Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Never (Score 1) 401

MRI's can determine sex.

I've heard many different types of criteria for sex, but I've never seen that used as one. To my knowledge what's between your legs when you're born is often used, but failing that what chromosomes you have unless you are intersex. Have you seen cultures where brain scans are used as the primary criteria as to whether someone is male or female? I think even oestrogen/testosterone levels would be more commonly used than that as criteria.

Gender is something society constructs and assigns. However when sex and gender is misaligned this can cause severe stress for people, so they ought to be free to express a gender that matches their sex.

If gender is entirely socially constructed, and has nothing to do with sex, how is there any "misalignment" since after all, "gender" can mean anything, and has nothing to do with sex by your own admission.

Either gender identity is based on sex, which is biological, or it is completely a social construct, in which case it has nothing to do with sex and nothing to do with mri's or any other physical trait.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Of note there is a significant difference between having "gender norms" culturally vs presenting some kind of "I'm male" (even when they are female) case. One is cultural norms to do with a sex, the other is just hogswash (The "I innately feel like x which I'm not" style argument).

But the long and short of it, identity politics is pretty horrible stuff.

Comment Re:Never (Score 1) 401

Why ? Why do you have this desperate need to classify other people ? Humans really are not classifiable. The only USEFUL classification you can ever give to anybody else is "a member of my species" - everything else is the first step to a deathcamp.

The ability to tell the difference between things is quite useful. If you are advocating the complete removal of telling people apart from each other that has serious consequences.

The ability to tell the difference between people with diabetes is a useful categorization that will affect the treatment of people...

Same with cancer.

categorization is not of itself bad in any way. It is simply there to convey properties of a group.

If the ability to discern the differences between people is so concerning for you, perhaps you should endeavour to get the government to outlaw giving people names or unique identifiers of any kind. I wish you luck with that.

Comment Re:Never (Score 1) 401

?>Behavioural norms for sexes exist and have existed for a long time,

So what ? At best that's an appeal to tradition fallacy. Fallacies do not convince me of anything.

I think you missed the point, _you_ were talking about the history of behavioural norms for the sexes, and referring to them as gender identities.

I was not saying whether they were right or wrong, only pointing out that what you were referring to as "gender" was really "societal behaviour norm for a sex"

Comment Re:Never (Score 1) 401

Again, a false analogy. Transgenderism is not an illusion that is contradicted by visible physical evidence. You can't SEE they are wrong with your eyes. Only an MRI can see if they are right or not. The trouble for you is that the MRI's are agreeing with them.

If gender itself means absolutely nothing, then those MRI's are completely irrelevant aren't they?

If the point is about biological sex and at what point stereotypical features determine the line between male and female that's a discussion that can be had. But you are on the one hand saying gender means nothing, and on the other that MRI's can determine the properties of this "nothing".

Again, a false analogy. Transgenderism is not an illusion that is contradicted by visible physical evidence. You can't SEE they are wrong with your eyes. Only an MRI can see if they are right or not. The trouble for you is that the MRI's are agreeing with them.

Many people justifiably assume that the word ‘transgender’ is synonymous with ‘transsexual’, and means something like: having dysphoria and distress about your sexed body, and having a desire to alter that body to make it more closely resemble the body of the opposite sex. But according to the current terminology of gender identity politics, being transgender has nothing to do with a desire to change your sexed body. What it means to be transgender is that your innate gender identity does not match the gender you were assigned at birth. This might be the case even if you are perfectly happy and content in the body you possess. You are transgender simply if you identify as one gender, but socially have been perceived as another.

It is a key tenet of the doctrine that the vast majority of people can be described as ‘cisgender’, which means that our innate gender identity matches the one we were assigned at birth. But as we have seen, if gender identity is a spectrum, then we are all non-binary, because none of us inhabits the points represented by the ends of that spectrum. Every single one of us will exist at some unique point along that spectrum, determined by the individual and idiosyncratic nature of our own particular identity, and our own subjective experience of gender. Given that, it’s not clear how anybody ever could be cisgender. None of us was assigned our correct gender identity at birth, for how could we possibly have been? At the moment of my birth, how could anyone have known that I would later go on to discover that my gender identity is ‘frostgender’, a gender which is apparently ‘very cold and snowy’

Once we recognise that the number of gender identities is potentially infinite, we are forced to concede that nobody is deep down cisgender, because nobody is assigned the correct gender identity at birth. In fact, none of us was assigned a gender identity at birth at all. We were placed into one of two sex classes on the basis of our potential reproductive function, determined by our external genitals. We were then raised in accordance with the socially prescribed gender norms for people of that sex. This is done long before we are able to express our beliefs about our innate gender identity, or to determine for ourselves the precise point at which we fall on some form of "gender continuum".

So defining transgender people as those who at birth were not assigned the correct place on the gender spectrum has the implication that every single one of us is transgender; there are no cisgender people.

The logical conclusion of all this is: if gender is a spectrum, not a binary, then everyone is trans. Or alternatively, there are no trans people. Either way, this a profoundly unsatisfactory conclusion.

The way to avoid this conclusion is to realise that gender is not a spectrum. It’s not a spectrum, because it’s not an innate, internal essence or property. Gender is not a fact about persons that we must take as fixed and essential, and then build our social institutions around that fact.

You do not need to have a deep, internal, essential experience of gender to be free to dress how you like, behave how you like, work how you like, love who you like. You do not need to show that your personality is feminine for it to be acceptable for you to enjoy cosmetics, cookery and crafting. You do not need to be genderqueer to queer gender. The solution to an oppressive system that puts people into pink and blue boxes is not to create more and more boxes that are any colour but blue or pink. The solution is to tear down the boxes altogether.

The core of the problem, is peoples ideas about gender identity itself.

It is that idea of gender identity as an innate part of themselves, that is limiting peoples freedom to do as they wish.

Why not set people free from those chains? let people be people, have that not be a reflection of their sex.

Comment Re:Never (Score 1) 401

Gender has no physical existence or meaning. It's a societal construct, a purely artificial idea.

Why were the words "male" and "female" used to describe these constructs then? Surely if a _new_ concept was made, _new_ words could be used for it and this whole crapshoot could be bypassed.

I think confusion and hatred were the goal of using that terminology.

So is the idea of pulsars,

You see how a different word is used for a different concept and different categorization/description?

New ideas arrive and displace old ideas because they have stronger evidence.

When the "new ideas" are by admitted by themselves as entirely socially constructed and don't necessarily have any bearing on reality, how can they ever be shown to be false if they are? without the ability to falsify a conjecture evidence is impossible (evidence are simply tests that could falsify a conjecture and have been done but have not, we prefer the conjectures that have had the most tests done of the most types but has yet to be shown to be false)

Well firstly - even if there was a "my gender is pizza" person- what exactly makes them wrong ?

This is the problem, the concept of what is being spoken about is so vague, so devoid of meaning that it can mean whatever people want.

The use of male and female in such a way strips the words of conveying any actual meaning, and language is all the poorer for it. When people want to talk about things to do with aspects of males and females there is a whole boatload of unnecessary confusion which has been created.

If the point of language is to convey meaning, things that reduce languages expressive ability work against it.

People can be however they want to be, but people should be able to call a spade a spade without offensive intent being assumed.

What about freedom of thought ?

People are free to think whatever they like, such as 2+2=58, but I am also free to point out to them that that is not the case. Freedom works both ways.

It's like people claiming the earth is only a few thousand years old, they are free to think that, I am free to think them silly and point out that current evidence is not in their favour and their preferred theory has epistemological issues.

It's like otherkin and wolfkin, people who honestly believe they are an animal in a humans body, they are free to think that, and I am free to point out to them that they are in fact human and that no evidence could ever be presented of a supernatural world because the claims aren't falsifiable.

Anyway, a more accurate analogy would be to say that intersex people are like red/green colourblind people. They may wear a red shirt and green pants together and believe they are wearing matching clothes. Just because red and green looks different to you - does it make them worthy of discrimination that it looks the same to them ?

Well for starters discrimination is simply the ability to discern the differences between things, if a person can tell the differences between things they are already discriminating.

There is a difference between discrimination and unfair treatment based on discriminating against someone on something based on irrelevant criteria.

People should be able to tell different things apart without it being assumed something nasty is being said. People should be able to tell a dolphin and a fish apart without having people say "dolphins are big enough and live in the sea, they should be called a fish"

There are standards, they may change, but I think it best for words to be at least capable of having descriptive power. Having something mean anything someone wants (the concept of gender identity) causes problems when people try to wield that as a weapon against people.

It all comes back to, if someone honestly thinks themselves a wolf in a humans body, they are more than welcome to continue to believe that, and I am more than welcome to still consider them potentially mentally ill and either keep my distance from them or try to figure out how/why they came to believe such a ridiculous thing.

We dress boys in blue and girls in pink, our great grandparents did it the other way around. Both groups believed they were dressing babies appropriately for their gender.

Appropriately for their "sex" not gender, how does a baby know if it identifies as a pizza yet?

Behavioural norms for sexes exist and have existed for a long time, they change over time too. I'd rather people go "oh, your boy looks good in pink" and be accepting of behaviours than start trying to claim the baby is now a different sex because of the clothes they are wearing.

Because gender is such a fungible concept to begin with society literally reversed it's idea of what colour goes with what gender in a mere 100 years and at all times during it most of them were fundamentalistically believing that they were preserving the correct social order !

"gender identity" as an abstract thing that can be anything at all has no meaning and can be whatever you want it to be, as you have been trying to say yourself for a fair bit. Society has had different expectations of the dress of the _sexes_ and that has changed significantly over the last 100 years, yes indeed.

Comment Re:Never (Score 1) 401

This is not a common human trait, abnormalities and mutations exist, as is to be expected.

I'd consider the more extreme biological abnormalities as neither male or female but "other" biologically. They are different, neither male or female in the typical sense.

But biology aren't what people are fighting here, people tend to accept biology a lot more than they do "my gender is pizza because I like it".

An interesting read on some issues with the concept of "gender". Sometimes I think people just don't think things through.

Comment Re:Never (Score 1) 401

The idea that being male or female has anything to do with anything other than sex is an invention of the 60's.

It pushes certain things as associated with males and females that aren't necessarily the case. If you support people being able to be people you should support the reduction/cessation for male/female for use for anything other than what it is actually talking about, the biological sex.

2) Humans come in at at least 12 sexes - these includes visible hermaphrodites (of several kinds) but the vast majority of whom are utterly indistinguishable from "male" or "female" because none of the differences are external. Sex is determined by chromosomes. XX is female, XY is male. But those are not the only ones out there. XXY is extremely common - and physically indistinguishable from female - but tend to have higher average testosterone levels - several olympic gold medalists have been XXY and the olympic committee banned XXY women from competing until the 1990s unless they also suffered from another condition that prevented the absorbtion of testosterone (see now there is yet another mechanism - even if you have male or female hormons of the right amounts many people are born unable to absorb those hormones properly).

I am very aware of those types, and would consider them "genetic abnormalities" rather than the norm, nobody said there can't be "male, female, other" when speaking entirely on biology

The idiocy we want to stop is "my gender is pizza", "I am a man because I like beer" and things of that nature, basically the entire idea of gender.

Some interesting reading. I don't think this whole "lets call gender anything we want" business was entirely thought through. It seems quite lazy and makeshift, being whatever people want while condemning those who refuse to "see the light".

Comment Re:Never (Score 1) 401

Because it's what's between the ears that counts.

If it's what's between the ears that counts, there is no and can be no argument for any kind of sex reassignment surgery, because what is between their legs does not count at all.

It's your brain that's acting, and it is influenced by the structure of the brain. (How it) function(s) follows form.

Yes, and people are allowed to have different brain structures, a male having a stereotypically female structure does not make them any less a male. Likewise with female but with stereotypically male structure.

Quite often females in engineering pursuits can have stereotypical male traits such as better spatial awareness and poorer emotional awareness, but that does not make them any less female.

It seems odd to me that on the one hand those on the left-wing can often demonize sex stereotypes but on the other use those stereotypes prescriptively as "you aren't an x unless you conform to these behaviours that I've decided this physical sex must have".

Comment Re:It's not an entirely broken thought process (Score 1) 301

Used to be that once married a woman was pretty much your servant, legally required to have sex with you as often as you reasonably desired, cook and clean, give you children and raise them etc.

This is a bit of a simplification.

Here is some interesting reading from around 1907.

Some excerpts

Let us first take our existing marriage laws. We shall find that in England whilst the woman is practically relieved of all responsibility for the maintenance of her husband, he can be compelled by poor law to maintain her under a penalty of three months’ hard labour for leaving her without provision, should she choose to apply to the parish. On anything that by latitude of interpretation can be deemed ill-usage or neglect, she can, if rich, obtain judicial separation with alimony from the divorce court, or, if poor, a magisterial order for separation with weekly maintenance from the police court. Jackson versus Jackson has decided that a wife can leave her husband at will, that he cannot raise a finger to compel her to remain with him or to come back, neither can she be imprisoned for contempt of court for refusing to obey an order for restitution of conjugal rights; in other words, it is decided that the contract of marriage is the single case of a contract which one of the contracting parties is at liberty to break without reason given, and without compensating the other party. But it is well to remember that it is only one of the parties that has this liberty, for Bunhill versus Bunhill gives the wife the right to follow an absconding husband and break into his house, if necessary, for the purpose of compelling cohabitation. He, on his part, is precluded by the decision in Weldon versus Weldon from obtaining restitution of conjugal rights even by way of action; he is liable, however, for his wife’s postnuptial torts, so that she has only to slander or libel some person without his knowledge or consent, and whilst she comes off scot free, even though possessed of property, the husband can be cast in damages. Trespass to land, trespass to goods, injuries done through negligence, all these actions coming under the legal definition of “torts,” render the husband liable, no matter what private wealth the wife may possess.

Turning now from the civil law to the criminal law, we find a similar – or even greater – disparity of treatment. From the beginning of the nineteenth century, of course, whilst flogging, the tread-mill, and other brutal forms of punishment have been retained for male offenders, they have been abolished for females, so that though a man may be subjected to torture and degradation for mere breaches of prison discipline, a woman is exempted from them for the most heinous crimes. As happened a few years ago in Ireland, a woman may torture her children to death and there is no outcry for the lash, yet surely if you do not flog the female child-torturer you have no right to flog any other human being. The sex-favouritism of modern penal law is made more conspicuous by the ever-recurring howl of the “base, bloody, and brutal” grand juror for the lash to be applied to new classes of offences (for men of course). But the most atrocious instances of sex-privilege occur in connection with the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885. Whilst the abduction of a girl under eighteen, or the seduction of one under sixteen, involves the man concerned in serious penalties, the girl or the woman gets off scot free, and this even though she may have been the inciting party. This is carried to the extent that a young boy of fourteen may be himself induced to commit a sexual offence by a girl just under sixteen – that is to say, nearly two years his senior – and he can be sentenced to imprisonment, followed by several years in a reformatory, whilst the law holds the inciting girl absolutely guiltless. The villainy of such an enactment is unparalleled, more particularly when one considers that a girl approaching sixteen is often practically a woman, whilst a boy of fourteen is seldom more than a child.

It can hardly have failed to be observed by everyone, how vast a difference exists between the energy with which any injustice to men is protested against as compared with a corresponding injustice to women, and a still greater difference in the results of the protest. Injustice towards men is perhaps protested against but in nine cases out of ten the protest is tame and remains barren, but a protest against any assumed harshness in the case of women, however trifling, is invariably and immediately effective. Again, a wrong which touches both sexes, let us say, is protested against. It is remedied as far as women are concerned and the protest dies out, even though men may suffer more than before from it. As an instance of this, take the outcry anent the flogging of women in Russia, and the protect raised by a meeting in Hyde Park, not against the general ill-treatment of Russian political prisoners, not against flogging, altogether, but a protest embodied in a resolution taking women out of the category of common humanity, and exclusively denouncing cruelties exercised towards female prisoners, thereby implicitly countenancing such cruelties when perpetrated on men. The “advanced” women present on the occasion referred to, to their shame be it said, did not insist on making the resolution apply to both sexes. And these are the persons who are so eloquent on the subject of “equality.” Again, take Mr. Labouchere. Mr. Labouchere made it his business in Truth to hunt up every obscure case of girl-flogging in the country, and to trumpet it forth in his journal as though it were a crime compared to which common murder were a venial affair. But now, had Mr. Labouchere one word for the brutal floggings of boys, not by private individuals, but in national institutions, such as reformatories and training ships? Not one. What he expressly denounced was not flogging, but girl-flogging.

Painting women as the oppressed class, even while men have had far more harsh treatment, is a time-old tradition. I don't think it will end any time soon as both men and women tend to be biased in favour of women in social situations.

Comment Re:Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment (Score 1) 160

Well for starters I'm always on full-frame, so your 35 is basically my 50 and your 50 is basically my 85

It does depend greatly on the lighting setup of the venue, but while a poor lighting setup can be made better with external lights anything where it's workable it will kill it.

I do consider the two examples you gave as fairly samey.

Here's an example I took on the weekend on a dance floor, I cannot think how a flash would have improved this situation. The lens was full open at iso 6400. While it isn't an action shot it is an example of the kind of lighting I get sans flash. Using a flash would have killed the orange-blue contrast on either side of her shirt at the very least.

as for wedding receptions, I was at one as a guest recently when the official photographers bailed before the cake cutting/first dance recently. With only a prime in my hands I took this. I still fail to see how flash would have improved that image.

A very different style sure, and you are absolutely right that using a flash allows you to stop the lens down for greater depth of field/clarity. But they all feel the same and overdone, because it's too easy.

Comment Re:Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment (Score 1) 160

and the majority of the time, the best answer is just off-camera flash, or bounce flash if the situation is right.

I find that kills the natural lighting of the place, and makes everywhere look "samey" not to mention drawing attention to yourself and distracting the people from what they're engaged in. Flash is an enemy of candid natural photography imho. Most people can't pose well, so I try to blend in and just always be around with my camera doing things. Making bright flashes every now and then can be kind of distracting and not appreciated in a lot of places.

Everybody has their own style, but for myself I find that all my favorite dark reception hall shots are made with a setup along those lines - and honestly, the wide aperture is more of a hazard than a benefit so I find myself at 4.0 as often as not, because things are moving so fast that getting a razor-thin DOF dialed in exactly where you want it is next to impossible. The off-camera lighting provides the drama and subject isolation that you usually rely on bokeh for.

Before I was using the 85mm f/1.4 I was using an 85mm f/1.2 canon. Why did I switch? focus speed. Manual focus on the 1.2 was slow as molasses because it still used the autofocus motor to do it which is notoriously slow. Whereas the 1.4 has real manual focus and a great deal faster autofocus.

That being said, even with super slow focusing f/1.2 with extremely fast moving targets a solid focus is achievable. Prefocusing to a specific plane and waiting for the subjects to come in line with that plane while being in an interesting position.

A tad difficult, but I find almost all of the worthwhile shots are, otherwise they'd be common as mud.

Comment Re:Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment (Score 1) 160

A reasonably dark church that has been set up for swing dancing is a prime example.

There is a night and day ;) difference between trying to shoot static things in the dark vs things that still have significant motion blur on a tripod at 1/100

My camera is capable of over iso 100,000, but I would never use above 6400 generally and 3200 in situations where I want to underexpose a little. If I were going for a little overexposure I'd go 12,800 perhaps because the amount of light collected would still be half reasonable. High ISO with low EV's looks horrible.

I can still see just fine.

Comment Re:Obligatory Pentax Fanboy Comment (Score 1) 160

Occasional second shooter here

They seem to pretty much all use 24-70 f/2.8 95% of the time with an 85 f/1.2 for soft portrait shots.

Even with the high iso capabilities of modern dslr's, I've still found situations (not at weddings) where the f/1.4 on my 50mm and 85mm lenses hasn't quite done the job to my liking.

Comment Re:Kek (Score 1) 303

You do realize, that a considerable chunk of those women know that definition of feminism, but reject it.

They'll often believe in egalitarianism, but feminism has too much focus on females in the word it to actually be considered what that dictionary definition has down.

To purposefully associate "feminine" with "fair" I think is pretty ironically sexist.

As part of believing in equality, shouldn't gender neutral terms to describe gender neutral things be a part of their goals?

And so to be for equality, you'd actually be against the use of the term feminism as it is sexist.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river. -- Abraham Lincoln