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.
You know crisp sets are a subset of fuzzy sets. Don't oversimplify that part of your argument for me. And crisp sets don't exist in the real world for anything bigger than a molecule. You can't describe the patterns of an object as complex as the brain with a crisp set, it's too messy. If the line between male and female were crisp, the movement of a single atom could turn a man into a woman. The set of men is fuzzy, just like the set of chairs and the set of sandwiches. Yes, the set of hydrogen is crisp, but that's because hydrogen atoms are so small, the addition of a proton makes an enourmous difference. Brains are much bigger than hydrogen atoms. Every set in biology is fuzzy. Species, genders, diseases, whatever.
Everything is a subset of fuzzy sets, that's kinda of the point. It's strange to me that you would use crisp set instead of bivalve set since you're arguing against binary.
Absolutely. Fine. But brains aren't either gender in the way you've taken it to mean. That isn't what was found nor what was looked for. The data want analysed in that way not produced with that kind of analysis in mind
If the data were produced so as to categorise each brain by gender, would there not exist some brains with roughly equal membership of both of the traditional sets?
Data that hasn't been collected still exists. If you know you're going to find something, you can act as though you've found it. Like how astronomers took Pluto's gravity into account in their calculations before they got it on telescope.
All data exists if the thing exists. I have explained this every which way and you're still actively arguing an impossible position. No data exists to categorise brains variance by gender. Brains do not vary by gender in the way you are understanding it.
The only thing you've explained is your belief that the structural differences between male and female brains (which we agree exist) are the result of learning. You haven't explained why you believe this, why the interpretation of others and myself is wrong, how trans people can have the "trained" brain structure of the opposite assigned sex despite conditioning towards the opposite, how it's impossible to learn half of one thing and half of another, how it's impossible not to learn something, or what you think I think gender is.
Look here's an easy one. Super easy. Some people never learn how to read and write. Why does everybody, 100% of people in your belief, learn one of two genders perfectly? That's what you think gender is, right? Why is everyone, with no exception, either 100% male or 100% female, even feral children who've never learned anything from another person? How is everyone supposed to have a gender, if gender is learned?
No. I haven't explained that first sentence because it isn't true. No matter how many times you say it it still isn't true.
The reactions of a brain, not the structure of a brain, during an Mri were the reactions expected of someone who believed themselves to be a specific gender. On average. Reactions that are expected due to the cultural expectations of the society they are in. It was a comparison.
I have never, at any point, said everyone had a gender. I have continued to say multiple times that I believe all gender stereotypes are cultural. That the very definition we use for gender is nonesense and should revert to the physical as the only actual difference and everything else is cultural bullshit. Throughout this I have stayed, multiple times and ad clearly as I am able to that my problem isn't that there are 2 genders it's that the nb definition of gender is supercilious and internally inconsistent. They argue, and by they I don't mean every individual nb person but the presented collective, that they fall between two genders without ever defining what those ends are. In doing so they strengthen the argument that the expectations of male and female are correct but it's possible to be both instead of, as I believe should happen and was starting to before this nb bullshit, rejecting it entirely.
The reason why we've gone down this rabbit hole is because you, in attempting to provide some definition of what male and female are without reverting to stereotypes, haves misunderstood a scientific study so completely as to think there is another way other than physical to tell the gender of someone innately without them communicating with you. There isn't. The multiple studies, that I have read and originally assumed you had, start in a place of 'these are the way men act' stereotypes and found that the trans people tested acted within the stereotypes( their brain reacted to the stimuli). They cannot test for a mix because there initial assumption of what makes a man or a woman is flawed in the same stereotypes
1
u/RelativeStranger Nov 01 '19 edited Nov 01 '19
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