The Historical Jesus

[The Grand Nudger]

Males who liked showtunes and dressing up were pretty much always considered to be girls. I guess it was fine when we called them that but not so much if they decided it for themselves.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Males who liked showtunes and dressing up were pretty much always considered to be girls.  I guess it was fine when we called them that but not so much if they decided it for themselves.

That’s gonna give the Reaganites an aneurysm.



Boru

[brewer]

[Ferrocyanide]

It sounds like you are saying that gender is based on an individual claiming to be male or female with no reason.

I'm not sure that "no reason" is correct. Probably there is a reason. But the reason is NOT anatomical. 

If a person who has all the anatomical characteristics which we used to associate with maleness (chromosomes, genitalia, hormonal balances) identifies as a female, then the current consensus among right-thinking people is that she is in fact a woman. 

If someone objected and said, "I don't care how you 'identify,' you have a dick and a beard and XY chromosomes, therefore you're a man, like it or not," this person would be labelled a transphobe. 

In that case, the words male and female lose meaning.

They appear to have lost the meaning they used to have. But I'm told that people who hold to the old meanings, and deny that trans women are women, are no longer on the right side of history.

I agree that it is not chromosomes, genitalia, hormonal balances that absolutely and definitely determine if a person feels like a male or female.
They probably play a role in shaping up the brain (the neural circuits) but probably there are some other factors that effect the neural circuits as well.

I was confused when you said

And I am saying that even if a person has a "female brain" (whatever that is) it would not be determinative of that person's gender.

Because brains are anatomical organs, and we no longer believe that gender is determined by anatomy.

Because if it isn't the brain that determines this, then we are left with what?

[Belacqua]

Because if it isn't the brain that determines this, then we are left with what?

I don't know. This seems to me a problem.

If there is no identifiable anatomical structure, or interaction (say, a balance of hormones) that determines gender, then we have no objective, testable, empirical method of determining it. 

I mean, personally, it's OK with me if people want to identify however they want. But a personal claim is not one that science can deal with.

Put in another way, we could think about falsifiability. (Remember that it's common to say that any scientific claim must be falsifiable, and if it's not falsifiable it's not science.) 

If a person claims they are one gender or another, or none, how can this be falsified? If a person says "I'm female," is it EVER possible to say "no, you're not." If not, then we're dealing with some kind of truth which is not empirical, testable, scientific. We are to believe it based on an individual's claim -- not on evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah yes, if only there were a science that could explore how gender is constructed. Maybe there would be classes in particular wing of universities all over the world? We could call them something like gender studies - slap an ology on to the end of whatever underlying phenomena we believe they're a product of, and we'd all be happy. We'd get the definitions we want and the answers that would comfort us.

[Ferrocyanide]

Because if it isn't the brain that determines this, then we are left with what?

I don't know. This seems to me a problem.

If there is no identifiable anatomical structure, or interaction (say, a balance of hormones) that determines gender, then we have no objective, testable, empirical method of determining it. 

I mean, personally, it's OK with me if people want to identify however they want. But a personal claim is not one that science can deal with.

Put in another way, we could think about falsifiability. (Remember that it's common to say that any scientific claim must be falsifiable, and if it's not falsifiable it's not science.) 

If a person claims they are one gender or another, or none, how can this be falsified? If a person says "I'm female," is it EVER possible to say "no, you're not." If not, then we're dealing with some kind of truth which is not empirical, testable, scientific. We are to believe it based on an individual's claim -- not on evidence.

Yes, it is part of the scientific method to develop a falsifiable hypothesis.

The problem in this case has to do with complexity and the limitations of science.
Problem 1: There is no way to map out the brain at the neural level and to also not damage it.
Problem 2: If some technology is invented to solve Problem 1, there is another large barrier, which is problem 2. How do we identify what a circuit does?

In electronics, it is possible to look at different CPU circuits, different calculator circuits and be able to identify and adder circuit. There are small variation in adder circuits but basically, everyone now uses the same optimized circuit.
Can the same be done for the brain? Is it possible to recognize which part store a memory about a guy celebrating his 20 th birthday?
It is possible to recognize the circuit which makes a person prefer the blue color?

Right now, we don’t have a clue. The method used is to damage the neural circuit to figure out what it was for.
This is not something that can be done intentionally on a human.

Other things are much easier to test:
What is the glucose concentration in someone’s blood?
What is the sodium concentration in someone’s brain?
Is the heart structure healthy (Use a echography to image the heart)?
Is someone’s intestines ok? (give him some barium sulfate and use a x-ray video machine to visualize inside him)

[Mister Agenda]

If a person claims they are one gender or another, or none, how can this be falsified? If a person says "I'm female," is it EVER possible to say "no, you're not." If not, then we're dealing with some kind of truth which is not empirical, testable, scientific. We are to believe it based on an individual's claim -- not on evidence.

Like a vast host of things a person can say about themselves which can't be falsified but as a society we take them at their word as long as their actions are reasonably consistent with their claims about themselves. We can't falsify whether a person is a Christian or a communist, it could just be an act...but we take their word for it just the same. We're more likely to think someone who claims to be a communist but doesn't act like it is just confused about what communism means, because why would they lie?

[The Grand Nudger]

To pick up chicks.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Remember when the thread was about the historical Jesus? I long for those bygone days.

Boru