My general intuition agrees with your views on gender. But I don’t trust my general intuition blindly - nor do I think it should be the basis for social engineering.
I see, so you disagree that gender is a social construct. That's fair, but your opinion is not universally held and wouldn't be a sufficient answer for a GPT bot.
I’m truly not trying to be obtuse when I say that not only does it not force me to think about gender, it doesn’t specifically evoke gender for me at all. Our radars seem to be calibrated differently. It’s often said that to seek offense is to find it.
The analysis of the social construction of gender is not derived from "feelings."
This technology is actually quite inconsistent with gender studies, which is why I find it quite baffling. Gender as an identity would imply that a female could have a deep gravelly voice and that a man could also have a higher pitched softer voice, as ones gender identity need not be dictated by their born sex or physical attributes.
This is quite fundamental to gender studies, making this tech not just useless, but completely counter intuitive to that project.
Not sure if you're trolling but a tool which flips between two popular genders doesn't deny existence of other genders. Not everything related to gender has to be about the gender spectrum.
I never mentioned any of the theories in your response. There are all kinds of people who study gender in society from every possible angle, Damore doesn’t strike me as an expert in the field. Just a typical engineer who thinks he knows everything.
An algorithm that trys and detect a male or female is not bad or unethical period. Gender != sex, males and females have different bodies and faces based on different genetic makeup between XX chromosomes and XY chromosomes.
Regardless, it misses the distinction between biological sex v. a mind's gender identity, and solely by the sheer quantity of neurons and possible interconnects, it's impossible to say that every person's brain strictly aligns with one of two modes of operation. (if anyone who specializes in gender studies knows more on this topic and believes I'm summarizing this—or even stating the problem—incorrectly, please step in; this isn't my specialty)
In fact, it's only appropriate to say that every brain is unique in how it processes the self and the world, and that while for the majority of people it's easy or even innate to identify with certain characteristics, there are minorities for whom this isn't the case.
We need to express inclusive empathy where we can, even if the only reason for doing so is to make sure that when we fall outside societally defined structures, we ourselves can also continue to be respected. Ideally we'd do so because we're trying to be good people, but my point is, even a selfish person should reach the same conclusion.
IMHO I am not convinced that gender identity is actually measurable or a knowable thing. I can physically demonstrate whether I am male or female. I can only assume that I think or feel like other males or females based on how other males or females behave or what they tell me they think and feel. Given the fluidity of language I have no guarantee that my interpretation of that is accurate. I have no real way to do an experiment because I cannot choose to be the other gender for a day and compare. Maybe there are more objective measures but they seem somewhat inadequate to me. My real life experience informs me that there are no real defined boundaries and all of us are some mixture of all of the above.
Take that up with the people claiming gender is a social construct, that identify as gender fluid or making up the alphabet soup of modern genders. I had no part in that.
Yep, that's exactly my experience. Try asking any GPT to tell you exactly what all of the points are on the gender spectrum, and then ask it how the gender spectrum has any scientific validity if they can't define its contents.
I would say trying to deny that 95%+ of humans are clearly either male or female and trying to engineer the laws around a small percentage that want to be differently identified is the social engineering. The author is not trying to make the minimum possible change to the proposed legislation to make it acceptable, they're just trying to find something wrong with it so they can resist it entirely.
Genitalia match genetic sex in the vast majority of cases.
There are plenty of places where laws are flawed. Laws are designed to handle the vast majority of cases. They are meant to be practical.
Anyway, the point is, if the problem is with how to handle the exception to the rule, the < 5% with ambiguous gender, then the author of the editorial should make that argument, but saying that there is "no basis in science" for the proposed legislation is ridiculous and obviously ideologically driven.
reply