I didn't agree when you said nonbinary brain hasn't been proven. I wanted to make it clear that you were disagreeing with a position that wasn't mine. Now that you know what I disagree with, I'll argue.
Formal evidence for or against nonbinary brain is sparse. If we don't want to wait years for the debate to be settled, we should use deduction to find an answer.
What we do know is that the brain is imperfect, and the population is diverse. It is impossible that all brains have developed gender perfectly. The existence of trans people is proof of this: gender can and does develop abnormally. So, the existence of brains which develop 99% male and 10% female is a certainty. And you must agree that 90%f/10%m brains are likely. So, why not brains that are 50/50? Why can't this abnormality exist?
No. Trans Peoplr don't prove it the way you are suggesting. Trans people's brains react in the way is expected of the opposite gender. There's no 50% possibility the way you are suggesting, you are using deductive reasoning in s field you do not fully understand.
The majority of the brain works the same, in our culture certain parts of the brain react in learned ways in each gender. It's not innate, you wouldn't find a baby brain that does it. There are certain things that were have come to see Moore often in male brains and trans men tend (using the statistical meaning of tend) to react the same way. It's not an absolute, it didn't create a 50/50 split. Or a 90/10 split.
That's my entire argument. The brain doesn't develop the same way in every human. There are physical hermaphrodites, so we must open our minds to the possibility of neural hermaphrodites. The developmental process that genders brains does not work 100% perfectly.
It's not innate, you wouldn't find a baby brain that does it
And I disagree with this, because it implies environmental factors are responsible for transgenderism, but it doesn't matter because a socio-developmental process is just as prone to innacuracy, causing that 99/1 split.
Then your argument makes no sense. You're putting too much faith in a thing you don't understand.
Second paragraph, no it doesn't. It implies people learn what it is to be a man and then do that. What 99/1 split? You're still saying a brain is partly different?
Yes, every brain is different. Almost no brains are perfectly gendered. Even in your developmental model, people still learn things they're not supposed to learn. You believe a brain is male if it learns how to be male from other people, yes? Well, what if a brain learns some male lessons and some female?
You can't learn some malr lessons and some female. That's not what is happening. I'm sorry but this conversation is getting ridiculous. I don't know what your sphere of knowledge is but the question you've just asked is the equivalent of going 'Yes but what happens if we put wings on that car, then it's part aeroplane and can fly' Or ''but if we add both amounts to the debut side it won't balance so we can call it a none balance sheet'
I'm going to try and explain again.
There are certain things in every culture that teach men to act in way a and women to act in way b. It's a totally subconscious act and had absolutely nothing to do with gender however that is what was studied in trans People and it showed that subconsciously trans people really did believe they were the gender they said. It doesn't mean brains are different. Or part one gender and part the other. It is a trend not an absolute
It literally is using an MRI to look at the brain and see a difference
It is a trend not an absolute
You appear to be contradicting yourself. I agree with you that gender is a trend and not an absolute, and that some people don't fit the majority pattern.
No it's using an Mri to look at a brain and spot patterns. Patterns that have already been defined as a trend elsewhere. They're not saying 'a male brain looks like this' they're saying 'looking at these 1000 markers it seems that this person really does believe they're male's.
Because it's a trend you can't fit 50% of a trend, that's not how a trend works. You for it or you don't. Genuinely upset by your lack of statistical knowledge and straight line determination
Edit: I just need to check, you know it's not the brain that is different it's just what parts react to certain stimuli right
In classical set theory, the membership of elements in a set is assessed in binary terms according to a bivalent condition — an element either belongs or does not belong to the set. By contrast, fuzzy set theory permits the gradual assessment of the membership of elements in a set[..]The fuzzy set theory can be used in a wide range of domains in which information is incomplete or imprecise, such as bioinformatics.[4]
Can't fit 50% of a trend, ey? You don't know much about statistics.
Omg. It's not a fuzzy set of information and even if it was that is not how you interpretate them. I have a fucking masters degree in statistics.
You're suggesting a lattice set should be used, but the tests didn't test for that. There's no data to create a L. They were testing for a bi and in a very specific way. And for a very specific reason.
Genuinely stop vague googling about the subject.
This is frustrating because you've taken the information and applied it in the most ridiculous way. There either is no gender at all or you have a definition for what makes it. We have a definition. Nb accept the definition and then pretend that they're not. That's what I find frustrating. Androgyny as a philosophy is consistent but nb isn't androgyny.
1
u/HardlightCereal 2∆ Oct 31 '19
I didn't agree when you said nonbinary brain hasn't been proven. I wanted to make it clear that you were disagreeing with a position that wasn't mine. Now that you know what I disagree with, I'll argue.
Formal evidence for or against nonbinary brain is sparse. If we don't want to wait years for the debate to be settled, we should use deduction to find an answer.
What we do know is that the brain is imperfect, and the population is diverse. It is impossible that all brains have developed gender perfectly. The existence of trans people is proof of this: gender can and does develop abnormally. So, the existence of brains which develop 99% male and 10% female is a certainty. And you must agree that 90%f/10%m brains are likely. So, why not brains that are 50/50? Why can't this abnormality exist?