Since you graded so many papers with errors similar to the ones I am making, could you tell me if the people who insist on waving hands instead of clapping in lecture halls and using ridiculous made up language are hermaphrodite species or species which can spontaneously change sex? 

[CharonY]

10 minutes ago, koti said:

Since you graded so many papers with errors similar to the ones I am making, could you tell me if the people who insist on waving hands instead of clapping in lecture halls and using ridiculous made up language are hermaphrodite species or species which can spontaneously change sex? 

Not sure, I do not teach imaginary labs. All my students are actually real people.

[koti]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Not sure, I do not teach imaginary labs.

Let me rephrase to make it easier for you;

Are the people insisting on waving hands instead of clapping in auditoriums and using ridiculous made up language the same species as you and me? 

[CharonY]

Just now, koti said:

Are the people insisting on waving hands instead of clapping in auditoriums and using ridiculous made up language the same species as you and me? 

I am not sure whether I should answer ridiculous questions. I have not seen folks waving hands, but I have not idea why it should bother me (in Germany folks often knock on tables). All language is made up, so I am not sure which one you refer to. I am not sure whether we are the same species, as recently I have the sneaking feeling of talking to a chat bot.

[koti]

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I am not sure whether I should answer ridiculous questions. I have not seen folks waving hands, but I have not idea why it should bother me (in Germany folks often knock on tables). All language is made up, so I am not sure which one you refer to. I am not sure whether we are the same species, as recently I have the sneaking feeling of talking to a chat bot.

So I take it that you will agree that the ones who wave hands instead of clapping and insists on using 50 or 70 pronouns are the same species as yourself? 
If yes, why do you bring up hermaphrodite species and species which can change genders? 

[CharonY]

8 minutes ago, koti said:

So I take it that you will agree that the ones who wave hands instead of clapping and insists on using 50 or 70 pronouns are the same species as yourself? 
If yes, why do you bring up hermaphrodite species and species which can change genders? 

Because MigL has implied that categories in nature are rigid:

  

16 hours ago, Arete said:

"Nature doesn't give a fuck about your pigeonholes." Virtually any attempt to neatly categorize biological entities - into species, ecological niches, metabolic groups, functional units, gene ontology, etc etc. is fraught with exceptions, contradictions and vagaries. Gender/sex is simply no different. 

 

15 hours ago, MigL said:

No, nature does.
You don't.

There are claims made that male and female are universal and the examples indicate a) on the species level there are plenty of organism that are not either male or female and that b) even within an individual there are species in which their sex is fluid to some degree.

 

I am not sure what your example was supposed to add to that.

 

[koti]

 

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

a) on the species level there are plenty of organism that are not either male or female and that
b) even within an individual there are species in which their sex is fluid to some degree.

 

Since I am not as well versed in biology as you are, please let me understand - Which species are you talking about in your a) and b) examples? 

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, koti said:

I browsed through the LGBT resource center and can we agree that its imposible for any human being who has not been thurally trained to communicate with this new language?

Of course we cannot agree - especially about your low opinion of all human beings. Comapare that chart with the list of all the English words you don't know (e.g: thoroughly) and have managed to lived without, so far.  Infacilty in a few more pronouns will make no appreciable difference to your communication skills. 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Yet every Biology textbook will refer to the male and female of a species, according to their physical, hormonal, and even brain structure differences ...

Only the tense is wrong. Every biology textbook did refer to male and female, wherever the authors deemed it applicable to sexual reproduction. (There are, of course, other kinds of reproduction, which involve no genders at all) What biology textbooks will refer to is yet to emerge.

Whether biology textbook will delve into the details gender fluidity and variation depends on the level of instruction.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Peterkin
add information

[koti]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Of course we cannot agree - especially about your low opinion of all human beings. Comapare that chart with the list of all the English words you don't know (e.g: thoroughly) and have managed to lived without, so far.  Infacilty in a few more pronouns will make no appreciable difference to your communication skills. 

I apologise for my mistake, English is not my first language and in fact I am here in this thread mainly to keep and sharpen my English skills. Your insolence and ignorance is fascinating, keep it comming. 

[CharonY]

2 minutes ago, koti said:

Since I am not as well versed in biology as you are, please let me understand - Which species are you talking about in your a) and b) examples? 

Maybe I was not quite clear. Recall that Arete established that rigid pigeon holes are rare (or perhaps non-existent) in biology. MigL seemed to object to that and implied that nature has in fact these. He then claimed that all biologists would classify species as male or female. It is not quite clear what he means, as obviously you cannot classify like that, but I assumed he meant that biologists would classify all members in a species rigidly as either male or female.

Strangely he also mentioned asexual reproduction (though worms are actually not a good example), where this does not make sense and I have added hermaphrodite species. These two examples already indicate that this categories (male vs female) are clearly not universal even if we just think roughly about certain species. 

I then added another example indicating that even in species where male and female distinction could work, if you look at, say an individual  clownfish and classify it as male, it is possible that some time later due to some influences that individual has then become female. In other words, even it looks rigid from a high (species) level, biology can break these categories we made. 

Going back to clownfishes, the gonads of functional males has both testicular as well as ovarian tissues. The latter is in immature state but can mature rather quickly to create functional ovaries (based on some neuronal pathways which are only partially explored IIRC).

So even if go down deeper into the tissue and cellular level, the distinction between male and female is quite fuzzy as the tissue can change from one to the other. Given all those biological mechanisms and fuzziness it simply does not make sense to even presume that these categories are universal. Rather, they apply within a certain context (and even then often with a given but hopefully acceptable error rate). 

[MigL]

I think I was pretty clear in my statement, CharonY.
If you consider almost all species more complex/advanced than asexual worms ( or snails, if you prefer ), any Biologist will be able to tell you which is male and which is female.
And they classify them as such.

But again, that is not my argument, as I don't have a problem referring to people by their preferred pronoun. 
( I am a considerate person and tend not to cause undue stress to others )
I don't even mind if there are laws or other mechanisms/consequences preventing me from using certain words ( like the infamous 'n' word ) that may cause stress to others. That is understandable.

I do have a problem with laws/repercussions/consequences that force ( directly or indirectly, such as contempt of court ) to say what others want me to say.

And I note none of you seem to be rebutting that argument, or attempting to justifyenforcing specific speech or ideas.

[Peterkin]

4 minutes ago, koti said:

I apologise for my mistake, English is not my first language and in fact I am here in this thread mainly to keep and sharpen my English skills. Your insolence and ignorance is fascinating, keep it comming. 

There is a handy lookup function on my browser that allows me to bridge small rivulets of ignorance in particular subjects. I avail myself of this function from time to time, hoping that eventually my vast ignorance will diminish. The insolence, however, is intransigent.

[MigL]

So is the arrogance.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

I do have a problem with laws/repercussions/consequences that force ( directly or indirectly, such as contempt of court ) to say what others want me to say.

And I note none of you seem to be rebutting that argument

Because it’s not actually happening 

[Peterkin]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

I do have a problem with laws/repercussions/consequences that force ( directly or indirectly, such as contempt of court ) to say what others want me to say.

You mean, like, if you refuse to take the oath of office as written, you can't be inaugurated president? Or if you refuse to promise not to divulge company secrets, they won't hire you? Or if you can't be respectful to your student and fellow faculty members, your contract won't be renewed? I'm not terribly upset by those consequences.

[koti]

12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Maybe I was not quite clear. Recall that Arete established that rigid pigeon holes are rare (or perhaps non-existent) in biology. MigL seemed to object to that and implied that nature has in fact these. He then claimed that all biologists would classify species as male or female. It is not quite clear what he means, as obviously you cannot classify like that, but I assumed he meant that biologists would classify all members in a species rigidly as either male or female.

Strangely he also mentioned asexual reproduction (though worms are actually not a good example), where this does not make sense and I have added hermaphrodite species. These two examples already indicate that this categories (male vs female) are clearly not universal even if we just think roughly about certain species. 

I then added another example indicating that even in species where male and female distinction could work, if you look at, say an individual  clownfish and classify it as male, it is possible that some time later due to some influences that individual has then become female. In other words, even it looks rigid from a high (species) level, biology can break these categories we made. 

Going back to clownfishes, the gonads of functional males has both testicular as well as ovarian tissues. The latter is in immature state but can mature rather quickly to create functional ovaries (based on some neuronal pathways which are only partially explored IIRC).

So even if go down deeper into the tissue and cellular level, the distinction between male and female is quite fuzzy as the tissue can change from one to the other. Given all those biological mechanisms and fuzziness it simply does not make sense to even presume that these categories are universal. Rather, they apply within a certain context (and even then often with a given but hopefully acceptable error rate). 

CharonY, I respect your biology knowledge but you refuse to engage in whats discussed here by doing clownfish backflips. 

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

So is the arrogance.

Thank you for having my back but let it go MigL, I rather keep away from the venom. 

[MigL]

Of course you can refuse to do any of those things.
And you won't be called an ignorant bigot, or have some 'holier-than-thou' internet poster make fun of your spelling mistakes, question your intelligence/communication skills, and call that a valid rebuttal of your argument.

And no, I did not give you the demerit; I prefer to argue with ideas rather than demerit points.

[CharonY]

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

I think I was pretty clear in my statement, CharonY.
If you consider almost all species more complex/advanced than asexual worms ( or snails, if you prefer ), any Biologist will be able to tell you which is male and which is female.

Two things, first of all if you need to look at things on a case-by case level with a swath of organisms not falling into that category, we are clearly not talking about an universal categorization. As such already here your claim has to be qualified. I.e. we are now talking only about a subset of species rather than an universal concept, aren't we?

In fact sex determination is also not quite as straightforward. I am not a zoologist, but depending on species folks have established species specific determinants that help folks identify either sex. Yet there are cases where some of these attempt fail or have led to interesting observation. I already mentioned gender mimicry where a female looks pretty much exactly like a male. Even genetic markers are not universal as in the example of fishes (and other animals) who can change their sex. So if a classification can only applied to certain species and even then has additional qualifiers (i.e. the sex is only fixed for a specific time period) then it is hardly an universal concept now is it?

And this is exactly the point Arete has made, biological concepts only apply within certain limits and are simply not universal.

 

7 minutes ago, koti said:

CharonY, I respect your biology knowledge but you refuse to engage in whats discussed here by doing clownfish backflips. 

Thank you for confirming that I am wasting my time trying to engage with you.

[MigL]

6 minutes ago, koti said:

Thank you for having my back but let it go MigL, I rather keep away from the venom. 

Yeah.
Some people have all the 'tolerance' in the world, if you believe you are a 'Ze'.
Yet none whatsoever if you believe that person is not a 'Ze'.

Maybe Peterkin can inform me that I don't know what 'tolerance' of someone else's ideas means.

[koti]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Maybe Peterkin can inform me that I don't know what 'tolerance' of someone else's ideas means.

Don't do it man, it'll ruin your Friday.

[MigL]

22 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Yet there are cases where some of these attempt fail or have led to interesting observation.

Let us further examine these statements.

22 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I already mentioned gender mimicry where a female looks pretty much exactly like a male.

But they seem to know that IT IS a female that LOOKS like a male.

22 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Even genetic markers are not universal as in the example of fishes (and other animals) who can change their sex.

?Yet, oddly enough, they can tell that a change has happened, and can even identify the markers that allow for such a change.

So are you really going to tell me Biologists don't know whether a member of a higher order species is ( currently ) male or female ?

If we were having this discussion in a bar, with a couple of beers, you would be almost laughing when you made that argument, as you realized it would not be taken seriously.

But again, that is not what I have a problem with.
I will not be forced to say what someone else wants me to say.
( unless I want to become President, become a citizen, or take a certain job )

Edited November 5, 2021 by MigL

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

Let us further examine these statements.

But they seem to know that IT IS a female that LOOKS like a male.

?Yet, oddly enough, they can tell that a change has happened, and can even identify the markers that allow for such a change.

So are you really going to tell me Biologists don't know whether a member of a higher order species is ( currently ) male or female ?

If we were having this discussion in a bar, with a couple of beers, you would be almost laughing when you made that argument, as you realized it would not be taken seriously.

'Currently' is the operative word because if conditions change, they can be something else. What this shows is that gender can be dynamic, to adapt to vaying conditions.

[koti]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

...gender can be dynamic, to adapt to vaying conditions.

In spoilt university students or in clownfish? Or both?

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, koti said:

In spoilt university students or in clownfish? Or both?

In nature in general. Are humans unique?