patrick.net

Patrick says

Why are there more male than female geniuses?

Have you seen women drive?

Mentioned exactly this distribution the other day over thanksgiving. Beta male said "it's up to me now to explain and justify" and stayed out of this "hot" topic. Women are simply more average while men have the dumbest to the brightest with a positive mean slant though towards the brightest. Science bitchez.

APHAman says

Why do boys have penis, girls have vagina!

www.youtube.com/embed/sFBOQzSk14c

I don't know whether there are more male geniuses than female or not, maybe so, but I would be embarrassed to show the graph of male versus female intelligence, as if it represented quality data and analysis.

Patrick says

Finally, consider intelligence:

Logic is a social construct designed to oppress women and people who have color. ;>))

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?" Is that "man-spreading"?

Patrick says

There are exactly two genders, male and female

You keep saying that, like a prayer. You emphasize binary models in which the "exactly two" is an assumption, though not a fact.

How many genders do you see in the following list of pronouns: "he", "she", "it"?

How many sexes do you see in the following sets of healthy human sex chromosomes: xx, xy, xxy?

Can you see that each list contains more than two? You might read further here:

http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Moreover, in many successful species, only a fraction of the population are involved directly in reproduction. Consider ants and bees, which evolved over billions of years and which outnumber humans on almost every continent. Most ants and bees are never directly involved in reproduction, yet their species proliferate. Specialization can be highly adaptive. Different ants and bees are wired differently, for different roles. They pursue different objectives, just as different people want different things. Ants and bees are often called bugs, but they are extremely successful, and their levels of individual variation are features.

Patrick is correct; the male sex is in general more capable in certain areas than the female and the reason is evolutionary.

Females have other attributes and qualities that generally exceed males. These may be visible but are hard to quantify.

Sorry to nitpick language, but whether something is male or female is its sex. Gender refers to words in languages like Spanish being masculine or feminine.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/pjmedia.com/trending/editor-of-humanist-journal-fired-for-saying-women-dont-have-penises/amp

The joke is that you lose your job when you say something that hurts somebody's feelings.

marcus says

I don't know whether there are more male geniuses than female or not, maybe so, but I would be embarrassed to show the graph of male versus female intelligence, as if it represented quality data and analysis.

There are many different kinds of intelligence. The IQ tests only show one type of intelligence, most likely geared towards men.
My wife can not only read my thoughts, but can even predict what my thoughts will be in the next few minutes, before I even think them. Most women are like that.
Women are not inferior, they are just different in many ways.

IQ test is the most accurate predictor we have to date of success at performing complex tasks. IQ reliably measures intelligence including short-term memory, analytical thinking, mathematical ability and spatial recognition. It does not attempt to measure the amount of information you have learned but rather your capacity to learn. It is not a measure of empathy or any other skillset not related to memory, analasys, or thesis. IQ is a great predictor of academic success, and therefore a good predictor of income, but there's much more to life than being smart- working well with others, being able to work hard, being self-motivated, using your time efficiently.

My wife can not only read my thoughts, but can even predict what my thoughts will be in the next few minutes, before I even think them.

Maybe she is actually programming you remotely.

Actually, in my opinion, women are typically smarter than men - women just do not care about proving it. I have overheard women talking about how to control men using three techniques. To get men to do something, ask them not to do it, let them think it was their idea, and the old standby implied offer of sex.

HeadSet says

My wife can not only read my thoughts, but can even predict what my thoughts will be in the next few minutes, before I even think them.

Maybe she is actually programming you remotely.

Actually, in my opinion, women are typically smarter than men - women just do not care about proving it. I have overheard women talking about how to control men using three techniques. To get men to do something, ask them not to do it, let them think it was their idea, and the old standby implied offer of sex.

Agree on the programming but that doesn't mean that they are smarter. You can be incredibly intelligent and still fail socially. Men - at least strong T men not soyboys - have an incredibly strong sex drive way different from women. A woman will never experience what it feels like fucking a beautiful HB8 or HB9 and unloading, for them it's more complex, less endorphins and tied to many other things. That's why every high T man eventually cheats if the woman withholds sex long enough and why men seem to do "stupid" things for hot women when sex is in the outlook. It's an urge/instinct that is so strong that event the brain admits is necessary to function properly. It's not stupidity on the men's part, it's necessity. Back then women were expected to perform for their men as part of the relationship, since the advent of soyboys, leftoids and man-screwing marital laws women gained the upper hand. Not much to do with IQ as we measure it, even "dumb" women can play that game perfectly. Ultimately though it doesn't make women happy if they can't submit which you can see by the rising use of ssris in women and the increase in bitter childless post wall cat ladies.

The above post may seem crude but even as a religious person, say Catholic, there are 2 preconditions on man and woman for a successful and blessed marriage. Willingness and ability to have sex regularly and open and welcoming to having children. Religions are not stupid constructs and they figured that one out pretty early. The abuse/overuse of the pill and abortions are partly responsible for the decline of the nuclear happy family.

clambo says

Sorry to nitpick language, but whether something is male or female is its sex. Gender refers to words in languages like Spanish being masculine or feminine.

Yep, but the SJWs are steadily moving back to Gender-Sex is interchangeable position again.

The explosion in the use of "Gender" is from Dr. John Money who was a psychologist, not even a psychiatrist. It's reference to the behavior of humans was practically nil prior to the 1950/60s.

You may remember Dr. Money as the guy who told the parents of David Reimer (I think that's the last name) after his penis was deformed due to Phimosis at 6 months (he wasn't circumcised at birth, and instead of a regular circumcision by knife the inexperienced Canadian Doctor used an electric cauterizing machine which burned off his penis - anticirc freaks lie about when and how the circumicision was done), they could raise him as a girl and it would be the same since Gender was a social construct.

This story basically killed the Genderbender Stuff (that first emerged into popular consciousness in the 70s) from the mid 1980s-early 2000s when it was first covered in multiple television documentaries.

It later came out that Dr. Money was accused of molesting children and, of course, he publicly defended Paedophilia, saying it was an "Oversupply of Parental Love." and that Heterosexuality was also a social construct.

"Therapy" included making the twins strip and simulate sex on each other, while Dr. Money showed them explicit sexual photographs.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2004/may/12/scienceandnature.gender
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t97xf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

Money and John Hopkins became the Center of pushing the whole "Gender is Social".

Money was never charged and Hopkins has never apologized.

Oh, and both twins (David AND his Brother) committed suicide.

curious2 says

How many sexes do you see in the following sets of healthy human sex chromosomes: xx, xy, xxy?

Two, the other is a genetic disorders called Kleinfelter's Syndrome. Individuals are functional males, with occasional issues with infertility or cognitive impairment. The disease seems to be random and not inheritable, but seems to effect the boys born of Older Mothers more. There is no statistically significant connection between Kleinfelter and gender dysphoria.

Dishonest Gender advocates pad the numbers of "Other Sex" individuals using Kleinfelter's afflictants, even though there is no evidence, other than a higher chance of infertility and perhaps slightly weaker sex drive (due to lower Testosterone) they are anything other than male.

Anybody who hangs around Sci-Fi/STEM guys probably knows a few chubby, soft faced, taller dudes who may have known or unknown Kleinfelter's syndrome. I've known two people who were formerly diagnosed with Kleinfelter, including one of my best childhood friends who I grew up with since the 2nd grade, went to college with, owned a business in my late 20s with, and otherwise knew for the first 30 years of my life.

He liked Tall Blonde Athletic Chicks, brewing beer, amateur photography, and was a huge NY Mets fan with season tickets. As straight and ordinary as a semi-nerdy guy could be.

mell says

rising use of ssris in women

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. (No parallel political movement can be found for car insurance premiums, and there is no shame in telling men to drive safely.) The disparity in premiums should have warned women that they were injuring themselves with excessive medical interventions, with generally adverse consequences.

Regarding usage, "gender" = masculine/feminine/neutral, "sex" = male/female/non-binary. I have seen different people use "gender" when they mean "sex," for different reasons. It might have started with Victorian and/or Puritan prudishness, or simple carelessness, because I have seen it in writings going back many years. Patrick seems to use "gender" that way too.

curious2 says

mell says

rising use of ssris in women

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. (No parallel political movement can be found for car insurance premiums, and there is no shame in telling men to drive safely.) The disparity in premiums should have warned women that they were injuring themselves with excessive medical interventions, with generally adverse consequences.

Regarding usage, "gender" = masculine/feminine/neutral, "sex" = male/female/non-binary. I have ...

I have no problems with the expanded usage of gender but it then it worthless for IDs and similar documents. Determining someone's sex is useful for forensics (in the event of crimes for example) or sports competitions (unfair advantage) and many programs that need the biological, scientific answer, similar to race and other traits. People can have any gender they want but they cannot mandate it to be meaningful to others. Wrt sex it is totally fine to have male, female, and other (specify) for the few non-deterministic cases - and those who undergo a full transition can have that change approved. But if you expand the category and allow arbitrary definition of sexes then it quickly becomes unscientific and for the most part useless. We can reserve that for gender/orientation, have at it, masculine, feminine, sapiosexual, pastafari, non-binary, queer, king, superman, white-female-indentifying-as-black-male and what not.. But that's more for dating profiles than for government/scientific use.

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?)