Male and Female Robots

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:58 am

Carleas wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:We are adding all sorts of meanings, still signaling wildly.

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.
1) gender equality is only one potential measure of a set of attitudes/policies. I think the set of problems being created in other areas may well outweigh this, especially when it has to do with children - who then become adults. I cannot see how a new, harder distinction between the sexes, couples with policies and attitudes that there is no difference benefits individuals more than when the Left primarily supported people in exhibiting qualities regardless of gender. Now they are pushing difference and no difference. The used to avoid the former, except to the extent that some feminist approaches put men in a negative category. That was one portion of the Left, while now the Left does this perhaps more generally, and has added in the implicit belief that if you feel like a woman inside, then you are not your male body. Thus males cannot have these feelings and attitudes.

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?

2) This is all in the context where the right is reacting differently. I think the right, which has gone quite some distance in accepting homosexuality, is now being pressed to accept something quite irrational without any acknowledgement by most of the Left. I think this endangers gender equality, homosexual rights and safety and even transperson safety, because the Right will see this as part of a slippery slope. Of course to some extent they have always done this, but now they are actually right. Children and people are being told biology has no meaning, by the same people who are saying that we must change the biology of people so they feel right. There is a denial of tendencies that are in fact the case. Men and women, both from natural and cultural differences do have different tendencies. This is being denied and then also weirdly confirmed but at the level of the soul. I don't think this package is going to benefit people, because of the likely backlashes, aside from the direct effects of its own self-contradictory ontologies.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3315
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Gloominary » Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:14 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:I would for reasons of practicality and respect address a tran by their name and gender and pronoun of choice

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.

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

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.

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

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.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:40 pm

Gloominary wrote: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.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3315
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Gloominary » Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:51 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Gloominary wrote: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.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:58 pm

Gloominary wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Gloominary wrote: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.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3315
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Mad Man P » Sun Jul 28, 2019 12:44 am

Carleas wrote: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.


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

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.


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?

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


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.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:00 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote: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.

Yea, unfortunately we can't avoid a lot of this stuff.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Mad Man P » Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:38 am

surreptitious75 wrote: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


Testosterone levels, bone density, size, reaction time, hand-eye coordination... the list goes on.

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


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:
1) We no longer have male or female sports... and we make it a free-for-all accepting that genetic advantages were always acceptable and part of the mix
2) We perform tests to determine people's various genetic advantages and create genetic divisions for somewhat similar people, completely independent of gender.

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...
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:48 am

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.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Carleas » Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:52 pm

Silhouette wrote: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?

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.

Silhouette wrote:So sex is a communication first and foremost

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.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:They shouldn't have an easy time with a self-contraditory set of messages.

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.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I have quite a bit of contact with younger people on the Left and they seem extremely stressed, confused, angry and frightened

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.

Gloominary wrote:I'm opting out as much as I can, and encourage everyone else to.

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.

Mad Man P wrote: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"?

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.

Mad Man P wrote: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...

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).

Mad Man P wrote:It's not meant to convey any social treatment

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.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6107
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Jul 29, 2019 6:58 pm

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.

It's not a social sex when it's based on the biological sex. The biological female voice is used in the case of Siri.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7693
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Carleas » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:29 pm

WendyDarling wrote:It's not a social sex when it's based on the biological sex.

It is when it's not backed up by actual female biology.

To see this, imagine a technology where, as part of a sex reassignment, biological men could get a voice implant that generates female speech in the same way Siri does. Now are you OK calling them female? After all, they aren't merely socially female when their voice is "based on the biological sex", just like Siri...

I suspect you don't find that compelling, but I think there is some tension between your positions.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6107
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:13 pm

Carleas wrote:

Karpel Tunnel, I would caution against treating "the Left" as monolithic.
Sure, I am oversimplifying. But earlier, in a general way, in the Left, message was more unified and less contradictory. And that's just on the Left. Of course there were contradictions, but in general there was a core message that was not. Now there are much stronger contradictions in the Left.

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.
Where I disagree with this, is that the same factions in the Left are self-contradicting. And they get a lot of air time and they are making polices in schools, governments, businesses.

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.
But, then, so what. If my point was that the Right is better because the Left is self-contradictory, then fine. My point is that the Left has gotten more self-contradictory. Which means that if a child is primarily in that subculture there is a new problem. And since the Left is running with this new PC with incredible effectiveness, I think it is a big problem.

The Right has it's own messes.

It's a bit like when I used to criticize either the US or the USSR back in the Cold War. I would get the response that I sounded like a fascist or a communist, or a Reaganite or some radical anarchist. And the people would then tell me how bad the USSR was or the US was. As if this negated the problems of the other. As if, say, US foreign policy became better because Russia did X in Hungary or against its own citizens. Or as if, say, Russia was not so bad because of what the US was doing in South America. A process often mirrored, it seems to me with Democrats and REpublicans. In any case it was often quite funny to find the labels I got one hour to the next.

Pick a team, defend it, attack the other team. If you attack Team A, then you are on Team B.

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.
I think it is meaningful to generalize. I don't think its all up in the air as the above would imply. Sure, of course there are exceptions, but there are trackable trends.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:They shouldn't have an easy time with a self-contraditory set of messages.

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.
I worry when I see young Leftists spout things that make no sense in relation to other things they say. I don't remember that. Of course there is always naivte, but I can't remember kids being bombarded by Leftists with ideas about their sexuality and gender in such a messy way. And kids tend to get swept up on one side of the spectrum. Which means they had a better chance of having some consistant view, at least about themselves. Sure, the advertising industry got in there and films. But I saw a base. Today I see a desperate rage and fear defending opposites.

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.
It seems like you are saying that it cannot be different now, because the patterns were present before. Now, of course, I could be estimating incorrectly, but you seem to be ruling it out per se. I don't see why. Is it impossible that the messages young people are getting aimed at them by the Left are more contradictory today and this is adding more stress? Is it possible that the ideas about women and men being pushed are adding more stress than when the Lefts main position was more like let's not limit a girl or a boy based on traditional ideas about their strengths and weaknesses, interests and temperments`?

I don't think that is impossible. In fact it seems likely to me. It seems experimental to allow teenagers and younger to block the natural development of their bodies before they really know themselves at all. And since we both seem to think that teenagers are with some regularity confused, why other than profits for some, allow them to block the hormones in their bodies at such early ages, especially given the Left's contradictory ideas about 'women's feelings' and 'men's feelings'
I think that changes in the messages can move in positive more easily integratible directions and also in a negative direction. I also obviously think it has gotten worse. Unfortunately this experiment with changing the physical development of children's bodies and indoctrinating them even within one major political block with contradictory ideas about gender and biological sex, is likely going to take decades to sort out. Adn there is very little scientific evidence to support the values of the physical treatments they now use with increasing regularity on children. If this is pointed out, part of your response is: well, teenagers have always been confused. I don't think that holds. And the very least some kind of precautionary principle seems the minimum critical response.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3315
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:09 pm

Carleas wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:It's not a social sex when it's based on the biological sex.

It is when it's not backed up by actual female biology.

To see this, imagine a technology where, as part of a sex reassignment, biological men could get a voice implant that generates female speech in the same way Siri does. Now are you OK calling them female? After all, they aren't merely socially female when their voice is "based on the biological sex", just like Siri...

I suspect you don't find that compelling, but I think there is some tension between your positions.

You already addressed the men as biological men which is at core the issue. They will always remain biological men and off of that we make our assessments in how to address them. Machines do not start out as biological men who are trying to socially qualify as women which is a point I made earlier about addressing a machine with a female voice as a male, that type of notion about social sex doesn't align with reality. What you are suggesting we do doesn't align with reality either.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7693
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Gloominary » Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:37 am

My position: while transwomen are predominantly men and should be addressed and conceptualized as such, some of them are neuropsychological and to a lesser extent physiological androgynes (and both neuropsychology and physiology are socially meaningful) likewise with transmen).
They should embrace their masculinity, and femininity, perhaps cultivate them both, instead of denying, downplaying or repressing a side of themselves as the far right and far left would have them do, or attempting to obliterate their masculinity via dangerous sex reassignment steroids and surgery, just as psychologists encourage people suffering from body integrity identity disorder to refrain from amputating their limbs, to work on integrating that part of themselves which feels alien.

But the far left would much rather have specimens on which to radically experiment. Notice how the left pays very little attention to other forms of gender non-conformance. It's like they want us to believe the only people who're gender nonconforming want to mutilate themselves, even if that's not their intent it's likely very damaging.

The far right arguably doesn't have any power anymore when it comes to identity politics, it's been on the defensive for some time, I mean when's the last time you heard a rightwing politician or mainline talking head say transwomen should stop cross dressing because God forbids it or it's disgusting, outrageous and perverse?

While not everyone on the left has an agenda/is incapable of having a fair and balanced conversation about this and related issues, I believe the progressive elite do, for reasons already given and more.
We're not just dealing with competing visions of how to make society fairer and freer, we're dealing with an elite that's not only hostile to the people, but to life itself as we know it.
They will corrupt, manipulate and radicalize both aspects of the left, and right in pursuit of total dominance of every person, every life form, every cell on this planet.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Mad Man P » Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:03 am

Carleas wrote: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.


That is true more generally if we were to say it's a human voice... so ought we say Siri is human?
Being female and having a female voice are two different things... being human and having a human voice are two different things.
Having the courage of a lion and being a lion are two different things...

Carleas, this is common sense stuff and a tremendous red herring...

NY-the-City and NY-the-drawing-on-a-map don't have a similar literal correspondence.


They do, they share some pattern... otherwise we couldn't recognise it on the map or we would say the map is inaccurate.

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".


What we mean is "you are the female of the species" in as accurate a way as we can discern that, which may or may not include genetics.

If instead what mean is...


Yes if we INSTEAD mean something else... it would have other implications.
I can say "Carleas is from jupiter" without it being delusional IF we redefine the meaning...

But this redefining of gender as separate from biological sex is an ad-hoc invention because we don't like the thought of participating in the establishing of a delusion.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Gloominary » Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:35 am

If you called Siri an it instead of a she, you wouldn't be in error, and sometimes we do, and no one objects.
Its femininity is artificial, figurative, metaphorical, semblative, not literal.
Last edited by Gloominary on Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Gloominary » Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:53 am

If a man is a woman in circumstances where he can pass for a woman, is a sociopath an empath in circumstances where he can pass for an empath?
Do we refer to and treat the sociopath as an empath in those circumstances?

Is a child an adult in circumstances he can pass for an adult?
Do we refer to and treat the child as an adult in those circumstances?

Would that not be deceptive, dangerous and cognitively dissonant to do so?

I'm arguing for continuity of identity as opposed to the fragmentation of it.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:16 am

Gloominary wrote:Is a child an adult in circumstances he can pass for an adult?
Do we refer to and treat the child as an adult in those circumstances?
I don't think that's the best analogy. Because many do treat kids as adults if they show the right behavior, maturity, caution, knowledge or whatever the criteria are. It is harder for the law to do this, though it does do this, heck even the courts decide to try people as adults and decide that some adults really can't be considered adults.


I share much of your concners in this through, though I do think there is a very small minority of people whose brains or souls, really make it so they thrive better living as the opposite sex. But I think these are few and far between.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3315
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Carleas » Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:38 pm

Karpel Tunnel, Gloominary, I'm not interested in engaging farther on left vs. right, at least in this thread. I apologize for engaging as much as I have, it was a distraction from my argument here.

WendyDarling wrote:They will always remain biological men and off of that we make our assessments in how to address them.

What if we take a Ship-of-Theseus style hypothetical, where attributes of biological sex are swapped one at a time, and at the other end the person has 100% of the attributes of the other sex. Do we agree that 100% of the attributes of the other sex makes them the other sex?

Assuming that's so (because I don't know what one would appeal to to deny it), there must be either some sufficient attributes or some sufficient proportion of attributes. You seem to want to say that something like chromosomes are that attribute: if a person has XX chromosomes, they are a woman. Is that right? All other attributes swapped surgically, someone born a man has a functioning womb installed but retain XY chromosomes, he's a man?

This goes to a point Mad Man makes:
Mad Man P wrote:Yes if we INSTEAD mean something else... it would have other implications.

Most uses of "man" and "woman" aren't statements about chromosomes. They aren't statements about genitals. They aren't statements about sexuality or reproductive usefulness or about anything biological. It's not redefining anything to say that I have no idea what virtually all the men and women in my life have going on in their pants, and that that information isn't relevant to whether I consider them a man or a woman.

As actually used, in practice, statements about sex aren't statements of genetics or genitals. To insist that that's so is to deny reality.

So, yes, it matters "what we mean". And when we use sex to refer to Siri, we aren't talking about genetics or genitals either. Really, it doesn't matter if it's representational or whatever, it conveys a social meaning about Siri to call her male or female.

Take the NY map example from the other direction: it's meaningful to say that the map is NY, right? We know how to misinterpret that to make the statement false, and we know how to interpret it to make it true. Can the same be done with woman? We can do it with Siri. Is there no way to interpret "She is a woman" in a way that makes it true as applied to Caitlyn Jenner?

We're fine with "He is a lion".
We're fine with "Siri is female".
We're putting our foot down with "Caitlyn Jenner is a woman"? Something else is going on.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6107
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Gloominary » Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:38 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Gloominary wrote:Is a child an adult in circumstances he can pass for an adult?
Do we refer to and treat the child as an adult in those circumstances?
I don't think that's the best analogy. Because many do treat kids as adults if they show the right behavior, maturity, caution, knowledge or whatever the criteria are. It is harder for the law to do this, though it does do this, heck even the courts decide to try people as adults and decide that some adults really can't be considered adults.


I share much of your concners in this through, though I do think there is a very small minority of people whose brains or souls, really make it so they thrive better living as the opposite sex. But I think these are few and far between.

Sure, we might treat a more mature kid a bit more like an adult but not as an adult by say like letting them drink and drive.

And if we were out at say a dinner party, and we refer to and treat an adolescent there exactly like an adult, when we know they're not an adult, because they can pass as an adult, people who don't know the adolescent so well, might get the wrong idea, and pursue an unhealthy relationship with the adolescent.
Last edited by Gloominary on Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby WendyDarling » Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:02 pm

Carleas wrote
Take the NY map example from the other direction: it's meaningful to say that the map is NY, right? We know how to misinterpret that to make the statement false, and we know how to interpret it to make it true. Can the same be done with woman? We can do it with Siri. Is there no way to interpret "She is a woman" in a way that makes it true as applied to Caitlyn Jenner?


You are not saying NY equals NY, you are saying Boston equals NY. If Siri has a male voice, should we call her female?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7693
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Carleas » Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:09 pm

WendyDarling wrote:You are not saying NY equals NY, you are saying Boston equals NY.

I mean, we're also talking about calling some human a lion.

WendyDarling wrote:If Siri has a male voice, should we call her female?

No. Do you think we should? How does this support your position?
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6107
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby WendyDarling » Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:26 pm

Carleas wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:You are not saying NY equals NY, you are saying Boston equals NY.

I mean, we're also talking about calling some human a lion.

WendyDarling wrote:If Siri has a male voice, should we call her female?

No. Do you think we should? How does this support your position?

Yet calling some human a lion wouldn't be describing zebra like qualities. Transwomen have men's voices, yet you say not to call them female.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7693
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Male and Female Robots

Postby Carleas » Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:59 pm

Humans have human-like voices, not lion-like voices. It seems like to call a human a lion, you're asking for a single metaphorically-plausible lion-like attribute, and to call a man a woman you need 100% of all attributes to be literally biologically female.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6107
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users