patrick.net

curious2 says

I suspect that women may be more likely to trust "health" "care" clinicians, and thus to go in for SSRIs, mammograms even when not helpful, and other unhelpful procedures. Clinicians become practiced at sending supportive cues that induce trust. Prior to Obamneycare, insurance premiums had gone higher for women than for men, which was remarkable and should have sent a warning about behavior. Instead, it made Obamneycare into a feminist cause, to equalize insurance premiums.

Agreed. The usage of SSRIs in American's in general, but esp. women is staggering and frightening and women do trust the "consensus" more than men (even when it is flawed or manipulated) which brings us back to the generally "meaner" distribution of women's brains/IQs. Makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint as the men were traditionally doing the extremes (hunting, warfare etc.) and the women were not meant to take crass risks off the beaten path or against the consensus on how to best raise children.

Women are dumb but damn, love dat T&A

Patrick says

Again, women cluster toward their mean more than men do, but what does this mean for the outliers?

On your graph, the difference in variation for intelligence doesn't seem big, but this seems to be saying women are on average not as smart as men.
This is another thesis altogether, and probably a less credible one.
Not sure what "g" unit is here (standard deviation?), but the difference between the women curve and the men curve seems substantial compared to the distribution.

curious2 says

You emphasize binary models in which the "exactly two" is an assumption, though not a fact.

How many biological parents do you have?

How many does everyone on earth have?

Seems to be exactly two in every case. So it is a fact.

The egg farms are smart enough to hide that they are geniuses a lot of the time. They don't require proselytization, just prostitution.

Patrick says

Again, women cluster toward their mean more than men do, but what does this mean for the outliers? It means that the ratio of male to female geniuses is dramatically large. There are simply on the order of ten times more male geniuses. This is not sexism, unless you consider scientific and mathematical facts to be sexism.

So stupid males are as stupid as stupid females. Intelligent men are more intelligent than intelligent women. Intelligence based on math and science abilities, yes, this is a fact. Women don't think with numbers and rational thought, they think with feelings. Their feelings are a lot more accurate than men. I always let my wife have the final say on wether our dog needs to go to a vet. She has never been wrong. When it comes to maps and directions, she has never been right.
All these differences are due to evolution, where humans survived not just because of differing skills between males and females, but also differing skills that everyone in a given society has. There is no superior or inferior when every type of intelligence and skills were and still are needed for our survival.

I changed "gender" to "sex" in the original post.

There are two sexes, and everyone reading this has exactly two biological parents who are the opposite sex from each other.

There are no exceptions.

Patrick says

everyone reading this has exactly two biological parents who are the opposite sex from each other.

There are no exceptions.

Good thing certain amphibians/frogs or species can't read, or else you would not be quite as correct.

Pretty sure it's absolutely true for all amphibians as well.

There is a female which lays eggs, and a male which deposits sperm.

No other options.

Patrick says

Pretty sure it's absolutely true for all amphibians as well.

There is a female which lays eggs, and a male which deposits sperm.

No other options.

There are several species that reproduce asexually. Strange, but true.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/asexual-lizards/
No Sex Needed: All-Female Lizard Species Cross Their Chromosomes to Make Babies

If I am a straight lesbian am I still a man-ah the endless possibilities of gender!!!

lostand confused says

If I am a straight lesbian am I still a man-ah the endless possibilities of gender!!!

Don't know. Might have to create a whole new gender in addition to the 50 we already have.

Patrick says

There are two sexes, and everyone reading this has exactly two biological parents who are the opposite sex from each other.

There are no exceptions.

"Pregnancy in true hermaphrodites and all male offspring to date."

"Potential autofertility in true hermaphrodites"

"True Hermaphroditism and Mixed Gonadal Dysgenesis in Young Children: A Clinicopathologic Study of 10 Cases"

Patrick says

Pretty sure it's absolutely true for all amphibians as well.

There is a female which lays eggs, and a male which deposits sperm.

No other options.

"These west African frogs have been known to spontaneously change sex from female to male. This likely occurs when the population does not have enough males to allow procreation and is accomplished when a chemical trigger activates the sex gene to disintegrate the female organs and develop the male ones."

Further reading:

"Some species exhibit sequential hermaphroditism. In these species, such as many species of coral reef fishes, sex change is a normal anatomical process. Clownfish, wrasses, moray eels, gobies and other fish species are known to change sex, including reproductive functions. A school of clownfish is always built into a hierarchy with a female fish at the top. When she dies, the most dominant male changes sex and takes her place. In the wrasses (the family Labridae), sex change is from female to male, with the largest female of the harem changing into a male and taking over the harem upon the disappearance of the previous dominant male.

Natural sex change, in both directions, has also been reported in mushroom corals. This is posited to take place in response to environmental or energetic constraints, and to improve the organism's evolutionary fitness; similar phenomena are observed in some dioecious plants.

Chickens can sometimes undergo natural sex changes. Normally, female chickens have just one functional ovary, on their left side. Although two sex organs are present during the embryonic stages of all birds, once a chicken's female hormones come into effect, it typically develops only the left ovary. The right gonad, which has yet to be defined as an ovary, testes, or both (called an ovotestis), typically remains dormant. Certain medical conditions can cause a chicken's left ovary to regress. In the absence of a functional left ovary, the dormant right sex organ may begin to grow, if the activated right gonad is an ovotestis or testes, it will begin secreting androgens. The hen does not completely change into a rooster, however. This transition is limited to making the bird phenotypically male. The condition could also be caused by mycotoxins that can develop when animal feed is stored, and these have the same effect as synthetic hormones. In about 10 per cent of cases, if eggs fertilised with male chromosomes are cooled by a few degrees for three days after laying, the relative activity of the sex hormones will favour development of female characteristics. The sex chromosomes work by coding for enzymes that affect the bird’s development in the egg and during its life. This cooling will produce a chicken with a fully functioning and reproductively fertile female body-type; even though the chicken is genetically male."

The superabundance of evidence makes me wonder why you persist in denial.

Patrick says

deliberate suppression of this scientific fact

I am really curious who "liked" your obviously false comments. Someone who likes to deny scientific fact, apparently.

@Patrick, this question has got me at least one "dislike" already, and you skipped it, so I will repost it:

curious2 says

Patrick says

females of most species vary distinctly more in phenotype (the expression of genes) than males do. Women cluster more around the mean, men are more spread out.

Could you please clarify? If the females "vary distinctly more," then why do they also "cluster more around the mean?" Conversely, if the males vary distinctly less, then how are they "more spread out?

Patrick says

there is greater variation among men.

Didn't you just say that "females of most species vary distinctly more in phenotype (the expression of genes) than males do."? I copied and pasted directly from your comment, so I think you said it.

I can't think of any mammals, and I'm sure no primates, that can spontaneously change sex, replace their genitalia, and/or can autoimpregnate themselves.

curious2 says

Didn't you just say that "females of most species vary distinctly more in phenotype (the expression of genes) than males do."? I copied and pasted directly from your comment, so I think you said it.

yeah i think he meant the opposite. i read it as a mistake as well, same as you

curious2 says

"females of most species vary distinctly more in phenotype (the expression of genes) than males do."?

I wrote it exactly wrong.

It's the males who vary more than females.

Thanks for pointing out the error, @curious2

I suggest everyone go to twitter and post this article... then watch what happens :)

Feel like the regulars should all do this for the forum.

Frankly I'm too scared to post this to FB (socially enforced censorship even works on me)

Looks like g stands for general intelligence and it's the core of the IQ Tests.

Here are a few more (unprovenanced) tables and charts I found:

Let's see how many followers I lose :)

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

I can't think of any mammals, and I'm sure no primates, that can spontaneously change sex, replace their genitalia, and/or can autoimpregnate themselves.

You may be right about that, but the human medical literature includes true hermaphrodites that get pregnant and bear sons. So far, I have not found documented cases of human auto-impregnation, although other species can reproduce asexually, as pointed out by Strategist above. Much more exists than has already been documented, so we don't really know what else might be out there.

Patrick says

I wrote it exactly wrong.

Thanks for acknowledging that and fixing the error about who varies more in phenotype. I hope someday you will acknowledge the same and fix the error about how many genders and sexes there are.

Nature and human language produce consistently at least three categories. Hindu hijrahs go back many centuries. These aren't conspiracies to rob you, they are simply facts of life. The actual conspiracy to rob you is a bipartisan effort to polarize people by using false dichotomies to divide and misrule. In the D v R context:
D: Intersex and transgendered persons have equal rights and we must never compromise on any detail such as which public toilet to use;
R: Intersex and transgendered persons don't exist and if any dare to defy that by claiming to exist then the fact of their existence must be suppressed.
You have insisted upon a false, partisan slogan as if it were fact.

If nature were as brittle as your binary software code, then life would have crashed and needed to be restarted as often as Windows. Instead, life depends on a much more robust, complex system including diversity and adaptation to survive changing conditions. Your posts emphasize the costs of diversity in terms of cooperation, but overlook benefits for example resistance to disease. The history of agriculture shows many examples of how monocultures can get wiped out (e.g. bananas, and even the Irish potato famine). The dust bowl taught the necessity of crop rotation. Life does not conform to your binary theories; to the contrary, theories must yield to data.

curious2 says

You may be right about that, but the human medical literature includes true hermaphrodites that get pregnant and bear sons. So far, I have not found documented cases of human auto-impregnation, although other species can reproduce asexually, as pointed out by Strategist above. Much more exists than has already been documented, so we don't really know what else might be out there.

If there isn't at this point with about a century (more in some cases) of documented medical records, and it looks like no hermaphrodite has self-impregnated, it must be so vanishingly rare as to not require a third Sex category but can safely remain in the Syndrome category.

Also, in one of the links regarding South Korean doctors, they talked about how many MGD hermaphrodites needed tumor removal prior to puberty of some of their 'other' genitalia, meaning they would be unlikely to survive and/or reproduce in the "wild" non-modern environment.

My opposition to the idea of third sex also has to do with the intent of Leftists to leave the door as wide open for "nuturist supremacy" with the unsupported and anthropocentric (ironically enough) idea that humans alone of all animals have a great deal of malleability in social structure. They are also scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of finding oppressed groups to advocate on behalf of and thus undermine the confidence of the society which they believe is inferior to the ideal society which can be rationally directed. An idea that has been perculating in Western Civ since Plato's Republic, Augustine's City of God, Robespierre and Murat in the French Revolution, and "anti-bourgeois" "post-truth" anti-Enlightenment reactionaries in the 50s and 60s.

Assigning bathrooms and listing sex by genitalia remains the most efficient option, with the exemptions so infrequent as to be a ludicrous (and costly and divisive) exception.

If we allow people to use the bathroom they present as, we WILL have abuse of people and in particular children in public bathrooms, once enough obviously poorly passing people get let go when the police are called. Just like addicts and homeless people quickly learn which cities don't enforce pandering, urban RVing, or public defacation laws.

(That's not saying Trans people will do it, there will be "fake Trans" abusers. If it's solely on presentation, how will enforcers know until after an assault is committed?)

Strategist says

Patrick says

Why are there more male than female geniuses?

Have you seen women drive?

Speaking of women drivers. One of our cars parked on the 2nd floor of a parking garage in Newport Beach was slightly hit by another car that was parked next to us. The driver was pulling out and took off. A witness left a note on our car with the details. Lo and behold, it was a woman driver, an Asian woman, in a high end Mercedes. Perfectly fits the belief that women, particularly Asian women are the worst drivers. He he he he. Also fits the belief that rich Asians are buying up property in the Irvine/Newport Beach cities, but does not fit the belief of Asians being smart. This stupid woman must think there are no cameras in parking garages. I guess Asian woman are not as smart as Asian men.
This happened today.

I wonder what the IQ levels for gays are? If heterosexual males are smarter in some regards to heterosexual women, would that indicate lesbians are smarted than male homosexuals with the same tests?
could be a very interesting study.

Interesting question. Scientists have found (long ago) that gay males have a larger corpus callosum in some cases than typical females. It connects the hemispheres and it's thought that's why women multi-task better than males. That's more of a multi-processing feature than general intelligence though. Most of the gay guys I've worked with have been pretty sharp.