The trouble with all the third parties is that, because they are not mainstream, they attract all the nuts and crazies. Take the Libertarian party. As one example, right in their platform, they say they want to sell off the national parks. Now, you may think that's a great idea, but I think it's fair to say that most people think that's not just radical, but outright insane.
And when you get to other common Libertarian beliefs that may not necessarily be in the platform, such as 100% private fire departments, 100% private roads, unlimited right to bear arms (e.g., private nukes), any candidate that actually got within sniffing distance of power would be radioactive.
And the Libertarians are actually the most reasonable party. The other ones are out and out loony bin material.
Americans will vote for a third party candidate, if he's viable -- look at Perot, who had a serious shot at the Presidency until he self-destructed. What we need is a *real* party formed by reasonable people with a reasonable platform. A combination of the best parts of the theoretical Republicans (e.g., small, limited government, embrace of free market Capitalism, strong defense) with the best parts of the theoretical Democrats (strong privacy, moderate regulation). Mixed, most importantly, with MODERATION.
anyone reading this who is not going to vote, i have nothing for you but the most withering disgust i can muster
I don't want everyone to vote. I want everyone to be *informed*. And if that leads to voting, then fine. But if someone is not going to vote, then chances are they are not informed, and thus should stay home and leave the voting to people who actually know what they're voting for.
In other words, I respect the man who knows he isn't informed and thus stays home, more than I respect the uninformed man who votes out of guilt.
The government is a single entity. And it, as one entity, is willing to search your laptop.
Except your analogy makes no sense. The government is *not* a single entity, it's a collection of individuals. Not every laptop gets switched on, taken apart or whatever other nefarious activity. The point is that invasive searches of laptops is a very rare occurrence. Obviously -- like there are enough airport screeners to search every laptop? It's absurd.
You'd think that, but there have been stories recently about that not being the case.
There are "stories" about kidnapping of children, but I still let my children play outside. There are "stories" of serial killers, but I still walk in the city. There are "stories" of school shootings, but I still let my kids go to public school.
What's your point?
I can find a "story" about anything. That doesn't mean that it's common or that special precautions need to be taken.
As best as I can tell, McCain's injuries were not used as a claim to avoid embarrassing topics...in fact the "embarrassing topic" was brought up in 2000 by him in describing his injury [...]
I believe he might have trouble combing his hair, since he can't raise his arms that high. I might even believe he can't bend down to tie his shoes. But I flat-out don't believe him that he can't use a keyboard. If he can hold a pad (at keyboard height, I might add) and has the fine motor control to sign his name, then he can at-least do two-finger typing or use a mouse.
John McCain can't type because his arms were repeatedly broken by the Vietnamese while he was a POW. Why do you insult disabled veterans?
Well, that's what his campaign claims when the embarrassing topic of his technological ignorance comes up. On the other hand, here you can see him firmly holding a pad in one hand, while signing his name with the other hand, standing up, with no awkwardness that I can observe. He's hardly an invalid. If he can do that, he can type on a keyboard.
While I respect McCain's sacrifice 35 years ago as a single data point, unfortunately he's also proved himself to be a dishonorable liar since then.
This time, neither Russia nor China is bogged down fighting the other while we advance ahead of them: we are now in their positions with each other, while they're free to rush forwards, standing on our decades of space leadership.
Who cares? Seriously -- can you give me one good reason why we should care whether other countries have a government-sponsored space program that's ahead of ours? Let them "rush forward" (to what???) and waste their money for awhile.
Meanwhile, the area that we're ahead in that matters is in private space companies. How many private companies are currently developing space in those countries? Do you think Russia or China will give us a space hotel?
Anyone else notice that Bush's term is leaving the US space program without a Space Shuttle or alternative for staffing or servicing the Space Station that we paid more than our share to build, and actually devastating the manned missions to Mars that would keep our lead among our global competitors?
Yes, I did notice that, and in this particular case, I say: Thank God someone in government had brains enough to FINALLY kill that boondoggle.
The space shuttle burned up PHENOMENAL amounts of money for very little payoff. We were never going to get serious about a replacement until that decrepit pile of junk was retired.
And if we end up refocusing on far cheaper unmanned missions, so much the better. We can go back to manned space travel when private space gets us there a hell of a lot cheaper, and as a side benefit, you and I can go there as well and not just a bunch of government blessed people.
You were saying that I am making GGGPs point, which was that basing any significant conclusions on a computer simulation was irresponsible.
You're speaking of engineering solutions, where one can correct for the error (using attitude jets), and thus arrive at a "perfect" solution. If you were launching a multi-billion dollar spaceship using ONLY the n-body simulation solution, then yes, that would be highly irresponsible and a total waste of money. It'd never get were you wanted it to go.
The original poster's point was that it was irresponsible to draw theoretical conclusions from imperfect simulations -- you can't put a correction factor on those.
And yet it's supposedly irresponsible? I don't think so.
Huh? I said "useful, but inaccurate." Where did I say it was irresponsible?
The point is that, while it's the best we have, it's also known to be an imperfect solution. You wouldn't test fundamental theories using n-body simulations.
We eagerly await your analytical solution to the n-body-problem. I mean, it's really simple stuff, right? Until you're finished, we'll have to calculate all those spacecraft trajectories with computer simulations.
You're making his point. The computer simulation you reference is known to be inaccurate. Useful, but inaccurate.
I gave them $15 in March and they haven't stopped delivering since.
Send them a certified letter (also documenting all the times you've called), and then enjoy your free newspaper if they don't stop again. If they send you a bill, then them a copy of your certified letter that you sent. If they continue harassing you, take them to small claims court.
As someone who has personally donated to TPB website I think you're wrong.
Not to pick on you, but this is a kind of cognitive dissonance that a lot of people have when it comes to TPB. Look at all that you posted to somehow prove to me that TPB are moral champions of justice. BUT -- None of that says anything about how much money they make!!
Feel free to give money to them, respect what they do, whatever you like. But you have no idea how much money they're socking away from all this. And neither do I, but given how much money link farms typically make through advertising, and the fact that TPB is one of the biggest sites in the world, I think it's reasonable to assume it's considerable, even after subtracting their expenses.
When people say it's not about the money, it's generally about the money. Sorry, TPB guys, but I don't believe you're not making a *phenomenal* amount of money from this thing. Note that they say they are IT "consultants", they don't have a normal day 9-5 job.
Which is great -- more power to them for making money -- but I don't buy this whole "we're just normal guys havin' a bit of fun" crap. They know that if they're seen as making tremendous profit from the work of others, they'll be seen a lot differently, socially and legally.
My short answer was, "I know how this will scale. If it gets hammered, add more servers, load balance it out, and cluster the database when it comes time. I've done it before and it will work. And until something better comes along and is proven, stick with what you know."
Yeah, that's great -- until you leave the company, and leave the owners holding the bag. The bag, in this case, being a system that nobody knows how to maintain. This model works for a larger company, where you have a staff of sufficient size that turnover doesn't kill the knowledge pool. But for a small company, it's a disaster that happens over and over in this industry.
For a small company, it's absolutely a good idea to go with a service that can manage the whole thing for them. Sure, that service might disappear -- but with the right recovery schemes in place to change providers, that doesn't have to be a disaster. And it's generally a lot less probable than Mr. Key Man deciding to leave for greener pastures.
It's possible that in your instance, what you're doing makes sense. But honestly, you seem more like you're either a control freak that can't stand to let others in, or you're worried for your job.
For small companies, rolling your own hardware is insane. At least use a managed server farm like a Rackspace.
*sigh* I grow weary of battling with your determination to filter everything I say through your own bigoted, paranoid lenses. Since all of your points are pretty much the same, I'll just deal with your first paragraph.
"The premise of the whole point is that there are fewer famous biological females." because a famous cisgendered female is far more impressive then a famous transgendered one?
Good god, where did I use the word "impressive"? Did you miss the point in this article? It's that there are fewer female famous programmers. This is simply factual. The original point I made is that, for purposes of trying to find out what's going on with this, one has to make some sort of determination of sex. It's the biology here that's interesting, not how one chooses to identify oneself.
In fact, you'll note that the three famous transsexuals mentioned originally identified as male.
I don't know what's worse, that you consider transwomen to be less then cisgendered women, or that you consider being biologically female to be such a hindrance in one's ability to code.
And again, you pull that TOTALLY out of thin air. Nowhere did I make either point. It is simply factual that there are fewer famous woman programmers. It could be that this is sociological, or it could be simply due to the fact that women are, on the average, different from men, on the average.
All the rest of your post is pretty much the same thing. Take something I said, or never said, and accuse me of some issue that you angrily hold against society.
Anyway, as I said, I grow weary of debating this with someone who won't (or, more likely, can't) debate honestly and objectively. You're determined to see me as the Satanic Patron Saint of Gender. So, please, be my guest... have some righteous hatred and anger on me. I hope it helps you to have a happy day.
good to know you can admit that you are wrong, that is a good first step
If you makes you feel good to declare unilateral victory, be my guest! I love making people happy.
You may not find what you said insulting, just as you may not find "fag", "dike", or "tranny" to be offensive, but to those who deal with this hatred day after day, they are...
On the other hand, I'm actually curious what I've actually said (my words, please, not yours) that you interpret as offensive.
you do not have the moral authority to dictate to others what is or is not offensive.
That is true, or really a truism, since obviously I can't control how others choose to interpret what I say. But you're making a fundamental mistake. It's one thing to find a word offensive (e.g., 'tranny'), then we can have a reasonable debate about whether common usage recognizes it as an offensive word. It's another thing to find a concept offensive, as (at least, I think at this point) you're doing.
Intent is *always* the most important thing, not your interpretation. If a mentally handicapped person called you a 'tranny' in a friendly way and didn't know any better, would you take offense? Hopefully not, because there was no intent to offend. On the other hand, if I called you a [whatever politically correct term you prefer these days] in a snide, insultful way, then my intent was to offend, even though I used the word you like.
Nearly everything can be taken with offense by someone somewhere. At some point, tiptoeing around trying not offend anyone is just stupid -- they have to take some responsibility to understand what others are saying. I'm reminded of that guy who was fired for using the word "niggardly" around some African Americans.
Now, in Real Life, out of politeness, it's normal and expected to be sensitive about certain subject with various people (e.g., don't make suicide jokes with someone who just lost a family member to it). But in forum conversation, I'm not going to avoid reasonable discussion because someone might take offense to it. There's no offense intended -- it's your responsibility to not to be offended.
See also: genetic homosexuality and the attraction mechanism. [...] What does that have to do with anything? Gender identity and sexual orientation really don't have very much to do with each other, but bigots regularly conflate the two. I'm beginning to get a very clear and ugly picture of your views on the subject.
Okay, here is *exactly* what I'm talking about! Maybe you'll learn something here. To quote myself:
That's what I love about these psycho-subjects, people who are sensitive to it read whatever they want to read, and it doesn't really matter what I actually *write*.
So you automatically take a moonshot to your "very clear and ugly picture". But nowhere did I make the link that you're accusing me of. That's your wacky assumption. I gave you an example of another *subject* that is regularly misinterpreted by people who are sensitive to the subject, and no matter what you write, they'll flake and form and filter you into their worldview -- which is normally a paranoid tinfoil hat "clear and ugly picture."
I think it's actually because your whole identity is tied up in these issues, and any deviation from your worldview (or rather, even any deviation of *PHRASING* from your worldview) is automatically assumed to be a personal attack on your identity. I hope you see the irony here.
If not, let me give you a hint: we are saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
Putting aside the sheer stupidity of claiming that subjective states such as hunger or gender dysphoria don't exist because you can't directly observe them,
Hint: I didn't say that. And I didn't say the other (related) thing you accuse me of.
That's what I love about these psycho-subjects, people who are sensitive to it read whatever they want to read, and it doesn't really matter what I actually *write*.
See also: genetic homosexuality and the attraction mechanism.
If you want to know if a person's gender is male or female or other, you could... I don't know... ask them.
Absolutely not. The worst way to define sex and gender is to ask people. People are notoriously unreliable at self-analysis, as I said in another post.
Gender (not sex) is basically how one "feels" male or female or both or neither... you can't explain it any more then you can explain what it "feels" like to be hungry.
Feel free to "feel" anyway you want. But I'm not interested in how you feel for purposes of statistical studies, I'm interested in a scientific measurement of reality. To use your hunger analogy, it's perfectly possible for someone to feel psychologically hungry even though their body is not actually giving them real physical signals. "A state of hunger" is defined as the body needing nourishment, and we also have a related concept, which is "hungry". The first one is a measurable and quantifiable, the second is not.
can you prove to me, scientifically, that your mental gender is what you say it is? Not your sex, as we have agreed that sex is biological not sociological, and not genetic, as we have agreed that chromosomes do not always match up with how one feels their gender to be...
Of course I can't, as we've already established the fact that we don't have the technology to test for that, and we may never have it. I don't know what your point is.
I took offense because, *GASP*, it was offensive. If you do not wish to be called on your cis-sexist behavior, don't behave in a cis-sexist manner.
No, you took offense because you chose to interpret it as offensive. That has nothing to do with whether it was objectively offensive, especially since it was not. My intent is more important than your interpretation.
Until then, we have to use the easiest way we have to measure physical gender, and that's external appearance. [...] Well it's nice to see that at least you agree that the people currently listed under "Transexual" should be listed under "Women". Very progressive of you. Well done.
External appearance at birth, not external appearance after they've chopped things up.
Sorry, but I believe in science. I believe in measurements. And people are notoriously unreliable at self analysis.
you may want to do some research into gender theory, your ideas are about 120 years out of date. Not only are sex and gender different from a biological and sociological point of view, they are also differentiated in many laws. At best your post is ignorant, at worst it is a weak attempt at a flame against trans and intersex users of this site.
Sheesh. Apparently you're one of those people who will do their best to take offense without regard to what someone actually *says*. Did I, or did I not, acknowledge a range of gender? I believe I did, which is not exactly news.
Usage Note: Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to refer to the grammatical categories of "masculine," "feminine," and "neuter," but in recent years the word has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as gender gap and the politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories. According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined. This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.
So, again, until you can give me a clear scientific test to determine the gender of specifically the attribute we're interested in (in this case, Famous Programmers), we have to do our best and peg someone as male or female.
sex is what is between your legs, gender is what is between your ears
Actually, "sex" and "gender" are exactly the same thing, and include what's between your legs and your entire body, including your brain, based on your genetics. But to your point, give me a way to measure the gender of that part of your brain that determines programming ability and its propensity to become famous, and we can apply that into the statistics. Until then, we have to use the easiest way we have to measure physical gender, and that's external appearance.
Slashdot Mirror
The trouble with all the third parties is that, because they are not mainstream, they attract all the nuts and crazies. Take the Libertarian party. As one example, right in their platform, they say they want to sell off the national parks. Now, you may think that's a great idea, but I think it's fair to say that most people think that's not just radical, but outright insane.
And when you get to other common Libertarian beliefs that may not necessarily be in the platform, such as 100% private fire departments, 100% private roads, unlimited right to bear arms (e.g., private nukes), any candidate that actually got within sniffing distance of power would be radioactive.
And the Libertarians are actually the most reasonable party. The other ones are out and out loony bin material.
Americans will vote for a third party candidate, if he's viable -- look at Perot, who had a serious shot at the Presidency until he self-destructed. What we need is a *real* party formed by reasonable people with a reasonable platform. A combination of the best parts of the theoretical Republicans (e.g., small, limited government, embrace of free market Capitalism, strong defense) with the best parts of the theoretical Democrats (strong privacy, moderate regulation). Mixed, most importantly, with MODERATION.
anyone reading this who is not going to vote, i have nothing for you but the most withering disgust i can muster
I don't want everyone to vote. I want everyone to be *informed*. And if that leads to voting, then fine. But if someone is not going to vote, then chances are they are not informed, and thus should stay home and leave the voting to people who actually know what they're voting for.
In other words, I respect the man who knows he isn't informed and thus stays home, more than I respect the uninformed man who votes out of guilt.
The government is a single entity. And it, as one entity, is willing to search your laptop.
Except your analogy makes no sense. The government is *not* a single entity, it's a collection of individuals. Not every laptop gets switched on, taken apart or whatever other nefarious activity. The point is that invasive searches of laptops is a very rare occurrence. Obviously -- like there are enough airport screeners to search every laptop? It's absurd.
You'd think that, but there have been stories recently about that not being the case.
There are "stories" about kidnapping of children, but I still let my children play outside. There are "stories" of serial killers, but I still walk in the city. There are "stories" of school shootings, but I still let my kids go to public school.
What's your point?
I can find a "story" about anything. That doesn't mean that it's common or that special precautions need to be taken.
As best as I can tell, McCain's injuries were not used as a claim to avoid embarrassing topics...in fact the "embarrassing topic" was brought up in 2000 by him in describing his injury [...]
I believe he might have trouble combing his hair, since he can't raise his arms that high. I might even believe he can't bend down to tie his shoes. But I flat-out don't believe him that he can't use a keyboard. If he can hold a pad (at keyboard height, I might add) and has the fine motor control to sign his name, then he can at-least do two-finger typing or use a mouse.
John McCain can't type because his arms were repeatedly broken by the Vietnamese while he was a POW. Why do you insult disabled veterans?
Well, that's what his campaign claims when the embarrassing topic of his technological ignorance comes up. On the other hand, here you can see him firmly holding a pad in one hand, while signing his name with the other hand, standing up, with no awkwardness that I can observe. He's hardly an invalid. If he can do that, he can type on a keyboard.
While I respect McCain's sacrifice 35 years ago as a single data point, unfortunately he's also proved himself to be a dishonorable liar since then.
This time, neither Russia nor China is bogged down fighting the other while we advance ahead of them: we are now in their positions with each other, while they're free to rush forwards, standing on our decades of space leadership.
Who cares? Seriously -- can you give me one good reason why we should care whether other countries have a government-sponsored space program that's ahead of ours? Let them "rush forward" (to what???) and waste their money for awhile.
Meanwhile, the area that we're ahead in that matters is in private space companies. How many private companies are currently developing space in those countries? Do you think Russia or China will give us a space hotel?
Anyone else notice that Bush's term is leaving the US space program without a Space Shuttle or alternative for staffing or servicing the Space Station that we paid more than our share to build, and actually devastating the manned missions to Mars that would keep our lead among our global competitors?
Yes, I did notice that, and in this particular case, I say: Thank God someone in government had brains enough to FINALLY kill that boondoggle.
The space shuttle burned up PHENOMENAL amounts of money for very little payoff. We were never going to get serious about a replacement until that decrepit pile of junk was retired.
And if we end up refocusing on far cheaper unmanned missions, so much the better. We can go back to manned space travel when private space gets us there a hell of a lot cheaper, and as a side benefit, you and I can go there as well and not just a bunch of government blessed people.
Death to the Space Shuttle!
It's a criminal investigation. If Company A vandalizes Company B, do you expect Company B to "bring their own evidence to court"?
You were saying that I am making GGGPs point, which was that basing any significant conclusions on a computer simulation was irresponsible.
You're speaking of engineering solutions, where one can correct for the error (using attitude jets), and thus arrive at a "perfect" solution. If you were launching a multi-billion dollar spaceship using ONLY the n-body simulation solution, then yes, that would be highly irresponsible and a total waste of money. It'd never get were you wanted it to go.
The original poster's point was that it was irresponsible to draw theoretical conclusions from imperfect simulations -- you can't put a correction factor on those.
And yet it's supposedly irresponsible? I don't think so.
Huh? I said "useful, but inaccurate." Where did I say it was irresponsible?
The point is that, while it's the best we have, it's also known to be an imperfect solution. You wouldn't test fundamental theories using n-body simulations.
We eagerly await your analytical solution to the n-body-problem. I mean, it's really simple stuff, right? Until you're finished, we'll have to calculate all those spacecraft trajectories with computer simulations.
You're making his point. The computer simulation you reference is known to be inaccurate. Useful, but inaccurate.
I gave them $15 in March and they haven't stopped delivering since.
Send them a certified letter (also documenting all the times you've called), and then enjoy your free newspaper if they don't stop again. If they send you a bill, then them a copy of your certified letter that you sent. If they continue harassing you, take them to small claims court.
I said..
You said they have expenses. So what? That doesn't mean it isn't profitable.
Don't do your research on slashdot, if you want to know how much money they make, read their blogs!
Since you seem to be familiar with it, link to the place where they state exactly how much money is coming in.
As someone who has personally donated to TPB website I think you're wrong.
Not to pick on you, but this is a kind of cognitive dissonance that a lot of people have when it comes to TPB. Look at all that you posted to somehow prove to me that TPB are moral champions of justice. BUT -- None of that says anything about how much money they make!!
Feel free to give money to them, respect what they do, whatever you like. But you have no idea how much money they're socking away from all this. And neither do I, but given how much money link farms typically make through advertising, and the fact that TPB is one of the biggest sites in the world, I think it's reasonable to assume it's considerable, even after subtracting their expenses.
When people say it's not about the money, it's generally about the money. Sorry, TPB guys, but I don't believe you're not making a *phenomenal* amount of money from this thing. Note that they say they are IT "consultants", they don't have a normal day 9-5 job.
Which is great -- more power to them for making money -- but I don't buy this whole "we're just normal guys havin' a bit of fun" crap. They know that if they're seen as making tremendous profit from the work of others, they'll be seen a lot differently, socially and legally.
My short answer was, "I know how this will scale. If it gets hammered, add more servers, load balance it out, and cluster the database when it comes time. I've done it before and it will work. And until something better comes along and is proven, stick with what you know."
Yeah, that's great -- until you leave the company, and leave the owners holding the bag. The bag, in this case, being a system that nobody knows how to maintain. This model works for a larger company, where you have a staff of sufficient size that turnover doesn't kill the knowledge pool. But for a small company, it's a disaster that happens over and over in this industry.
For a small company, it's absolutely a good idea to go with a service that can manage the whole thing for them. Sure, that service might disappear -- but with the right recovery schemes in place to change providers, that doesn't have to be a disaster. And it's generally a lot less probable than Mr. Key Man deciding to leave for greener pastures.
It's possible that in your instance, what you're doing makes sense. But honestly, you seem more like you're either a control freak that can't stand to let others in, or you're worried for your job.
For small companies, rolling your own hardware is insane. At least use a managed server farm like a Rackspace.
*sigh* I grow weary of battling with your determination to filter everything I say through your own bigoted, paranoid lenses. Since all of your points are pretty much the same, I'll just deal with your first paragraph.
"The premise of the whole point is that there are fewer famous biological females." because a famous cisgendered female is far more impressive then a famous transgendered one?
Good god, where did I use the word "impressive"? Did you miss the point in this article? It's that there are fewer female famous programmers. This is simply factual. The original point I made is that, for purposes of trying to find out what's going on with this, one has to make some sort of determination of sex. It's the biology here that's interesting, not how one chooses to identify oneself.
In fact, you'll note that the three famous transsexuals mentioned originally identified as male.
I don't know what's worse, that you consider transwomen to be less then cisgendered women, or that you consider being biologically female to be such a hindrance in one's ability to code.
And again, you pull that TOTALLY out of thin air. Nowhere did I make either point. It is simply factual that there are fewer famous woman programmers. It could be that this is sociological, or it could be simply due to the fact that women are, on the average, different from men, on the average.
All the rest of your post is pretty much the same thing. Take something I said, or never said, and accuse me of some issue that you angrily hold against society.
Anyway, as I said, I grow weary of debating this with someone who won't (or, more likely, can't) debate honestly and objectively. You're determined to see me as the Satanic Patron Saint of Gender. So, please, be my guest... have some righteous hatred and anger on me. I hope it helps you to have a happy day.
good to know you can admit that you are wrong, that is a good first step
If you makes you feel good to declare unilateral victory, be my guest! I love making people happy.
You may not find what you said insulting, just as you may not find "fag", "dike", or "tranny" to be offensive, but to those who deal with this hatred day after day, they are...
On the other hand, I'm actually curious what I've actually said (my words, please, not yours) that you interpret as offensive.
you do not have the moral authority to dictate to others what is or is not offensive.
That is true, or really a truism, since obviously I can't control how others choose to interpret what I say. But you're making a fundamental mistake. It's one thing to find a word offensive (e.g., 'tranny'), then we can have a reasonable debate about whether common usage recognizes it as an offensive word. It's another thing to find a concept offensive, as (at least, I think at this point) you're doing.
Intent is *always* the most important thing, not your interpretation. If a mentally handicapped person called you a 'tranny' in a friendly way and didn't know any better, would you take offense? Hopefully not, because there was no intent to offend. On the other hand, if I called you a [whatever politically correct term you prefer these days] in a snide, insultful way, then my intent was to offend, even though I used the word you like.
Nearly everything can be taken with offense by someone somewhere. At some point, tiptoeing around trying not offend anyone is just stupid -- they have to take some responsibility to understand what others are saying. I'm reminded of that guy who was fired for using the word "niggardly" around some African Americans.
Now, in Real Life, out of politeness, it's normal and expected to be sensitive about certain subject with various people (e.g., don't make suicide jokes with someone who just lost a family member to it). But in forum conversation, I'm not going to avoid reasonable discussion because someone might take offense to it. There's no offense intended -- it's your responsibility to not to be offended.
See also: genetic homosexuality and the attraction mechanism. [...] What does that have to do with anything? Gender identity and sexual orientation really don't have very much to do with each other, but bigots regularly conflate the two. I'm beginning to get a very clear and ugly picture of your views on the subject.
Okay, here is *exactly* what I'm talking about! Maybe you'll learn something here. To quote myself:
That's what I love about these psycho-subjects, people who are sensitive to it read whatever they want to read, and it doesn't really matter what I actually *write*.
So you automatically take a moonshot to your "very clear and ugly picture". But nowhere did I make the link that you're accusing me of. That's your wacky assumption. I gave you an example of another *subject* that is regularly misinterpreted by people who are sensitive to the subject, and no matter what you write, they'll flake and form and filter you into their worldview -- which is normally a paranoid tinfoil hat "clear and ugly picture."
I think it's actually because your whole identity is tied up in these issues, and any deviation from your worldview (or rather, even any deviation of *PHRASING* from your worldview) is automatically assumed to be a personal attack on your identity. I hope you see the irony here.
If not, let me give you a hint: we are saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
Putting aside the sheer stupidity of claiming that subjective states such as hunger or gender dysphoria don't exist because you can't directly observe them,
Hint: I didn't say that. And I didn't say the other (related) thing you accuse me of.
That's what I love about these psycho-subjects, people who are sensitive to it read whatever they want to read, and it doesn't really matter what I actually *write*.
See also: genetic homosexuality and the attraction mechanism.
If you want to know if a person's gender is male or female or other, you could... I don't know... ask them.
Absolutely not. The worst way to define sex and gender is to ask people. People are notoriously unreliable at self-analysis, as I said in another post.
Gender (not sex) is basically how one "feels" male or female or both or neither... you can't explain it any more then you can explain what it "feels" like to be hungry.
Feel free to "feel" anyway you want. But I'm not interested in how you feel for purposes of statistical studies, I'm interested in a scientific measurement of reality. To use your hunger analogy, it's perfectly possible for someone to feel psychologically hungry even though their body is not actually giving them real physical signals. "A state of hunger" is defined as the body needing nourishment, and we also have a related concept, which is "hungry". The first one is a measurable and quantifiable, the second is not.
can you prove to me, scientifically, that your mental gender is what you say it is? Not your sex, as we have agreed that sex is biological not sociological, and not genetic, as we have agreed that chromosomes do not always match up with how one feels their gender to be...
Of course I can't, as we've already established the fact that we don't have the technology to test for that, and we may never have it. I don't know what your point is.
I took offense because, *GASP*, it was offensive. If you do not wish to be called on your cis-sexist behavior, don't behave in a cis-sexist manner.
No, you took offense because you chose to interpret it as offensive. That has nothing to do with whether it was objectively offensive, especially since it was not. My intent is more important than your interpretation.
Until then, we have to use the easiest way we have to measure physical gender, and that's external appearance. [...] Well it's nice to see that at least you agree that the people currently listed under "Transexual" should be listed under "Women". Very progressive of you. Well done.
External appearance at birth, not external appearance after they've chopped things up.
Sorry, but I believe in science. I believe in measurements. And people are notoriously unreliable at self analysis.
you may want to do some research into gender theory, your ideas are about 120 years out of date. Not only are sex and gender different from a biological and sociological point of view, they are also differentiated in many laws. At best your post is ignorant, at worst it is a weak attempt at a flame against trans and intersex users of this site.
Sheesh. Apparently you're one of those people who will do their best to take offense without regard to what someone actually *says*. Did I, or did I not, acknowledge a range of gender? I believe I did, which is not exactly news.
As for recognizing a difference between sex and gender, dictionary.com has a pretty good way to describe this:
First:
gender1 /dndr/
-noun
1. Grammar. [snipped]
2. sex: the feminine gender.
3. [snipped]
And the usage note:
Usage Note: Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to refer to the grammatical categories of "masculine," "feminine," and "neuter," but in recent years the word has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as gender gap and the politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories. According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined. This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.
So, again, until you can give me a clear scientific test to determine the gender of specifically the attribute we're interested in (in this case, Famous Programmers), we have to do our best and peg someone as male or female.
sex is what is between your legs, gender is what is between your ears
Actually, "sex" and "gender" are exactly the same thing, and include what's between your legs and your entire body, including your brain, based on your genetics. But to your point, give me a way to measure the gender of that part of your brain that determines programming ability and its propensity to become famous, and we can apply that into the statistics. Until then, we have to use the easiest way we have to measure physical gender, and that's external appearance.