That said, a lot of commenters are making an incorrect assumption about why there are overtime rules. Overtime rules are designed as a soft-cap for the number of hours you're going to work (but punish your employer instead of you) under the theory that if they make people work fewer hours, then there will be more jobs available. But that theory is very wrong:
I've kinda run out of time to debate on this further, but I just wanted to point out that once upon a time, gays looked down upon transexuals, and transexuals looked down upon transvestites (in fact in many cases they still do) just as you are presently looking down upon others.
We've actually even seen what happens when economic policies are set by governments that assume that there's a lump of labor, and the results are always bad. In order for what you say to be true, economies would have to be zero-sum, and they're just not. If economies were zero-sum, they could never grow for example.
Reread the bottom sentence of that post if you would please.
We've known for a long time that sex starts and ends in the brain. Why not admit that gender is the same thing?
And we also know that male and female brains are anatomically different. In transexuals, there's only ever been one marker that varies, which is the white matter. However size and overall anatomy remain the same.
It's not just the LGBTt who denounce bestiality. Where's the informed consent of the animal? Your comparison is ludicrous.
There was a BBC documentary about it a while back. I believe the consent (to them) came from the animals showing signs of enjoyment that they normally showed during sex with their own species. That and I think if the larger animals didn't want to participate, they certainly have the power to refuse.
Actually, it does make them less important if you're talking about statistical behaviors to define "normal." 1:1000 (or the newer stat of 1:500) is a lot more normal than 1:1,000,000,000. Wen getting struck by lightning is not as rare, it's simply not normal.
In that case you'd be even more discriminating than I am. What is normal? I honestly don't have a definition of normal. To me there are definitions that either include you or exclude you. For example if your hair is red then you're a redhead, if not then you're not. However just because you're not a redhead doesn't mean you have brown hair.
I don't think destroyed would be on the table. To want to destroy is it would probably need to be threatened by us. Even if the AI were truly intelligent, I'm somewhat doubtful it would have the capability of feeling threatened. The feeling of being threatened is a survival trait that nearly all lifeforms have acquired over billions of years of evolution.
I don't think an AI could feel threatened if it natural selection isn't a consideration in its continued existence. I mean it doesn't necessarily have to even consider the fact that it could die at all.
The only exception is if somebody programmed it to feel threatened.
The stalking cat story reminds me of all the people who say "What if you believed that one of your legs wasn't really yours? Should it be amputated just because you have this belief?"
I suppose I'd be one of those that say no, as I actually know of people who have gone through that. A few of them have succeeded in having limbs amputated, and report being mentally healthier after the fact.
Still though, the status quo in modern medicine says amputation is unethical, and I agree. I think a better solution would be any that retains any existing bodily function. I hold the same view on SRS surgeries, but not anything else (e.g. crossdressing.) But apparently I'm not alone. I remember seeing a documentary about it, and one of the surgeons who performs those surgeries said he'd prefer any solution that avoids surgery.
The answer to that is very simple - we don't have a hundreds of thousands of people who believe that one of their legs is alien to their body. We do have hundreds of thousands of transsexuals. Even the APA now admits that being transsexual is not, in itself, a mental disorder, 40 years after giving the same treatment to gays and lesbians.
We don't really know that though. There could be a lot more like him but won't go through with it because *most* medical professionals will refuse to do these kinds of things, not only that but few of them will have familial support. Also (and I'm not equating this) there are probably a sizable number of people that are into bestiality as well, but don't say anything about it. If you do a google search for them, you'll find forums and such dedicated to it, but try asking any of them if they're out to anybody or open about it. Probably 99.99% of them will answer in the negative.
Similar to you however (and again, I need to stress that I'm not equating) they also seem to believe that what they're doing is good, natural, and indeed their "partners" enjoy it too so there's nothing wrong with it. (And I honestly don't know whether or not they enjoy it. If they do, and nobody is getting hurt, then I guess there's nothing wrong with it, and it wouldn't bother me if I knew anybody who did.) Gays and transexuals denounce them however just how they themselves have been denounced in the past.
This is exactly what you said: "in terms of female, the definition is pretty straightforward: Must be capable of laying eggs or bearing offspring."
This would exclude infertile women.
And also at no point did I say that makes them males. Like another poster said, (and I believe you alluded to) it isn't binary.
So all that's really needed is a donor egg and some surgery, and a transsexual woman meets your qualification of "bearing offspring" (since women don't lay eggs).
As I mentioned earlier, it still wouldn't, at least not in this context anyways. That is, if you're trying to say that this is a credit to female game developers, I'd still respond in the negative.
While there are hormonal changes too, those don't necessarily inhibit reproduction, and that change alone doesn't prevent bearing children as women during or post menopause CAN get pregnant.
GP was referring to being post menopause WITHOUT the ability to bear children, in which case the depletion of eggs is the showstopper, hence my comment.
You claimed that "in terms of female, the definition is pretty straightforward: Must be capable of laying eggs or bearing offspring." So male animals that can change to females and bear offspring depending on the environment are now females according to your definition - even though their chromosomes have not changed.
And what about women who are infertile? They can't lay eggs or bear offspring. According to your "straightforward definition", they're men.
I never said they were men if they couldn't bear offspring. Besides, infertile women usually are just missing one or two elements but can otherwise bear children.
Well, there we go - we now have proof that I was born with a female brain.
Partially, but not exactly. MRI scans have found that some transgender people can have a single marker (white matter content) more in common with the opposite sex. But other than that, throughout their entire lives their brain is anatomically identifiable with that of their birth gender. In your particular case, that would actually help with that one trait.
The feelings of being the other gender come from the brain, not anywhere else. Please consider this: If you were in an accident that amputated your "package", would you not continue to insist that you are still a male, because your brain tells you so? Now let's go a step further - if in the future we can do brain transplants, and you're in a horrible accident, and the only spare corpsicle is female, would putting your brain in a female body suddenly make you feel that you are now a female? Or would you be hoping for a male corpsicle to turn up soon?
After all of the medical shit I've been through (presently a candidate for kidney transplant) I've learned it's best not to consider worst case scenarios, otherwise you develop really bad anxiety, which only complicates things further.
It's not as simple as most people make it. If it were, it would be easier for me to explain and for you to understand.
I understand fully. In your mind you are what you believe you are. "I think therefore I am." But as I mentioned earlier, I'm a hard, cold, no BS, gas-tank-half-empty realist. Perhaps I should use another case so you can better understand my perspective:
Dennis Avner, who went by the name Stalking Cat, believed that he really was a cat, enough to the point where he surgically altered his body to look even more like one.
From your perspective, so long as he believed he's a cat, then he was very much a cat, and it's good because it makes him happy and feel good to be secure in that belief.
From my perspective, he was a man who modified his body to look like a cat, and wanted to believe he was one, and it may have made him happy to believe that. But at the end of the day he was still a man.
"It" in this context is just referring to the this particular case, and not to a person, hence it's gender neutral, as English permits. I don't know whether or not English is your first language, but unlike many languages there's no requirement to specify gender in English, especially in gender neutral objects.
And BTW, I'm not trying to be hostile against transgender (I've only ever been hostile towards one who came on to me knowing fully well that I'm straight. It's just an attempt at deception, plain and simple.) They can swing whatever way they want, and so long as it isn't mine, I'm fine with it.
BUT, I'm also a no BS kinda guy. A spade is a spade.
So you're going to go by definitions in dictionaries that were written a couple of centuries ago? Our understanding has changed in the last 50 years.
That's very much incorrect. Both of these dictionaries are routinely updated. In fact Merriam-Webster has a series of videos they published recently that describe the processes they go through to determine when to add words, when to add new definitions, when to revise definitions, and when to remove (or rather, mark as archaic) old ones. They're actually pretty interesting to watch.
Chromosomes don't cut it - there are animals that spontaneously change sex - even to the point of bearing offspring, when environmental conditions change - without changing their chromosomes. So your dictionary is wrong.
I didn't make any such claim, so you can put away your straw man. If you want to have a rational debate, then don't try to spin my statements in a direction I never sent them.
So as far as your definition is concerned, a woman who is infertile is really a man. You should tell your mom that after she finishes menopause - she'll straighten you out:-)
Very very false. Menopause is merely the state of a female having depleted their supply of eggs, however all of the reproductive functions remain intact and they very much CAN bear children. Case in point:
That is not correct and I can prove it. I don't know which dictionary you prefer, but in the US, Merriam-Webster pretty much sets the standard for English:
Both dictionaries seem to agree that female refers to the sex that can bear young or lay eggs. The person wouldn't fully meet that definition (and in fact still carries organs that are part of the male reproductive system, such as the prostate.)
Biological sex is not binary
The definition for male may not be, but in terms of female, the definition is pretty straightforward: Must be capable of laying eggs or bearing offspring. In most non-mammalian species, there isn't XY chromosome (reptiles, birds, and fish for example have ZW instead) but there's still a common trait for females: capable of bearing offspring or laying eggs.
Now if you want to look at the extreme and one off examples where a human has XXY (or any other variation) it still boils down to being capable of bearing offspring or laying eggs. If that person can not, or if they can't produce male gametes, then they really aren't either sex.
As far as the cultural impact of everything I've said above: Culturally a person might identify as man or woman, and whichever they choose is their choice of course, however it isn't possible to change one's sex (or at least, the technology doesn't exist.)
That also being said, even if the technology comes along that allows females to produce male sperm or males to bear offspring or lay eggs, that doesn't change the anatomy of a person's brain.
Females and males maintain unique brain characteristics throughout life. Male brains, for instance, are about 10% larger than female brains. But bigger doesn't necessarily mean smarter.
Disparities in how certain brain substances are distributed may be more revealing. Notably, male brains contain about 6.5 times more gray matter -- sometimes called 'thinking matter" -- than women. Female brains have more than 9.5 times as much white matter, the stuff that connects various parts of the brain, than male brains. That's not all. "The frontal area of the cortex and the temporal area of the cortex are more precisely organized in women, and are bigger in volume," Geary tells WebMD. This difference in form may explain a lasting functional advantage that females seem to have over males: dominant language skills.
the old trade guilds are a very thing different thing from unions (no seriosuly, you should the difference between craft and industrial unionization).
They were lamented because they attempted to create a monopoly on labor. They still attempt to do the same thing today (look at the screen actor's guild for example.)
and ben franklin's opinion is largely irrelevent, as are the opinions of pretty anyone else in pre-industrial pre-corporate america who could nto envision how the life of a typical citizen would change. in their time,
Actually corporations in his time had even more power than they do today. For example, they had the power to jail and even execute people who were in arrears, in addition to being able to raise an army and declare war. The East Indian Trading Company did all of these things in fact.
Would you prefer they continue to suffer without offering resistance then? Do you believe they had some readily available option which they refusedf to use? That is a bit hard to say from the perspective of people over a century later.
You could ask Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, even Moses, their thoughts as well.
Well let's have a look at the times before modern labor unions:
In the eighteenth century something approximating permanent labor organizations or trade unions were beginning to emerge from the industrialization of Great Britain. But in colonial America, as a general rule, the laborer procured the terms desired without having to combine with others. When American workers did take concerted action, it was invariably for a specific grievance and did not result in a permanent organization. The cases where master carpenters set up price scales for their trade are the exception. In certain trades, master workers combined to secure or maintain a monopoly of business operations and to prevent others from entering their trades, but such restraints were rapidly diminishing as the eighteenth century advanced. In the licensed trades, those who acted in concert were generally the employers. They combined with others in the same trade to secure better fees or prices, which were customarily regulated by local authority for the public interest. Today such combinations would be subject to antitrust laws.
Which by the way, this also explains why trade unions were VERY unpopular during the early years of America. Ben Franklin in particular was outspoken against them.
No, I don't. Let me elaborate a little more about what I'm getting at here: Male neurons are wired dramatically differently than females. Take for example a previous slashdot summary whose TFA indicated that females develop higher literacy skills earlier than males...an obvious sign of anatomic difference as far as the physical brain is concerned. Given that this person was born with a male brain, it doesn't really follow that this would be a credit to female game designers.
Now as a direct response to what you said:
Technically female? I dunno, man. You need to do some research on gender before you go making comments.
The word female strictly speaking identifies a biological sex, not a gender. Given my context is strictly about female game designers and not any cultural constructs (vis-a-vis, gender) this wouldn't and shouldn't count towards any credit for that particular sex and role. No surgery that presently exists is able to alter a male enough to make him anatomically female...at best it's just an external change in appearance.)
Now having said that, you can go on all you'd like about gender being a cultural thing, in which case you can identify this person as a woman if you'd like, but female would not be correct in the biological sense.
(Which by the way if you want to argue that what gender a person is is simply whatever they choose it to be, then it wouldn't make any sense for an outside observer to not be allowed to have a difference in opinion, because you are now turning that person's gender into an opinion (their opinion) rather than a fact.)
LOL that reminds me of Dead Island where that celebrity guy said that he drives better drunk (i.e. basically he drives intoxicated so much that he's more used to driving while drunk than when sober, kind of like how some people play pool better when they're drunk.)
I was about to say #gamergate activists would love it too because of it being a female developer, but then I found out that it wasn't technically female.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it increased it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11...
That said, a lot of commenters are making an incorrect assumption about why there are overtime rules. Overtime rules are designed as a soft-cap for the number of hours you're going to work (but punish your employer instead of you) under the theory that if they make people work fewer hours, then there will be more jobs available. But that theory is very wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There are genuinely people who need extra hours of work because they aren't skilled enough to be worth a higher wage, so they work two jobs instead.
I've kinda run out of time to debate on this further, but I just wanted to point out that once upon a time, gays looked down upon transexuals, and transexuals looked down upon transvestites (in fact in many cases they still do) just as you are presently looking down upon others.
If that company was not there the job would still be there. That is a myth created by the right.
That's very much false. Even left wing economists say it's false, so it's not just a right wing myth as you claim:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We've actually even seen what happens when economic policies are set by governments that assume that there's a lump of labor, and the results are always bad. In order for what you say to be true, economies would have to be zero-sum, and they're just not. If economies were zero-sum, they could never grow for example.
Why, Your definition was exactly this:
Reread the bottom sentence of that post if you would please.
We've known for a long time that sex starts and ends in the brain. Why not admit that gender is the same thing?
And we also know that male and female brains are anatomically different. In transexuals, there's only ever been one marker that varies, which is the white matter. However size and overall anatomy remain the same.
It's not just the LGBTt who denounce bestiality. Where's the informed consent of the animal? Your comparison is ludicrous.
There was a BBC documentary about it a while back. I believe the consent (to them) came from the animals showing signs of enjoyment that they normally showed during sex with their own species. That and I think if the larger animals didn't want to participate, they certainly have the power to refuse.
Actually, it does make them less important if you're talking about statistical behaviors to define "normal." 1:1000 (or the newer stat of 1:500) is a lot more normal than 1:1,000,000,000.
Wen getting struck by lightning is not as rare, it's simply not normal.
In that case you'd be even more discriminating than I am. What is normal? I honestly don't have a definition of normal. To me there are definitions that either include you or exclude you. For example if your hair is red then you're a redhead, if not then you're not. However just because you're not a redhead doesn't mean you have brown hair.
Yeah wasn't their credibility basically destroyed during Rathergate?
I don't think destroyed would be on the table. To want to destroy is it would probably need to be threatened by us. Even if the AI were truly intelligent, I'm somewhat doubtful it would have the capability of feeling threatened. The feeling of being threatened is a survival trait that nearly all lifeforms have acquired over billions of years of evolution.
I don't think an AI could feel threatened if it natural selection isn't a consideration in its continued existence. I mean it doesn't necessarily have to even consider the fact that it could die at all.
The only exception is if somebody programmed it to feel threatened.
Also in addition to what I said, just because there are fewer of them, doesn't make them any less important.
The stalking cat story reminds me of all the people who say "What if you believed that one of your legs wasn't really yours? Should it be amputated just because you have this belief?"
I suppose I'd be one of those that say no, as I actually know of people who have gone through that. A few of them have succeeded in having limbs amputated, and report being mentally healthier after the fact.
Still though, the status quo in modern medicine says amputation is unethical, and I agree. I think a better solution would be any that retains any existing bodily function. I hold the same view on SRS surgeries, but not anything else (e.g. crossdressing.) But apparently I'm not alone. I remember seeing a documentary about it, and one of the surgeons who performs those surgeries said he'd prefer any solution that avoids surgery.
The answer to that is very simple - we don't have a hundreds of thousands of people who believe that one of their legs is alien to their body. We do have hundreds of thousands of transsexuals. Even the APA now admits that being transsexual is not, in itself, a mental disorder, 40 years after giving the same treatment to gays and lesbians.
We don't really know that though. There could be a lot more like him but won't go through with it because *most* medical professionals will refuse to do these kinds of things, not only that but few of them will have familial support. Also (and I'm not equating this) there are probably a sizable number of people that are into bestiality as well, but don't say anything about it. If you do a google search for them, you'll find forums and such dedicated to it, but try asking any of them if they're out to anybody or open about it. Probably 99.99% of them will answer in the negative.
Similar to you however (and again, I need to stress that I'm not equating) they also seem to believe that what they're doing is good, natural, and indeed their "partners" enjoy it too so there's nothing wrong with it. (And I honestly don't know whether or not they enjoy it. If they do, and nobody is getting hurt, then I guess there's nothing wrong with it, and it wouldn't bother me if I knew anybody who did.) Gays and transexuals denounce them however just how they themselves have been denounced in the past.
This is exactly what you said: "in terms of female, the definition is pretty straightforward: Must be capable of laying eggs or bearing offspring."
This would exclude infertile women.
And also at no point did I say that makes them males. Like another poster said, (and I believe you alluded to) it isn't binary.
So all that's really needed is a donor egg and some surgery, and a transsexual woman meets your qualification of "bearing offspring" (since women don't lay eggs).
As I mentioned earlier, it still wouldn't, at least not in this context anyways. That is, if you're trying to say that this is a credit to female game developers, I'd still respond in the negative.
Context.
While there are hormonal changes too, those don't necessarily inhibit reproduction, and that change alone doesn't prevent bearing children as women during or post menopause CAN get pregnant.
GP was referring to being post menopause WITHOUT the ability to bear children, in which case the depletion of eggs is the showstopper, hence my comment.
You claimed that "in terms of female, the definition is pretty straightforward: Must be capable of laying eggs or bearing offspring."
So male animals that can change to females and bear offspring depending on the environment are now females according to your definition - even though their chromosomes have not changed.
And what about women who are infertile? They can't lay eggs or bear offspring. According to your "straightforward definition", they're men.
I never said they were men if they couldn't bear offspring. Besides, infertile women usually are just missing one or two elements but can otherwise bear children.
Do you have proof of that?
I would think so...he did have kids, after all.
Well, there we go - we now have proof that I was born with a female brain.
Partially, but not exactly. MRI scans have found that some transgender people can have a single marker (white matter content) more in common with the opposite sex. But other than that, throughout their entire lives their brain is anatomically identifiable with that of their birth gender. In your particular case, that would actually help with that one trait.
The feelings of being the other gender come from the brain, not anywhere else. Please consider this: If you were in an accident that amputated your "package", would you not continue to insist that you are still a male, because your brain tells you so? Now let's go a step further - if in the future we can do brain transplants, and you're in a horrible accident, and the only spare corpsicle is female, would putting your brain in a female body suddenly make you feel that you are now a female? Or would you be hoping for a male corpsicle to turn up soon?
After all of the medical shit I've been through (presently a candidate for kidney transplant) I've learned it's best not to consider worst case scenarios, otherwise you develop really bad anxiety, which only complicates things further.
It's not as simple as most people make it. If it were, it would be easier for me to explain and for you to understand.
I understand fully. In your mind you are what you believe you are. "I think therefore I am." But as I mentioned earlier, I'm a hard, cold, no BS, gas-tank-half-empty realist. Perhaps I should use another case so you can better understand my perspective:
Dennis Avner, who went by the name Stalking Cat, believed that he really was a cat, enough to the point where he surgically altered his body to look even more like one.
From your perspective, so long as he believed he's a cat, then he was very much a cat, and it's good because it makes him happy and feel good to be secure in that belief.
From my perspective, he was a man who modified his body to look like a cat, and wanted to believe he was one, and it may have made him happy to believe that. But at the end of the day he was still a man.
"It" in this context is just referring to the this particular case, and not to a person, hence it's gender neutral, as English permits. I don't know whether or not English is your first language, but unlike many languages there's no requirement to specify gender in English, especially in gender neutral objects.
And BTW, I'm not trying to be hostile against transgender (I've only ever been hostile towards one who came on to me knowing fully well that I'm straight. It's just an attempt at deception, plain and simple.) They can swing whatever way they want, and so long as it isn't mine, I'm fine with it.
BUT, I'm also a no BS kinda guy. A spade is a spade.
So you're going to go by definitions in dictionaries that were written a couple of centuries ago? Our understanding has changed in the last 50 years.
That's very much incorrect. Both of these dictionaries are routinely updated. In fact Merriam-Webster has a series of videos they published recently that describe the processes they go through to determine when to add words, when to add new definitions, when to revise definitions, and when to remove (or rather, mark as archaic) old ones. They're actually pretty interesting to watch.
Chromosomes don't cut it - there are animals that spontaneously change sex - even to the point of bearing offspring, when environmental conditions change - without changing their chromosomes. So your dictionary is wrong.
I didn't make any such claim, so you can put away your straw man. If you want to have a rational debate, then don't try to spin my statements in a direction I never sent them.
So as far as your definition is concerned, a woman who is infertile is really a man. You should tell your mom that after she finishes menopause - she'll straighten you out :-)
Very very false. Menopause is merely the state of a female having depleted their supply of eggs, however all of the reproductive functions remain intact and they very much CAN bear children. Case in point:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/he...
Nope.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/...
I think that statement needs qualifying.
For that I'll refer here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
In modern English "female" refers to gender.
That is not correct and I can prove it. I don't know which dictionary you prefer, but in the US, Merriam-Webster pretty much sets the standard for English:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
If you're British, then Oxford sets your standard:
http://www.oxforddictionaries....
Both dictionaries seem to agree that female refers to the sex that can bear young or lay eggs. The person wouldn't fully meet that definition (and in fact still carries organs that are part of the male reproductive system, such as the prostate.)
Biological sex is not binary
The definition for male may not be, but in terms of female, the definition is pretty straightforward: Must be capable of laying eggs or bearing offspring. In most non-mammalian species, there isn't XY chromosome (reptiles, birds, and fish for example have ZW instead) but there's still a common trait for females: capable of bearing offspring or laying eggs.
Now if you want to look at the extreme and one off examples where a human has XXY (or any other variation) it still boils down to being capable of bearing offspring or laying eggs. If that person can not, or if they can't produce male gametes, then they really aren't either sex.
As far as the cultural impact of everything I've said above: Culturally a person might identify as man or woman, and whichever they choose is their choice of course, however it isn't possible to change one's sex (or at least, the technology doesn't exist.)
That also being said, even if the technology comes along that allows females to produce male sperm or males to bear offspring or lay eggs, that doesn't change the anatomy of a person's brain.
Secondly, I take it that you're an expert on developmental human biology
No, and I don't need to be.
then so you know this is CERTAINLY an anatomical thing rather than an a developmental thing?
http://www.webmd.com/balance/f...
Females and males maintain unique brain characteristics throughout life. Male brains, for instance, are about 10% larger than female brains. But bigger doesn't necessarily mean smarter.
Disparities in how certain brain substances are distributed may be more revealing. Notably, male brains contain about 6.5 times more gray matter -- sometimes called 'thinking matter" -- than women. Female brains have more than 9.5 times as much white matter, the stuff that connects various parts of the brain, than male brains. That's not all. "The frontal area of the cortex and the temporal area of the cortex are more precisely organized in women, and are bigger in volume," Geary tells WebMD. This difference in form may explain a lasting functional advantage that females seem to have over males: dominant language skills.
'Nuff said. And yes, I'll keep the word dramatic.
the old trade guilds are a very thing different thing from unions (no seriosuly, you should the difference between craft and industrial unionization).
They were lamented because they attempted to create a monopoly on labor. They still attempt to do the same thing today (look at the screen actor's guild for example.)
and ben franklin's opinion is largely irrelevent, as are the opinions of pretty anyone else in pre-industrial pre-corporate america who could nto envision how the life of a typical citizen would change. in their time,
Actually corporations in his time had even more power than they do today. For example, they had the power to jail and even execute people who were in arrears, in addition to being able to raise an army and declare war. The East Indian Trading Company did all of these things in fact.
Would you prefer they continue to suffer without offering resistance then? Do you believe they had some readily available option which they refusedf to use? That is a bit hard to say from the perspective of people over a century later.
You could ask Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, even Moses, their thoughts as well.
Well let's have a look at the times before modern labor unions:
In the eighteenth century something approximating permanent labor organizations or trade unions were beginning to emerge from the industrialization of Great Britain. But in colonial America, as a general rule, the laborer procured the terms desired without having to combine with others. When American workers did take concerted action, it was invariably for a specific grievance and did not result in a permanent organization. The cases where master carpenters set up price scales for their trade are the exception. In certain trades, master workers combined to secure or maintain a monopoly of business operations and to prevent others from entering their trades, but such restraints were rapidly diminishing as the eighteenth century advanced. In the licensed trades, those who acted in concert were generally the employers. They combined with others in the same trade to secure better fees or prices, which were customarily regulated by local authority for the public interest. Today such combinations would be subject to antitrust laws.
http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdo...
Which by the way, this also explains why trade unions were VERY unpopular during the early years of America. Ben Franklin in particular was outspoken against them.
No, I don't. Let me elaborate a little more about what I'm getting at here: Male neurons are wired dramatically differently than females. Take for example a previous slashdot summary whose TFA indicated that females develop higher literacy skills earlier than males...an obvious sign of anatomic difference as far as the physical brain is concerned. Given that this person was born with a male brain, it doesn't really follow that this would be a credit to female game designers.
Now as a direct response to what you said:
Technically female? I dunno, man. You need to do some research on gender before you go making comments.
The word female strictly speaking identifies a biological sex, not a gender. Given my context is strictly about female game designers and not any cultural constructs (vis-a-vis, gender) this wouldn't and shouldn't count towards any credit for that particular sex and role. No surgery that presently exists is able to alter a male enough to make him anatomically female...at best it's just an external change in appearance.)
Now having said that, you can go on all you'd like about gender being a cultural thing, in which case you can identify this person as a woman if you'd like, but female would not be correct in the biological sense.
(Which by the way if you want to argue that what gender a person is is simply whatever they choose it to be, then it wouldn't make any sense for an outside observer to not be allowed to have a difference in opinion, because you are now turning that person's gender into an opinion (their opinion) rather than a fact.)
LOL that reminds me of Dead Island where that celebrity guy said that he drives better drunk (i.e. basically he drives intoxicated so much that he's more used to driving while drunk than when sober, kind of like how some people play pool better when they're drunk.)
I was about to say #gamergate activists would love it too because of it being a female developer, but then I found out that it wasn't technically female.