In how far does gender change in your hypothetical metric with transition. If I take hormones for example, I would influence this metric.
Another confusing point would be how you try tracking gender, but having a gender identity value inside the metric. How would you even track this gender then?
Imagine confusing ronto and ronna and accidentally shifting a ronnameter instead :P
Ah OK, thanks for the context :)
Yes, I see your point and agree :)
Very interesting indeed! It’s fascinating how many adaptations there are that aren’t as obvious as anatomical ones.
Although I would take the validity of this excerpt with a grain of salt. The evolution of different kinds of fish is really messy (as they are a paraphyletic group anyways). I couldn’t find any info on how any fish or sharks evolved in freshwater conditions for example (just that their urea content is indeed higher). If you have any info on that, I would be glad to read it :)
The only interesting bit I did find was this pbs eons episode on how armored fish evolved to probably store minerals like calcium and potassium and how other vertebrates today use their endoskeleton to store those same minerals.
This data isn’t really worth much without any info on variation.
But really, the societal obsession with penis size is deeply unhealthy for everyone, but especially men. We should strive to value all bodies for their inherent beauty and stop comparing them. There isn’t any better or worse. Please stop reproducing those norms. Same goes for all other body related norms. They go hand in hand with sexism, racism, ableism, queerfobia and all kinds of discrimination and objectification.
No, as far as I understand it, it isn’t something we invented. It is rather a placeholder for observations we made. In many different contexts we observe something that is matter but that doesn’t seem to interact with anything else. We call this dark matter. And then there are theories of dark matter that try to explain the observations of dark matter. But dark matter is that what we observe, not a theory or invention.
Yeah, that keeps happening to me on a regular basis, too :(
Isn’t the question in itself wrong? “Are dark matter models unsuited to explain observations” suggests that dark matter is a model we invented to explain something else. But as I understand it, dark matter is the observation itself and we need to come up with an explanation for it. Cf. Angela Collier’s video on exactly this.
Yes, this is great, but queerness in videogames just feels rather limited and binary still. Verilybitchie made an in-depth video about it:
It is indeed reminiscent of all the western influencers being invited by armies, police forces or prison systems (especially in the US). They also get paid for portraying a highly idealized or fake image of these institutions. Albeit there is a difference in that these influencers know upfront what they are getting into. Wanting to vlog about e.g. harmless-looking Chinese lifestyle topics and it being made into propaganda is a bit more insidious.
My point is that it doesn’t know for the reasons you gave. It is just hallucinating. So I don’t think the answer is trustworthy. Of course, it seems like a reasonable answer, but how do you get to the conclusion that the answer is truthful? It could just be made up because that was what sounded the most likely to the AI.
No, one is an actual answer to a question and the other one is a hallucination without any inherent information to answer the question.
Well, but is this really a truthful answer by the AI or is it just predicting what some human would say?
The dog-poop collecting robot reminded me that in some countries people don’t go out with their dogs everyday. Somehow sad to know that there are millions of dogs just living at home with hardly anything to do :(
Thanks for the input. I’ve actually had debates like this before, too.
But fundamentally I still disagree with you and I don’t see the similarities as superficial. People have been treated by the Nazis like animals in this industrial killing process. And they’ve actually been “harvested”. Not sure in how much detail I should go, but at least in some extermination camps the Nazis collected various human Organs, like their hair, their skin, their nails and also all the possessions they’ve had.
Regarding your argument of animals as protein and generally placing them as an inferior other that has been historically treated as such, you seem to tap into some fallacies. It is never good to base an argument solely on traditional practices. Because then what else has been practiced for thousands of years? Abuse, wars, enslavement and a lot of other very horrendous stuff. Also, isn’t this the whole point of discussing how animals should be treated in the first place? That it is ethically wrong. And you seemingly draw a mental line that you don’t want to cross, so you refer to traditional practices. But this is exactly how many people justify sexism, racism to themselves. Women shouldn’t vote because they’re brain isn’t capable of it, or biological races exist and thus some people are inferior are similar to animals can’t comprehend what’s going on and it is therefore ethically acceptable to treat them badly.
I was confused at first, why you kept referring to how bad you think of killing animals. But apparently that’s were you’ve decided to draw the line for yourself. That what we do to animals is killing them and nothing else. I would argue, that the killing is actually a result of structural devaluation of animals that encompasses so much more than just the killing part. And now I could go into critique of capitalism and intersectionality. How people that are made to be powerless cogs in this system seek to have at least some power over others. And how this then breeds all kinds of discriminations, abuse, etc. Also against animals. Or how our understanding of the world is very much informed by false dualities that place woman against man, savage people against the civilized white man, inferior animal against superior human, nature vs culture. (Or have a look at Edward Said’s Orientalism, making a similar analysis for oriental against civilized west.) In short, all of this is about power. I would argue that exploitation of animals surely stems from a need for resources but that in our current world it is very much about power as well.
I also disagree that animals aren’t sapient. Like, how would you define sapience in the first place? Continued studies over the last decades have shown that animals are pretty much capable of everything we thought would be limited to humans. And we constantly keep searching for the next distinction how animals are fundamentally different from humans, and we keep failing! So no, I don’t see a fundamental difference in animals vs humans. Again, this is a false duality. We are animals!
Yes, I agree that this is important and should be standard behavior. I was criticizing you saying “there is only one way” and then only looking at the individual level. My point is that this isn’t sufficient, people have to consider and dismantle discrimination on a structural level or we won’t get rid of it. The article discusses discrimination on an individual and also structural level. You seemingly disagreed saying that the only way is to not treat people differently. Like I said, this won’t be sufficient and is only scratching the surface.
I took treating everyone as a normal human being as granted. This would concern the individual level only. My point was that just saying “I treat everyone equally” completely lacks any understanding of structural discrimination. Like I said, this is similar to the “I don’t see color” debate. Or this Pat Parker quote relates to this too, doesn’t it?
The first thing you do is to forget that I’m black. Second, you must never forget that I’m black.
- Do not compare the exploitation of animals to racism. Ever. I’m deadly serious.
Why not? Intersectionality has taught us how interconnected various forms of systemic oppression are. So why not compare (cis-)sexism, racism, antisemitism, ableism and speciesism? I get that racial slurs often work by comparing people to animals and/or by dehumanizing them for example. But isn’t this the point of it? That this only works because we have these interlocking systems of oppression in place?
Oof, that was a very brutal topic to read about, but very important. What monsters are those people that portray themselves as feminists and then go on and do such things. Gaiman is obviously the worst here, but Palmer seems to be also very problematic. And it goes to show that only because you were victim to abuse or are marginalized that it does not prevent you in any way to do the same thing to other people :(