Intoscience

Sorry, I'm not seeing this at all, Regardless of the different stages / abnormalities a female may go through. The fact that females are inherently evolved/designed to bare offspring and males are not is a distinct difference between them. Your argument still stands regarding "other" I'm not arguing this. A person who has genitals' from both male and female may not have the required biological mechanisms to bare offspring, granted and maybe classed within the "other" group. My question is what do you use to define - male, female, other? if there is no clear distinction between them? I'm not being pedantic, I'm asking for a definition so that I can understand what the differences are.

I never said "the best definition" I just said that it was a simple obvious "general" difference between a male and female. Or are you telling me that men can bare children (without medical intervention)? Is there a single case in human history where a male human has become pregnant, carried a child and then given birth? I'm not claiming anything, I'm not arguing that there are only 2 sexually categories. I'm asking to define scientifically the difference between a male and female. This is relevant to the question because in order to define "other" sexes do we not require to define the difference between male and female, since the binary category is used as the base line to which all others are measured? CharonY answered this, stating that technically its not so simple, however CharonY then went on to say that even single celled organisms can be defined sexually (if I understood correctly) during reproductive stages changing as either one or the other. So forgive me if you think I'm being silly, my purpose was to gain an understanding through the eyes of a layman. Just to be clear, I actually agree that for the purpose of categorization then we need more than 2 sexes as you have continuously pointed out throughout this thread. So I also agree, if this is within the context of what the OP asked then you have given the answer. However for the purpose of biology which focuses on reproduction to characterise the sexes, are there only 2 definitive sexes?

This is all well and good but, you are describing the extremes or rarities to argue against the generally accepted. If we consider "all" possibilities then we have a muddy water situation where the terms male & female become useless undefined terms. So technically there appears to be no clear distinction between the 2 yet the terms are still used as though there is. So which is it and what would you consider defines the difference in such a way that is undeniable? Why is it silly? what's wrong with starting with this premise and thrashing out why this is not a useful argument? technically it may not be accurate but if you took a poll in the general public and asked them to describe the differences between a male and female then you would get the obvious "general" physical differences scoring top, child baring being one of them. As scientists the experts on this subject, like CharonY, would then educate us on why this is not strictly the case. However, none has yet offered a undeniable difference between a male and female that clearly defines the 2. So where do we draw the line? what would you describe as an acceptable difference, or rather when would you use the term male or female to describe the sex of a person? Would you describe yourself as either, none or both?

+1 Yes and this can make arguments difficult especially if the context is not clear. My attempt on this subject was to define the sexes with a basic generally accepted construct. I certainly wouldn't argue with experts like yourself on the technical details at levels that go beyond my understanding.

I think this sums it up really. David Blaine, Dynamo?? Joking of course, however people genuinely believe that both perform miracles. Yes and this is it really, But much like your good wife and my dear mother, belief in such gives comfort, hope and direction and so shouldn't be dismissed if that belief produces positive and constructive results.

I think it depends on your arguments, style and the intent behind them. One thing I have learned in life is that some folk just love to argue because they enjoy the drama. Some folk argue because they think/believe they are always right or know more than others. Some folk argue just to be awkward and disruptive. On the other hand some folk argue because they are passionate or care, or actually genuinely know more... The trick is to discover the intent and argue (or not) back accordingly. Ask yourself which category do you fit into? +1 An excellent point!! I especially excelled in high school in the subjects where I had a connection, and mutual respect with the tutor. We do some coaching in sports and forming a connection with students, especially with young students, is paramount to success.

No, of course not you know full well this was not what I meant, you are just being pedantic. Yeah which is why I stated in my post that you conveniently left out in your quote. - Based on design, structure and mechanics. I understand and accept that at a technical level where chromosomes vary and all the other subtle changes, differences show up etc... the definition between male and females gets very muddy. Not unlike most things in nature as we probe deeper into the workings of the universe. So where do we draw the line on definitions? At what point do we consider the actual differences to define the terms? I may say a snow is white, you may correct me and say, actually each flake is transparent but is perceived as white due to the way the crystals that form the snow flake reflect the light. Technically you would be correct, generally though snow is accepted and defined as white. Why do we define the sexes as binary, then argue that this is not the case? My point was that generally speaking a human male and female differ because one is designed to bear offspring and the other isn't. I couldn't think of any simpler explanation of how we could define the differences without going too deep into the muddy waters.

The only thing I can think of that is undeniable is the capability to give birth. Human males have no capability human females do, by this I mean the design, structure and mechanics.

Nice, that was funny, I'm always putting the h's in the wrong place. In fact where I come from, during speech we tend to drop the pronunciation of h's from words. For example we would say "ad" instead of "had" etc...

Agreed, my partner struggles with such tests especially specific questions and tends to score low. She struggled academically, yet she is an amazing artist, very astute to detail, so for example she notices things in situations most other people would miss. She would probably make a good detective. Some people are just good at these tests, others not so. Intelligence or as String Junky states "strengths, skills and abilities" may lie elsewhere.

I don't disagree with you regarding focus spent on healing and improving health. I'm a big fan of health improvements whether it be physical and/or mental. For someone to be successfully rehabilitated not only requires resource and time spent, but also requires the "ill"/troubled person to be willing and committed to helping themselves. Some people are not fixable or not willing to be fixed. I think the punishment should fit the crime, which is why we have jail terms, parole etc... Rehabilitation maybe part of the conditions and could well be successful for many, this is good and has my vote. However with certain individuals (like those in Beecee's examples) the risk to the public far out weighs the possibility of successful rehabilitation. Yes, there maybe some that unwittingly/unfairly fall under this banner, this maybe unavoidable and very unfortunate for those few. But this (in my opinion) is collateral damage and far better than a released monster who commits further atrocities. After all, further victims fall unwittingly prey to such monsters and the victim's families have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives, with no reprieve or second chance. The hard part of all this starts with the judge and then continues with specialist phycologists and parole board etc...to determine the mental health of each individual. Certainly not a task I would welcome or could possibly deal with. Living with making the wrong choice which costs further deaths or injuries of the innocent people the system is attempting to protect must be a terrible burden.

Nope, I agree with you on this, though edited a bit (my italics)-

+1 There seems to be this ongoing insistence on focusing on the rehabilitation and helping of the perpetrator, over the loss and suffering of the victims. Like you say now and previously, and I've mentioned many times over the course of this thread, no one is denying that rehabilitation should not be implemented/attempted (in the appropriate manner)! However the priority should be and always should be (at the very least in the first instance) - protect the public - Unfortunately some of the criminals are going to fall victim to this, in that they may well have to incur incarceration for longer or worse. I have some sympathy for those that have made a mistake, or caught up in a situation that got them on a road to crime etc... These are the types that are most likely to be successfully rehabilitated. But, people like Darrel in the recent example of what I can only define as evil atrocity (no regard for innocent human life), should be at the very least locked away never to be released. In my honest opinion, though I'm not a fan of the death penalty, in this example the death penalty would seem appropriate justice. Though I'm quite sure the families of the victims would rather see him suffer for the rest of his life, like they will now have no choice but to suffer their loss and pain for the rest of their lives!

Everybody has the right to an opinion, but not the right to expect everyone to listen or agree with it. JP has many ideas I agree with, he cites some ideas based on scientific study where the evidence is clear and undeniable. He also has ideas in areas outside his expertise that are very questionable, I don't see him claiming truth or fact on these matters, but rather asks you to consider them. Another thing to consider is that when he talks about subjects his focus is at the extremes and how those extremes affect the middle ground. There seems to be some confusion on this. He is often mis-interpreted around this, but I think this is partly his own fault due to the way he flits around during discussions/explanations. The pro JP's will focus on the positives while the anti JP's will focus on the negatives, this is just politics.

So, what justice should be served for the atrocity recently committed by Darrel Brooks in the Wisconsin parade killings? This criminal allegedly had a long list of previous aggressive and violent crimes and was facing further charges while being released from jail 2 days earlier on bond. This is the sort of despicable monster that myself, Beecee and others are talking about. While others want us to feel sorry for such an animal, give him chances over and over for "rehabilitation". Yeah, well that worked out well didn't it? Many innocent people killed and injured. How many more incidents like this does it take before we wise up and realise that rehabilitation for everyone just doesn't work. Some people are just unfixable!!!

Biologically maybe, that's where the "humanity" ends.

Basically it's the old adage - There are only 2 things, unescapable in this life - Death and Taxes. Eventually the energy runs out - death, and you never get out everything you put in or started with - taxes.

Thank you CharonY that is a very interesting assessment. In part I agree with some of your comments. To begin with I cannot comment on the biology side, this is my weakest subject in the sciences,(to be honest, my least interest, even though it is in some ways the most exciting and intriguing) though i wasn't convinced by JP's lobster example either . I think though in his defence, there can be different methods of teaching, lecturing, studying and experimenting, especially dependent on your audience. For example, when faced with Uni students or other scientists over the general public. To gain public interest you often have to use stories and anecdotes so people can relate to, or at least find an easier understanding. You see this quite often with popular scientists, even great well respected scientists like Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking... used this technique and many still do today. Unfortunately, these stories often promote sensationalism, inaccuracies or even exaggerate facts... knowledgeable and professional scientists like yourself will easily pick these apart, and most likely not use this technique to teach your students. I'm not saying you are wrong to do so, JP does appear to have some of his "facts" out of place or lacking some credibility mainly in areas outside his expertise. I also agree that some of his arguments are vague and open to interpretation. I mentioned in my previous post that I think he often uses the wrong language and sometimes appears overly paranoid or dramatic. I'm not sure whether this is intended for reaction, or just a failing in his explanation and communication skills. I have seen him veer off at times, this can be annoying, agreed. But I think sometimes if you look beyond this, try and interpret the points he is attempting to make, they are quite often on the right track, or at least food for thought. He is obviously intelligent and does perform well in debates, but isn't that a strength rather than a weakness? If he failed in his debates then he wouldn't gain the interest he does, and not ever be taken seriously, he would be totally dismissed by all as a fool, crackpot or worse, as he already often is by his opposition. I think his "misleading" comes from jumping around a bit/lot in his discussion/debates from subject to subject/context to context and maybe not being fully clear on the details, again maybe lacking in communication skills. He also dips his toe in areas that he lacks expertise in, though I have not seen him make any wild claims in such subjects . I don't feel he has any intentional sales tactics, rather its just the way his mind operates. One of my work colleagues operates in the same way, which is definitely not intentional but sometimes rather annoying. Regarding the data, I don't agree with you. I think (in most arguments, but not all) he actually cites creditable data from many scientific studies taken, takes the data and forms a considerate opinion or idea. Also as MigL pointed out,

Well, I have been off work and isolating since recently contracting COVID. I've had my vaccinations but have still been quite ill (feeling a bit better now). Apparently I have contracted the Delta variant which is the one that is keeping the infected rates high where I live. Anyhow this has given me the opportunity to watch more blogs, lectures, debates involving Jordan Peterson. I have concluded, in my own opinion that in general, he has some valid ideas formed and grounded from well researched scientific data. I appreciate that in his field of psychology interpretation plays a big factor in many studies. However, I haven't seen any evidence of bias born from any personal desire or gain. He (appears) from what I have seen to be sitting pretty much centre field and if does lean towards any particular side its certainly far from either extreme. In fact he is very adamant that both sides are required and a balance and unity should be maintained, that the extremes on both sides are damaging to society. Thus far I'd have to agree with this view and would cite myself to a similar stance. I do however disagree with some of the terms and language he uses, I think some of this though maybe unintended, promotes misunderstanding and mis-interpretation and actually fuels the ongoing backlash against him. I also don't necessarily agree with all his ideas or policies, some are overly paranoid and/or a bit dramatic and don't sit true for all people. Maybe this is the approach he adopts in an attempt to get people to notice, I can't comment on that. In summary: I think he is a very intelligent person who is obviously very knowledgeable and passionate about his speciality in phycology. I think he is passionate about things that sit outside his field of expertise, but I don't see him claiming to have all the answers or stating they are all strictly true. He has some good (in my opinion) ideas and I believe that he, in general, wants to make society better and believes his ideas, if adopted by most, would help to do this. I can't comment whether or not this would be the case, but I think most of the ideas he has proposed, would make some steps towards improvements. I don't believe is is racist, transphobic, sexist or any other of the bigoted terms used to characterise him. I think these are just used as decoys to misdirect people. So I think (my opinion) this is rather unfair. Conclusion: Like him, hate him, be indifferent, agree or disagree... I believe the world needs people like JP in the public eye, to shake thinks up and make people at least stop and think about things, help them consider their own lives, ideas, actions... rather than blindly following or burying their heads.

I agree, that all attempts should be made to fix the person and even more importantly prevent the catalyst that contributed to them to commit atrocities in the first place. But here we have 2 separate problems, though possibly related in the vast majority of cases, they require 2 separate actions and approaches. You stop the leak first and foremost to prevent further damage. You then fix the leak where possible in the hope that its for the long term. You then look at ways to prevent the leak ever happening again. However you always remain prepared to deal with the next leak should it or another occur again. We can mostly agree that prevention is better than cure, but sometimes we haven't the knowhow or right tools to achieve this. +1 This is a step towards the prevention part, and should be the focus of the most investment. I'm sure we would see a reduction in violent crime and crime in general if this program was followed through, maintained and remain successful. But unfortunately it won't solve everything, there will always be a minority that just can't be fixed.

At first I found many of your posts annoying. But now I find them amusing, in other words I've started to learn to not take them too seriously. Humans have greater choice, even though limited, even though we know we are limited we know not to what extent. What we do know however, is that we have more now than we ever did.

But higher than any other species on the planet, and even maybe the galaxy/universe. I'm not the one suggesting dogs and humans all act the same and for all the same reasons. You suggested that dogs get jealous? I have had and still have dogs myself and witnessed many emotional similarities between them and humans. But are those similarities projections from us or if they are the same emotions, what drives them in a dog? Maybe we should ask Doctor Doolittle 😝

I agree, and understand, I started out by stating that iNow is a very intelligent and knowledgeable person (which I believe to be true). I respect this, and also his opinions, whether in agreement or otherwise. I have no intention to attack anyone personally, but will point out an error (if I believe it to be one) in a person's approach, interpretation or judgement. Obviously I'm as guilty as anyone else and should be held to account should I present in the same manner, which maybe I have or appeared to do so on occasion within this thread. I'm part of this forum to enjoy the discussions, hopefully learn lots and in doing so gain a greater understanding in all aspects of philosophy and science. Debate and often some confrontation can be useful and or constructive (provided it stays civilised not personal).

I never said a dog hasn't the capability, I'm saying it's less likely since its choices are more limited. Why does a dog get jealous? What drives that jealousy? Is our interpretation of a dog being "jealous" correct?

I don't think it assumes unlimited free will, it assumes more options of choices to make. Even with those extra choices and greater intelligence, humans still often follow instinctual urges, many of which are traits that go back millennia. A human however has a greater, though not infallible, ability to control those urges. Hence why there can be often a clear distinction between a human acting malicious and a dog acting instinctively.