EnergyAmy

Not quite that simple because then the lowest wage employees will get spun out into a shell company that contracts to the main company.

Humans are really just 3 LLMs in a trenchcoat after all

Loud minority for sure. Republicans are right about biological sex being real (it's based off of gamete size, not chromosomes exactly), but that's more of a broken clock being right twice a day.

Gender ideology had its run and is past the high water mark. When it's gone, Republicans won't even have that hobby horse.

From the link:

> However, Dennett is not denying the existence of the mind or of consciousness, only what he considers a naive view of them

It doesn't seem like he's Eliminativist. It also seems like the criticisms rely on harping on about qualia, which is one of the sillier schools of sophistry. I'd need to see actual criticisms before believing that Dennett is pushing for something comical.

I have personally gone through HR trainings that directly contradict what you're saying. "just and fair" allocation is also a vacuous qualifier. According to whom? If it's just and fair allocation according to someone that believes in equality of outcome, then you're not disagreeing with the comment you're responding to.

I think in practice, equity does in fact mean equity of outcome. Pretending that that's not the case feels like gaslighting to people, and drives people away from DEI initiatives.

If you're talking about trans women competing against women, then no. That's men competing against women. I suspect you're quite aware of that and intentionally confusing the two for rhetorical effect, but that's a great example of why protecting the plain-sense definition of words matters. "Woman" means adult female human, which categorically excludes men regardless of their gender identity.

That's the way that sex is defined. There's a few extremist academics who are trying to push their pet redefinition, but nothing serious. The UK Supreme Court ruling affirmed that recently from a legal standpoint, and that marks the high tide of those extremists' efforts. Gender ideology trying to erase sex is over.

> created to prevent men from having to compete with and potentially lose to women

You deeply misunderstand the origin of women's sports leagues. They were created by women for women as a result of patriarchal efforts to exclude women from sports. Men shoving their way into women's sports by way of gender identity is just one more example of males not accepting "no", and is exactly the reason why women have a right to their own spaces.

> normative words

Look, you're trying to argue with the field of biology as a whole. Good luck.

> since we've established that gamete size does not apply in all cases.

We've established no such thing. Find this mystical person first and then we can talk about something specific, instead of just waving your hands about hypotheticals.

> caring so much about this means

This is the worst sort of argument. Spout pseudoscience, get called on your bullshit, and then pull out "why do you care so much??? :(". Don't spout off in the first place and you won't get called out on it.

To your last point, most women don't want men in their sports, but have been pressured to go along with it.

It is okay to exclude men from women's sports because women have the right to sex-specific spaces.

"Should" meaning "would if it were mature and healthy"

> "humans have two biological sexes" is true in same way as the claim "humans have five fingers."

No. There are no intermediates. Nobody produces "spergs" or "speggs". Someone may produce no gametes because they're not yet mature or because of a developmental disorder, but that just means that they will later on in life, or won't produce the gametes their body is set up to produce.

> The only reason

Bullshit. I bring this up because it's a fundamental fact of biology and HN should know better than to push pseudoscience. Sex in humans is binary and immutable, but that doesn't mean boys can't play with dolls and girls can't like trucks or whatever dumb culture war stuff is raging.

The article is rank nonsense, citing someone that when called on her bullshit backtracked by calling it an "ironic essay":

https://x.com/Fausto_Sterling/status/1229878759261712385

She is deeply unserious, and should be ignored if you value truth.

XXY and XYY and whatnot are all variations within a sex. Sex is defined by gamete size, females produce the larger gametes and males produce the smaller gametes. In humans, this is binary and immutable.

It's not squishy, and it's not hard. Woman means adult female human, and female means someone that produces the larger of two gamete sizes. That's the real, literal biological definition.

Since I'm rate limited, to be slightly more specific, it's the gamete size one would or should produce. I elided that part but biologists are well aware of disorders of development.

Another edit: This has nothing to do with religion or any sort of intelligent design woo. Read "should" as "would if it were mature and healthy".

99th percentile men will beat 99th percentile women in sports 100% of the time. There is no fairness.

Michael Phelps has already had his records broken. Women will never break men's records across a wide range of sports. I keep seeing him brought up, but it's in no way comparable.

Pushing for allowing men into women's sports based on gender identity will result in the extinction of women's sports. If you want that, at least be honest about it.

It is simple. Organisms that produce the larger of two gamete sizes are female, and organisms that produce the smaller of two gamete sizes are male.

"Intersex" is a misleading term that's been phased out in favor of DSD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development). Every person is still male or female.

Women have a right to sex-specific sports, and anyone that doesn't qualify is free to compete in the men's leagues.

Since I'm rate limited, to respond to comment below:

That has been the definition for far longer than any current culture war. Right wingers might be latching onto it now, but broken clocks and all that.

To be slightly more specific, because you think you've found a gotcha, it's the gamete size one would or should produce. Biologists are well aware that there can be disorders of development.

You can also just meditate or engage in other practices that have nothing to do with religion. Religion is unnecessary.

Can't reply to the parent comment directly, but no, they're not arguing in good faith. The Wikipedia article has a gif of it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk_salute_controversy

That wasn't a wave and the other commenter is full of shit.

Humans ingest an order of magnitude more information before becoming anywhere near as intelligent as an LLM.

I think you have some unexplained baggage that you're bringing to the table. Consider re-examining your biases.

Why don't they?

"Free will" is just a vague and unhelpful way of saying "unpredictability". Too many words have been spilled over such a trivial concept.

At any rate, sometimes you might find something boring or offensive, while it remains true regardless. This is one of those times.

Truth is often boring

Why?

There's the pithy saying that "Python is the second-best language for anything", and that's kind of its superpower.

I think you missed that the OP was demonstrating that statement false in the latter portion of their comment.

That doesn't disprove it at all. It just states that they owners haven't said that's the reason, and that they've given other reasons. Their actions are entirely consistent with someone having batshit crazy beliefs, but knowing that they can't tell people those beliefs.

There's no barcodes because they're batshit insane and believe in the "bar codes are the mark of the beast" thing that was popular back in the 90's.

People deflecting in this thread are either ignorant or also batshit crazy and should be ignored.

When you get this level of people jumping in to deflect based on tone, you know you're doing something right.

The person you're responding to isn't acting in a curious manner, they're trying to poison the well.

See my other comment, but it's true that more people are cautious about saying things about it. That's because the religion has so retarded the progress of societies it has infected that they are more likely to threaten violence against those who speak reason.

I don't really blame people for speaking more cautiously about it, but that's because of how much savagery the mind-virus demands of its followers.