The Living Thing / Notebooks :


Political and/or empirical engagement therewith

Usefulness: 🔧
Novelty: 💡
Uncertainty: 🤪 🤪 🤪
Incompleteness: 🚧 🚧 🚧

Son of kronar (source)

The difficulty of getting along when we believe that configurations of genitalia are involved.

Statistics of gender

Do Men \(A\)? Are Women More Prone to \(B\)?

I am loathe to touch this one. Not because I feel there is some risk of saying something controversial, but because there is so much work to do in identifying the vocabulary here. One of my pet peeves in this area is the problem of trying to address the basic statistics of binary classifiers (gender according to census, or hormone levels or possession of a penis, or possession of a penis at birth, or whatever) and the coupling of that binary flag to complicated multidimensional distributions over other noisily-measured traits we claim to care about but are also not very good at identifying or measuring. There is surely stuff going on with gendered hormones and DNA and socialisation and social construction and fashion and power and economics and the intersection of these factors with other non-gender related ones etc, but it’s does not seem especially simple nor likely to generate convenient instruction manuals for sexual relations. The dress code will not provide us a roadmap to liberation.

Still, I might come back here at some point if something nifty comes up.

For now, see pop statistics for my canned rant.

One tedious incident

Women in STEM, the 2017 Awkward Google James Awkward Damore Awkward Memo of Tedious Awkardness. I’m not going to comment on the memo because it’s not an especially good article even of its type. (Maybe that helped it get traction?) Certainly the usual suspects were triggered.

But! It was stylistically distinctive enough that it made for some nice parody.

Some research

Women are 15 hours practice away from mentally rotating objects like men. Huh.

Womanemon (source)