|
Ah, I kinda skimmed it if I'm being honest... mainly because I'm just so tired of reading stuff without real thought behind it. I'm rather jaded on most stuff like this.
Oh well, back to work for me.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, to be fair, I went back through it again... I did in fact read the second part. And after since moving to Los Angeles, I even some personal experience in dealing with something along this lines. And the person I met was a genuinely good person, so my viewpoint isn't from one of hate or intolerance or whatever...
But, I can't help but look at the big picture with DNA and science. It seems to be only a few years ago we just finished mapping the genome... mapping not understanding. And if you look at it in the grand scheme of things, humans are still very ignorant in understanding the body. DNA is a new toy, and to me it seems like we're jumping to conclusions because everyone wants to be the next great Einstein to bring about a change.
That's my long winded way of saying it'll take more than some person on social media rambling to ever make me consider what's being said. But hey, I'm jaded.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: humans are still very ignorant in understanding the body
Agreed - the truth could turn out to be more mundane. But based on past experience, it will probably turn out to be far weirder than our current understanding.
Which is why we shouldn't claim to know with absolute certainty that "the choice in hormones is binary". 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. The science "teacher" is agreeing with me. Unless she is an insect or a bird, we're talking about either XY or XX. Oh, she also limits it to humans a bit further on? Where she explains that we are *NOT* talking about a new gender - just the existing genders with some characteristics that humans do not associate with the stereotype of said gender.
Talking about abusing science to win an argument; the fact that there is an extremely small gray area in SCIENCE does not mean that there suddenly is a justification for a yuge gray area in society. There's two types of shithouses, I don't care what you identify with, if you don't like either place you can always stop shitting completely.
1+1 is not *exactly* 2, but that does not mean that we move to be politically correct and reword that idea, simply because science introduced a gray area in definitions.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: The science "teacher"
Why did you feel that you had to put the word "teacher" in quotes? Should I be surprised that you didn't add "so-called" before it? 
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Unless she is an insect or a bird, we're talking about either XY or XX.
Someone else who didn't bother reading to the end. Even if you dismiss the other abnormalities, you've still missed "XXY" and "X" from your list.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Talking about abusing science to win an argument
No, just clarifying that you can't use science to justify bigotry. As the post says, the real world is way too weird for that sh*t.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: the fact that there is an extremely small gray area in SCIENCE does not mean that there suddenly is a justification for a yuge gray area in society
The fact that there's no grey area in your religion does not mean there is ANY justification for contempt towards those who don't conform to your preconceived notions of gender.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: There's two types of shithouses, I don't care what you identify with, if you don't like either place you can always stop shitting completely.
Despite what you might think, nobody has yet come up with a way to avoid that basic human function.
And what, precisely, is your issue with where people sh*t? So long as they're doing it in a toilet, and not in your garden, what makes you think you have the right to dictate where that can and cannot evacuate their bowels? Who died and made you King Turd?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Why did you feel that you had to put the word "teacher" in quotes?
Because it is used there to give the post some authority. Still, anyone who can explain a concept would be a teacher.
Richard Deeming wrote: Even if you dismiss the other abnormalities, you've still missed "XXY" and "X" from your list.
I read it; perhaps you missed the comment that XXY is NOT a new gender?
Richard Deeming wrote: No, just clarifying that you can't use science to justify bigotry.
The entire post of the teacher is just that. It is whining about a PC version of genders.
Richard Deeming wrote: The fact that there's no grey area in your religion does not mean there is ANY justification for contempt towards those who don't conform to your preconceived notions of gender.
I did not refer to religion. It is also not contempt; but I will be pointing any "ze" to the nearest shrink
Richard Deeming wrote: Despite what you might think, nobody has yet come up with a way to avoid that basic human function.
That is a non-problem.
Richard Deeming wrote: And what, precisely, is your issue with where people sh*t?
None; I do have an issue with people requesting a special shittery for their new discovered gender.
Richard Deeming wrote: Who died and made you King Turd?
Since when do you have to resort to hitting on something that has nothing to do with the issue that we were talking about?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: perhaps you missed the comment that XXY is NOT a new gender?
No, but perhaps you've forgotten what you said yesterday?
Eddy Vluggen wrote: the choice in hormones is binary
NB: "Hormones", not "gender".
You started by saying that there is a simple binary choice of hormones. The message I linked to explains quite clearly that this is not the case. You respond by saying, "but it's not a new GENDER".
Eddy Vluggen wrote: It is whining about a PC version of genders.
No, it's "whining" about people who think they can use science to justify bigotry. Who think that science says there is only "XX" and "XY", and that those completely determine a person's gender, and therefore anything beyond that is political correctness GORN MAD!, and should therefore be dismissed out-of-hand.
And again, your choice of words shows that you think the whole idea is worthy of your contempt.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: I did not refer to religion.
No, but it's often the root cause behind this sort of transphobic argument. And even if it's not in this case, you still "religiously" believe that nothing exists beyond your own narrow point of view.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: I do have an issue with people requesting a special shittery for their new discovered gender.
And yet you clearly do have a problem with people using the shittery with which they're most comfortable. Why is that?
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Since when do you have to resort to hitting on something that has nothing to do with the issue that we were talking about?
Sorry, perhaps the English expression doesn't translate well. It's quite common, when someone is trying to tell other people what to do, to ask them, "Who died and made you ...", followed by an exaggerated title related to the activity they're trying to control.
For example:
"You need to cut your grass" ⇒ "Who died and made you the Grass Fairy?"
"You can't park there" ⇒ "Who died and made you Prince of the Parking Spaces?"
"You can't use that toilet" ⇒ "Who died and made you the Sultan of Sh*t?"
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: No, but it's often the root cause behind this sort of transphobic argument. And even if it's not in this case, you still "religiously" believe that nothing exists beyond your own narrow point of view.
That's a nice accusation.
Facebook's 71 gender options come to UK users - Telegraph[^]
So, religiously accepting any new fart of a brain as a new gender would be?
Richard Deeming wrote: And yet you clearly do have a problem with people using the shittery with which they're most comfortable. Why is that?
Because it has not been a problem in the last 6000 years, because there are clear and accepted definitions, because it would cost a lot to adapt society to new fantasized genders (in terms of physical locations as new bathrooms) as well as software.
I oppose accepting nonsense, just for the sake of "not hurting someones feelings". You can identify as pluto for all I care, just don't expect any special treatment.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Because it has not been a problem in the last 6000 years,
The law to ban transgender people from using the bathroom they're most comfortable with is a fairly recent thing. The earliest US version appears to have been proposed in 2013:
Bathroom bill - Wikipedia[^]
Prior to that, nobody really gave a sh*t which bathroom trans people used to take a sh*t. And if you believe that they were using the shittery associated with the gender they were assigned at birth, then I suspect you're deluding yourself.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: because it would cost a lot to adapt society to new fantasized genders (in terms of physical locations as new bathrooms)
Who's asking for new bathrooms? From what I've seen, the issue is about access to the existing bathrooms, not about creating new bathrooms for each group.
The only time new bathrooms are being provisioned is when states pass laws prohibiting people from using their preferred shittery, and organisations that object to this interference decide to provide "gender-neutral" facilities.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: You can identify as pluto for all I care, just don't expect any special treatment.
Oh, go on - let Pluto use the "Planets" crapper! Why should it be forced to use the "Dwarf Planets" facilities just because you don't think it's a planet any more? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: just because you don't think it's a planet any more?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
If only they'd enroll to the technical faculties... Unless we do want a horde of Liberal Arts women as our colleagues.
I mean, it's not that I would be contrary as it would... uplift moral but...
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I mentally referred to that news article when I posted my answer 
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
If you look at the photos of these "cheerleaders", you'll notice that the female programmers in the room aren't impressed -- but that there are female programmers in the room.
China has a lot more female programmers than the States or Europe, and they're treated equally, unlike in the West, where they have to fight for equal treatment (gaining the reputation of being loudmouths or bitches). And that's despite the fact that way less than half the population of China is female, especially in the cities.
But the only story you'll see in the Western papers is that some drooling idiots hired a few pretty girls -- and there's no confirmation that the story (which ballooned out insanely from a single facebook source) is even true.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, from what I've read, a lot of liberal arts devotees would be quite good at coding...
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
It's more that few choose this profession rather than that they are discriminated against.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
It's shoes that are the problem.
You can't focus your entire mind on programming problems if 10% of it is dedicated to thinking about shoes.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
For a moment, I thought you were announcing a new sequel to "Murder, She Wrote".
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I'm naive here, but in this day an age of over-sensitivity, I think the only oppression people suffer stems from their own minds because they're living in the past. Does sexism and racism exist still? Sure. Is there any oppression for it? Nope.
That being said, I do fully agree women deal with crap in tech when it comes to creepy guys. Sometimes a guy can deal with that too... having to deal with creepy guys. So, that would be a form of harassment.
Anyway, just my two cents.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
In America, the industry bends over backwards to encourage women in software development. "Oppression" doesn't exist; lack of interest by most women does.
The article is politicized garbage about a non-issue.
|
|
|
|
|
The method the CSAIL team developed works simply by reading your brain and detecting if you've noticed an error as the robot performs its tasks. One step closer to Macross
|
|
|
|
|
Did they study a woman's brain for the tech? They are after all excellent at detecting the errors in the tasks a man is performing. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
How do they expect me to control a robot with my brain, when I can't even control my brain with my brain?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Simple: robots still lack natural stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
Bernhard Hiller wrote: robots still lack natural stupidity
So I'm more advanced than them!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
