It may seem surprising , but they have already been invented, are in production and brisk sales and I don’t know what their names are but sure that they are not named Ken and Bar by.
I hope here I’m not incriminating myself, but a friend told me about them.
I don’t think androids are going to become more common, in fact I think people are going to become less common, figurative, and literally, it’s going to get harder to find them.
But even if androids do become more common, just as we use the noun android, to mean manlike, we should invent new pronouns for them, like heish and sheish or hish and shish, for they’re male and femalelike, not literally male and female.
If anything we should make our pronouns more congruent with reality, not less.
Yea but they’re nothing like Data, they’re just slightly more sophisticated toys.
Exactly.
This isn’t a linguistic upgrade, it’s a downgrade by any measure.
The progressive definition of man and woman is both biologically, and socially meaningless and inferior to the scientific/conservative definition.
Now if they at least made it so you had to pass some neuropsychological evaluations to qualify as the opposite sex, or you were one of those elite trannies, sex reassignment surgery and cosmetic surgery or naturally feminine appearance and personality, the whole 9 yards, maybe then I could halfway see their point.
But no, It’s the same ole bald, beer belly Bob (ahem, Bernice) you always knew, likes to go fishing and play Call of Duty into the wee hours of the morning, except now he’s sporting eyeliner and a wig because his wife divorced and emasculated him and he’s having a midlife crisis.
It’s another one of his phases he’ll grow out of, but don’t tell him that.
Ditto for me. I don’t care if they identify as the queen of England, but don’t expect me to address you as her majesty every time you prance or waltz into the room, or you’ve got another thing coming.
Same here, I’m pretty live and let live, but progressives aren’t, it’s authoritarianism with a smiley face.
Human beings are not going to stop reproducing any time soon as global population is now at record levels and is continuing to rise - like it always has
There will almost certainly be an increase in human android sex in the future but that will be an alternative rather than a replacement for natural sex
No one is going to be worrying about correct pronoun usage when an android that is absolutely beautiful is giving them the best blow job they ever had
There will be campaigns for androids to be given the same legal status as humans and anyone not accepting this will be regarded as androphobic
Androids and humans will be treated as different but equal even though their processing and other capabilities will exceed that of humans
They will eventually surpass us in all areas and may even bring about our extinction when we become superfluous to their requirements
Our only hope is that they are programmed with sufficient empathy so that this will not happen - although it may in reality be inevitable
World population growth is rapidly decelerating and within the next century or two we’ll probably have world population decline, just like we have white and east Asian population decline.
Really the only continent that’s currently growing is Africa, which’s unfortunate because it’s a cesspit, some of them are already banging on our doors looking for stuff.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9ffYlipLH8[/youtube]
Humanity faces so many challenges I don’t know where to begin.
Look up mass coronal ejection for starters, that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
I don’t want to derail Carleas’ thread anymore than we already have, so that’s all I’ll say about that.
Really?
I’m still waiting for my flying car, ray gun and a cure for cancer.
No humanity is finished, you’ve been watching too much Star Trek and not enough Planet of the Apes, Soylent Green, Mad Max and Terminator.
Study history, all civilizations fall.
The Romans had technologies the Babylonians and Egyptians didn’t have.
They invented the book, newstablet, postal service and primitive computers for crunching numbers, distances and astronomy, that was their information revolution.
You can have my beyond meat burger, I’ll pass.
I would for reasons of practicality and respect address a tran by their name and gender and pronoun of choice
But I would still accept that they were not the ones they were assigned at birth and that their transition was therefore a less than natural one
But equally so it is not for me to pass judgement upon someone else for their life choices - especially ones that I myself have no experience in
We now openly accept black people as equal when once we kept them as slaves
We now openly accept gay people as equal when once homosexuality was classified as a mental illness
So hopefully the day will come when we openly accept trans people too and they are not exposed to similar prejudices
But it will take a while because as a percentage of the total population the actual number of trans is very small indeed
I should clarify that neither of these are part of my position here, and I apologize if I have not been clear. My claim is only that we should grant people their expressed social sex where only social sex is relevant, i.e. not necessarily in medical, athletic, romantic, etc. contexts in which biology becomes salient. This is not an all-or-nothing choice, we can grant e.g. a coworker in an office their expressed social sex, and still continue to debate how we should regulate sex divisions in sports. My position is not at odds with how surreptitious puts it (and which Gloominary also accepts “exactly”):
I blame this misunderstanding in part on something Mad Man points to:
I think this also speaks to common perception that most transsexuals are “delusional”. The basis for that perception seems to be the edge cases tand virtue signaling oneupmanship (and perverse media incentives to be salacious or inflammatory). My impression is that most trans people understand that they are bound to their physical bodies for life and can only modify them to a degree, and only make the more limited request that they be able to live socially as the sex that suits them in contexts where biology it isn’t relevant (and further understand that there are actually contexts in which biology is relevant).
I think this hypo also goes to my point about relevance. I would ask, why shouldn’t we treat people as geniuses to the extent intellect is irrelevant? That doesn’t mean giving them the privilege and deference that comes with intellect, e.g. we shouldn’t ask a moron to do our taxes or run our country (…), but in other contexts where intellect doesn’t come into play, why not? What would that even look like?
I think these claims overstate the science on these matters. The ‘real differences’ aren’t very well established, and we should expect any real differences that are established to be not hard lines, but distributions with some degree of overlap, i.e. whatever about a brain we end up calling “male” and “female”, there will be biological men whose brains are more female than some biological women, and likely who are close to the normal for biological women. That latter group may not be large, but then transsexuals make up less than .6% of the population, i.e. they’re plausibly more than three standard deviations from the norm.
I have never pointed to the female naming of boats. The distinction between Data and Siri, on the one hand, and the Titanic on the other, is that Data and Siri are quasi-social, they interact in human-like ways, and their social sexual assignment derives from the same social sexual attributes we use to assign sex to humans. To see this, we can turn on Siri’s ‘male’ voice, and we start thinking of and referring to him as a ‘he’, i.e. when we change the social sexual attribute to male presenting, we refer to him as male. That’s a significant difference from how we use female pronouns to refer to boats.
It also goes to the issue Mad Man takes with representation: While there is a representational aspect, we’re literally using the same social signaling cues to assign sex to Siri and Data as we use for humans. Not representationally similar, the very same. If Data wears lipstick, we see it as incongruous in the same way that we see it as incongruous for a typically male-presenting human to suddenly start wearing lipstick. If Siri says something only a man would typically say, it is incongruous in the same way that it would be for a human woman to say something only a man would typically say. And for the same reason: we’d be getting mixed signals of social sexual role.
I agree with this, and I think it’s a very hard question. Children don’t fully understand what men and women are, so their self reports about being in the wrong body are unreliable. Their social and personal identities are still inchoate, and they may experiment with identities to explore who they want to be. The medial interventions are often permanent, and can have harmful side effects (evidence suggests that puberty blocking, for example, causes significant and permanent cognitive impairment).
I think the right approach for children is to let them explore and to not treat it as a medical issue until they’re old enough to understand what they’re asking for. That does mean delaying transition until many sexual features are already in place, e.g. the larger body structure differences that accelerate during puberty, but it also avoids parents projecting onto them an identity more concrete than they could possibly have at that age. Jesse Singal has done good reporting exploring these issues; he’s has gotten a lot of criticism for it from trans activists with a particular worldview, but he’s mostly not taking a position with respect to worldview, but reporting on empirical results that should inform any coherent worldview.
I agree. This is part of why I think it must lead to greater gender equality: the signals become fuzzier, space is created for more diversity of sexual expression, and people are forced to deal with ambiguity. That leaves a space for people to express a wider variety of social sexual identities.
At the end of the day, I think the kids will have an easier time with this, because they will grow up in a world where it’s all normal, and they’ll be ‘native speakers’ of the new concepts that shake out. Older generations struggle because concepts that have already crystallized and which they already shaped their worldview to make sense of, are suddenly in flux, and the necessary rethinking gets harder with age.
Trans women have an unfair advantage over biological women because they have higher levels of testosterone
Biological men have an unfair advantage over trans men for the same reason
Trans athlethes should therefore only compete against each other in order to eradicate this double unfairness
Although at the moment there are not enough of them to justify this but hopefully there will be in the future
Is this significant? “Sex in fiction” versus “in fact”?
I’m sure you’re all familiar with the French language, and its prolific use of the masculine and feminine. Is a car really a female? Is a couch really male?
When you see someone, first impressions are next to unavoidable, and even if you’re able to defer judgment - prejudice is optimal via natural selection, particularly for potentially dangerous environments. Sex is a significant judgment to make, and it doesn’t require rational analysis to work out whether someone is sexually compatible or competition - there’s no need when it can all be done unconsciously. Perhaps sexual judgment has so much value, evolutionarily, that sexual prejudice even extends to syntax in cases like French - even if only by secondary association.
It seems to be the case that people assume as much relevant information about other people as possible, only to be changed in line with an authority accepted to be greater than first impressions, hierarchically.
For example, if you trust the person’s word, or a group of people’s words more than your first impressions, and they tell you the person in question is in fact not the sex you supposed then you might change your mind. Particularly when told by strangers, this usually isn’t the case, unless you’re a kid or otherwise recognise your lack of experience in the matter, because “you know what you see”. However, something like science might be respected more than visual appearances, so when science comes up with measurable concepts like chromosomes - that might convince you otherwise. But if something like “neuter” (an accepted gender in languages like Latin) is not part of the common lexicon, it’s not going to be taken into account when judging someone and the default is basically boolean: true or false - a black and white binary where “if not one, then necessarily the other”. And only once this default position is established in your mind first, can it then be adjusted in the way I just described, perhaps even moving past the binary, assuming there is the will to do so.
So sex is a communication first and foremost, and not just through superficial and circumstantial cultural associations like hair length, dress, make-up etc. - things like facial proportions, facial hair and body shape take precedence in your first impressions. You see any conflict between the above troubling people all the time, where people are immediately uncomfortable and comment or lash out in other ways with any degree of aggression/fear/amygdala response. Unfamiliarity and cognitive dissonance often manifest negatively when presented with a guy in a dress, or a woman with facial hair. Of course plenty of people can at least withhold such a reaction, and perhaps even unlearn any initial impulse if they ever had one at all.
When presented with Siri, Data, or Han Solo etc. they communicate something through their appearance that shifts this evolutionary prejudice into gear, and we arrive at our default asap, before any subsequent analysis can challenge us. We might then realise that they don’t actually sufficiently meet the criteria of our default assumption - and yet the default assumption remains as the fallback. The fact that it’s just a guess doesn’t stop this.
This precedes behaviours in the social sense of “gender”. It’s the reason that for all this affirmative action to both equalise the representation of “all genders” in all fields, and somehow to undermine the significance of gender at the same time (somewhat incompatible goals!), that we still get people who resist these well-intentioned movements. Sex being “either social or genetic” misses this more fundamental point, I think.
So he evaluation for me isn’t: is the whole mess better than none of this mess. But is it better than what the Left used to do?
I think it will actually make it less easy to be a more feminine man or one more accepting of a wider range of feelings. Then you aren’t really male. Or lesbians who are more butch. I don’t mean that people will attack them for identifying incorrectly as far as sex, though this is also possible, but that they will be being told, indirectly, but massively, that they may not be or are not, respectively, men or women.
Part of the message is that you can no longer identify. You have no grounds to. There are no differences. Another message is that men are women are X and Y, with clear distinctions. That creates a lot of unacceptance in the meme realm for all sorts of identification. You may be able to walk down the street, should the Left persuade everyone, looking born male but dressed as a woman and not get harrassed, while at the same time all sorts of people feel less acceptance for what seems like their own sense of themselves.
They shouldn’t have an easy time with a self-contraditory set of messages. I have quite a bit of contact with younger people on the Left and they seem extremely stressed, confused, angry and frightened. Of course this involves broader culture wars also, but the issues around sexuality and gender seem specfically making them uneasy, while they put on a confident front, attacking anything that is not Left PC in that area. I see this especially in white straight kids, though also in others. Let’s remember that the messages go for all people. You are being told that your are not different from anyone,and then also that your sex makes a difference. That’s not merely an acceptance of people who are on the sides of any bell curve or in categories that might once have been more judged. It’s a contradictory message that all children must integrate, use when introspecting, use to navigate the world, use when evaluating others. If there is self-contradiction in that, it will cause damage. I don’t think you actually can have an easier time with a selfcontradictory philosophy. You can however be a more certain advocate in weilding it in relation to others deemed immoral for not sharing it.
I worked at a very radical organization so I had contact with these ideas back in my late teenage through to about thirty in a subculture wehre what has now spread were the norms. There was strong acceptance of transpersons, and obviously gays, in that environment. Back then, however, in contrast, it was seen as a less common phenomenon - and this includes by the transpersons - and most I knew were dualists. Soul and body were out of sink. The mixed messages that concern me above were much less in play.
Older generations are reacting to messages that are simply wrong in some cases. And also to the contradiction. And of course prejudice is involved also.
Big government together with mainstream media have encouraged and legally sanctioned trannies to assault normies who don’t treat them as the sex they wish they were (their coveted sex).
They’re normalizing tranny on normie violence.
It’s not enough to accept, you must approve of an 8 year old obtaining breast implants and undergoing castration and steroid therapy or you are a bigot.
You must support it with your tax dollars.
You must believe children are born with gender confusion, even tho there’s scientific evidence to the contrary, and you must treat gender confusion as tho it was fixed, even tho many children and adults grow out of it.
With the exception of fringe Christians and conservatives, everyone already accepts trans, and many people approve, just as everyone already accepts lesbians, gays and bisexuals.
It’s progressives and the so called trans community (again, not all trans are on board with all this shit either, not all of them are shit disturbers in spite of big government and mainstream media encouraging them to be) who won’t accept our linguistic, parental, bathroom and sports norms.
They want to rewrite them overnight supposedly for the sake of less than 1% of the population and in spite of whatever the rest of the population thinks.
everyone who doesn’t accept, and approve of all this is a bigot in need of a re-education.
If they civilly and publicly voice their concerns on social media, they can be harassed, doxed, receive death threats and Mark Zuckerberg won’t lift a finger to protect them, in fact he’ll congratulate the trolls on a job well executed.
You can even be charged with hate crimes and placed on the gun and travel ban list.
And some day you’ll accept transageists, transracists and transspeciesists too.
And parents who genetically modify and splice their unborn children with animal and plant DNA, as well as the DNA from other races and the opposite sex.
Many of us will obtain cybernetic implants including an RFID chip.
This is the new world they’re rolling out for us.
Anybody not 100% on board with this new world is a conspiracy theorist, a luddite, a sexist, ageist, racist, speciesist and fear/hate monger, a rightwing extremist and possibly a fascist or neo-Nazi and terrorist.
We’re not being given a say in the new world, because the new world is both illiberal (in both the classical and democratic socialist sense, these people are not democratic socialists, they’re corporate fascists (if Mussolini was a national corporate fascist, these people are international corporate fascists) and undemocratic.
A world where the master caste of chimeric cyborgs rules over the slave caste of chimeric cyborgs.
Or where an AI rules over both. Or where an accident with gm or nanotech, oopses us all into an unlivable planet.
exactly, either (Ai) dystopia, or apocalypse.
I’m opting out as much as I can, and encourage everyone else to.
It’ll be hard to avoid their mistakes or goals, but I hear you. We are often told that technology has often been feared but we’re ok. But the problem is the technologies are global now, not local. And even Chernobyl was relatively local compared to the toys they are playing with now. I could throw in some of their other toys, but then I’d get labelled a conspiracy theoriest. But they’ve got a few global level, hey we don’t care about you, games going on.
That all seems irrelevant…
Let’s take “social intellect”… you ask why NOT treat morons as though they were geniuses… except when it’s consequential.
But ask yourself why do we even treat people who are geniuses different to begin with? why do we have words like “genius” or “idiot”?
Do we even treat people differently due to hair color? If so why or why not? Why do we call people redheads or blonds?
See, what I’m arguing is we treat people different because we believe who or what they are warrants a difference in treatment or description… whether our beliefs are correct or not is irrelevant.
And yes, part of that is very much an accommodation of the other person’s preferences… it always was.
The “gendering” of people, however, was never done as an “accommodation” of anyone’s preference, any more than smart, stupid, blond or redhead was… it’s always been descriptive.
We don’t call women, women because they like that sound or combination of letters better, but because we’re distinguishing them from men.
but then you ask, why do we call Data “he” or “him”?
When clearly, there’s no biological sex
When we say “he is a lion” while pointing to a man or “that’s new york” while pointing at a map we’re giving the same social cues that indicate species or geographic locations…
Yet no one, unless perhaps those who are autistic, would for a moment believe that’s what was meant…
The reason this shit isn’t confusing to most people is precisely because, in context, it’s fucking clear that we’re not being literal… everyone knows that a spot on the map is not ACTUALLY new york.
But when we address a woman as she or her, we’re communicating that “this is a human female”… the same way if we address a dog as she or her, implies it’s the female of the species.
It’s not meant to convey any social treatment, because we clearly treat female dogs different to female humans… we’re indicating the real thing and from that deriving the treatment we think fitting.
When we call a trans woman she or her… are we meant to be communicating “this is a human male, who would like to be addressed as a human female”? and if we are, are we even complying with that request?
The very request to be addressed AS THOUGH you are female is delusional… provided you’re not actually a female.
If you were comfortable with the subtext of “we all know you’re not a woman” then why is there a request to be addressed as one? Why does it matter?
You can be a fully grown, hairy, masculine looking man and behave as though you’re the most feminine of little girls, and if all you ask is that we leave you alone to do what makes you happy, I’m on your side. I don’t see why anyone should get in the way of you living your life in whatever way makes you happy… so long as you’re not hurting or preventing others from doing the same.
But the moment you request that the rest of us play pretend you actually ARE a little girl… even if only by calling you “little girl” that’s when we have a problem.
See, most of us don’t address people as “little girl”, “woman” “smart” or “blond” as though it were a title… it’s a description and your preferences are irrelevant to the accuracy of that description.
Yea, unfortunately we can’t avoid a lot of this stuff.
Testosterone levels, bone density, size, reaction time, hand-eye coordination… the list goes on.
That depends on what we make of the trans thing.
Our solutions and social responses to this issue hinge on what we believe…
If we see gender as a social thing and we grant trans women that they are to be treated as women…
Well then they are just genetically advantaged and we don’t normally vet out genetic advantages among women… so why start now?
What’s more following this hard division between “social” gender and “biological” gender to its logical conclusion, which Carleas has neglected to do, would lead us to two solutions:
Let’s say we’re not quite so “progressive” as to dispense with common sense, we still have to decide IF we classify being trans as a “life choice”
Because if we do then we’d have to conclude that trans people are not disadvantaged… they have merely elected to do things to their bodies that leave them less competitive.
In essence, no different to letting yourself go and growing fat…
If being trans OTOH is a medical or psychological condition, then they are in fact disadvantaged but not due to any social treatment.
We have handicap sports, I don’t see why we couldn’t also have trans sports…
It’s not healthy to reinforce people’s delusions.
If we call an idiot a genius, they’re going to apply for all sorts of jobs and try to solve all sorts of problems and fail miserably.
They’ll convince other idiots they’re geniuses and lead them into catastrophe.
It’ll take a lot of effort on our part to entertain their delusion, and we’ll just get sick of it.
eventually they’ll figure out they’re idiots anyway unless their idiocy is accompanied by pathologies like narcissism.
Likewise, if we call a transwoman (especially a masculine, but even a feminine one) a woman, we’re reinforcing their delusion that despite not being born with the right sex organs, they’re every bit as womanly as a woman, and they’re just going to be that much more disappointed when few, if any hetero men, or lesbians want to date them, or when not many hetero women want to be their friends, because they don’t really see them as one of the gals.
You can be bad at being a woman.
Women are suppose to be a certain way, empathetic and nurturing in some contexts, bitchy and catty in others, emotional, intuitive, vulnerable, good with language and expression, etcetera, and we treat them accordingly.
And it’s natural, normal, and healthy for them, and us to treat them that way.
It’s even natural and normal for us to treat masculine women that way to some extent.
And while there are feminine appearing and behaving transwomen, the overwhelming majority of women are better at being women than transwomen, and so transwomen are going to be that much more disappointed when they’re not treated the same way they see women treated.
Treating men that dress up like women, would feel unnatural and abnormal, and require effort on our part, which we don’t owe transwomen.
The world is never going to treat them the way they want to be treated, even if we all used the proper pronouns, we can’t help but treat them differently in all sorts of other ways.
The ones who can pass will have an easier time of it, but even they will not be treated exactly like women.
And many transwomen are miserable because of this, even the ones living in very progressive, politically correct parts of the world where almost everyone tries to go out of their way to accommodate them.
They know it and they hate it, which’s in part why so many of them either commit suicide, or transition back to being men, because they’re not really fooling anyone, including themselves.
It’s not just because they’ve being bullied, trans people who live in some of the most progressive cities in some of the most progressive nations in the world, like the Nordic Nations, still have an incredibly high suicide rate, even when compared with gays and lesbians living in conservative parts of the western world.
But who knows what other factors might be at play, perhaps there are accompanying pathologies presently unknown to psychologists, which may be unveiled in the coming decades.
We’re all a bit different and none of us can fully live up to the roles society expects from us, and/or we expect from ourselves.
My suggestion is rather than trying to live up to this ideal of womanhood, even many actual women have a difficult time fulfilling, that they truly, fully embrace who and what they are.
They’re men, but yes, not exactly normal, perhaps with many more feminine characteristics than the average man has.
Instead of mutilating their bodies in the pursuit of an impossible transformation, I say either embrace your natural androgyny, and/or cultivate your masculinity, perhaps you’ll feel more like a man if you do.
Femininity and masculinity aren’t just something we’re born with, they’re something we develop too.
We develop them by engaging in traditional masculine activities, which aren’t just social constructs, but societies attempt to strengthen, express and direct instincts, energies and abilities unique to men nature has endowed us with in healthy and fulfilling ways.
I know I have been accused of this elsewhere in the thread, but I would argue that this use of “gender” is equivocation. First, it’s significant that the sex division is not binary, and isn’t strongly tied to biological sex: you note neuter gender in some languages; other languages have grammatical gender that isn’t divided by male/female, but by animate/inanimate or common/neuter; nouns can be of multiple grammatical genders or genderless; the gender for words with the same meaning differs across languages; words for clearly biologically sexed things (e.g. “woman”) aren’t always grammatically gendered to align with their biologically sexed referent.
But I think the example I used above to WendyDarling makes clear the difference: Changing Siri’s voice changes her perceived gender. Siri is the kind of thing which takes its gender from the social cues it gives off. That’s not the case for cars and couches, which retain their grammatical gender through such changes. We aren’t merely assigning a grammatical gender to Siri, we’re assigning a social sex.
I don’t find anything in particular to disagree with in the latter half of your post, but I don’t see that it’s at odds with my argument here. I agree that people make automatic judgments about sex, but even those automatic judgments are partly socialized and amenable to modification. That takes time, and, as I note, is harder for older generations than for younger ones.
Karpel Tunnel, I would caution against treating “the Left” as monolithic. There are factions within what’s typically included in the Left that disagree about how we should handle transexuality and social sexual roles. If “the Left” as a whole contains conflict, we shouldn’t conclude from that that than any one ideology that might be placed on the political left is necessarily committed to all sides of such conflict, and if there is incoherence in the whole set of ideologies, that doesn’t mean that any particular ideology is incoherent.
We can play similar games on the Right, e.g. pointing out that both the strong social conformist anti-body-modification Right and the strong self-ownership individual rights Right are both traditionally considered on the ‘Right’, express beliefs that are incoherent when taken as a whole, but which may each be internally consistent.
I also think that the Left/Right spectrum is undergoing a realigment. There are far-right trans activists and far-left transphobes. I don’t think we have much to gain by trying to figure out if “the Right” or “the Left” makes more sense, they’re both moving targets that mean very different things to different people.
Similarly to the above, kids have always had self-contradictory messages, given that kids aren’t born leftist or rightist and they look to all of society to understand how things work, and they cobble together a worldview from the competing messages from all sides. Society has always contained contradictory multitudes, we shouldn’t worry that the issues modern society is grappling with also result in contradictory multitudes.
Why not attribute this to the “younger people” rather than to the “on the Left”? Childhood’s stressful, confusing, enraging and frightening. That’s nothing new.
You aren’t. When you caricature your opposition in the all-or-nothing way you have in this thread, you are opting all the way in.
The sane outcome will need to be nuanced, so in rejecting nuance, you reject the possibility of finding sanity.
Because it’s often consequential. You act as though your are accepting my caveat, but your argument relies on all the cases that such a caveat is intended to carve out.
That isn’t true. Siri and a woman on the phone are both taken to be women because they literally have the voice of biological women (Siri’s female voice being recorded from a biological women). What I mean when I say that they are literally the same social cue, I mean, down to every particular, what makes Siri’s female voice female is exactly what makes the modal biological woman’s female. We can analyse it in terms of pitch, or cadence, or whatever other specifiable property of speech that makes it male- or female-sounding, and we will find that Siri’s voice is female in literally those ways.
NY-the-City and NY-the-drawing-on-a-map don’t have a similar literal correspondence. You might say, they both have streets, but one’s streets are concrete and the other’s are lines on paper. You might say, they have the same shape, but one shape is of lines on a paper, and another isn’t even actually lines and only exists in theory. So too with “he is a lion”: nothing about him is literally a lion, we are comparing a person to some metaphorically lion-like traits that real lions don’t actually display (bravery, nobleness, awesome beard having, etc.).
Siri’s voice is not trying to deliver a representation of a female voice, it’s trying to deliver a literal female voice (to the extent that such a concept is meaningful).
I don’t think this is true, but even if it were true as a statement of intent, it’s just descriptively false that it doesn’t entail certain social treatment.
If what we mean in addressing a person as “she” or “her”, is “you have two x chromosomes and a vagina”, then it’s a literal mistake to call a biological man “she” or “her”. If instead what mean is that for social purposes that don’t concern chromosomes or genitals, we should treat that person as female to the extent we treat men and women differently in that context, and we should expect female-like behavior to the extent behavior in that context differs on the basis of social sexual roles, then it’s neither literally a mistake nor is it delusional – such a use of the female pronouns can correspond with a literal description of the world, and with some existing uses of female pronouns.