Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S

Someasy

@ Someasy @lemmy.world

Posts
10
Comments
45
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Why do males complain about female-led stories or too many female characters when the majority are still dominated by males?

    Jump

  • In your examples, I would definitely think we shouldn't use differential/non-equivalent language between different groups of people/members of society, including races or genders. So that includes not saying "white man" and "man who's a black" -> I would think this should probably be "white man" and "black man" or "man who's white" and "man who's black". I think being consistent with our language used to refer to people is important to not promote or uphold discrimination. There could be other problems even if it's consistent, I'm not denying that, but I think lack of consistency of treatment (linguistic or otherwise) is a key issue. I believe in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity to a degree, that language shapes/influences how we view the world & informs a lot of actions & behaviors in society. So linguistic discrimination is a real thing that can lead to or perpetuate more overt (physical/social) forms of discrimination. For the same reason, it should be consistent between genders (and as a side note, I don't view male and female to be strictly biological terms to refer to biological sex, but rather that they can be used for gender identity too, as in MtF / FtM [male to female or female to male], which other sociology institutions seem to agree with as well, in case you thought I was being a "sex absolutist" or transphobic).

    The case of using "male and female" for rats in an experiment is interesting because to me it represents a double standard where we are okay with using those more kind of basic fundamental terms for non-human animals, even if we're not okay with using them for humans (and it's not like we have terms like men and women for other animals, so it's somewhat understandable in working within the language). But it also shows that if we only reserve those terms for other animals, it can uphold harmful differential treatment of them (such as conducting experiments/testing on them that they can't consent to–and wouldn't since they're typically cruel in ways we would never do to humans–which could be seen as exploitation/taking advantage of sentient beings), as tied to a belief that humans are superior and are not animals, which is used to rationalize these actions & arguably discrimination (speciesism) of another kind. That's partly why I question if it's really valid for us to be opposed to using terms like male and female for humans, or if it reveals something deeper about how we think of ourselves in relation to other animals- as well as just curiosity about if there is really a problem there, and what/why that might be.

  • Why do males complain about female-led stories or too many female characters when the majority are still dominated by males?

    Jump

  • I was talking about the people complaining about female characters in media lol. Those people are usually males who are often not (chronologically) mature, making it strange to call them men. I guess some of the characters might not be men either. But yeah we could say male characters rather than e.g. "7 characters: 5 males, 2 females" etc. But it could get a little clunky. Also I'm just not sure what the problem with it is, since saying "males and females" has always been acceptable to me and a basic component of language until patterns of differential linguistic treatment were observed between genders: "men and females" etc, which I understand could be offensive on a gender basis and agree can promote sexist attitudes. I already thought it should either be "women and men" or "females and males", using the equivalent terms in the same context consistently (though somewhat interchangeably), but for there to be an inherent issue with using "males" and "females" even when we apply them equally seems like a separate objection that was new and unexpected for me. I'm curious to find out why that is that some people don't like those terms in general, and I think maybe we should question it, because I have a feeling it could be tied to feelings of human entitlement and the problematic (imo) belief that humans aren't animals, as used to justify speciesism. But I could be wrong.

  • Why do males complain about female-led stories or too many female characters when the majority are still dominated by males?

    Jump

  • Well humans are animals, maybe we should question why it makes some of us feel uncomfortable to be referred to in the same way we would refer to other animals. It could be ingrained biases of human supremacy/anthropocentrism/speciesism that we use to justify differential treatment of nonhumans that we wouldn't want done to ourselves 🤔 just a thought

  • Why do males complain about female-led stories or too many female characters when the majority are still dominated by males?

    Jump

  • Yeah I'm aware of the problems with saying "men and females" but I thought the issue was more about a double standard of using different terms for different genders... If we say "males and females" and use the equivalent terms for both, is there a problem with this? Because it's not treating them differently so I don't really understand

  • Why do males complain about female-led stories or too many female characters when the majority are still dominated by males?

    Jump

  • Why when a lot of those males aren't men, they're boys.

  • Asklemmy @lemmy.ml
    Someasy @lemmy.world

    Why do males complain about female-led stories or too many female characters when the majority are still dominated by males?

  • Asklemmy @lemmy.ml
    Someasy @lemmy.world

    My school and high school never had us read any non-fiction books (only fiction)? Do you agree this is a problem and if so why or why not?

  • Asklemmy @lemmy.ml
    Someasy @lemmy.world

    Do we need to create increasingly more children for a stable economy?

  • Which is less religious: Xmas or Christmas?

    Jump

  • Fuckmas

  • Should AI be referred to as "it" or "they"?

    Jump

  • Yes, I meant singular they. "They" isn't typically used for objects in the singular ("it" usually is used there). Nothing I'm saying has to do with plural pronouns, I should've made that clear. It's about he/she/they vs it (designating an entity as a personality vs an object, you might say).

    And I think any entity with a personality could merit potentially referring to them as he/she/they, rather than "it". If they're conscious then I think it's definitely warranted, which is why I think "he/she/they" shouldn't be restricted to humans only, and should apply to all animals (or sentient animals which are at least the majority), as well as any other hypothetical sentient beings such as sentient AIs or sentient aliens.

    Non-sentient AIs are what I'm really asking about though, but ones so complex that they demonstrate something resembling a personality. That's where it gets tricky about whether to designate them as "he/she/they" or as "it", personally. Presuming they don't specify a "faux gender" (like calling Amazon's Alexa a "she" without really acknowledging Alexa as a female), and if they were gender neutral/gender unspecified, the decision would probably be between calling them either (singular) "they", or "it".

    In my opinion, given the lack of sentience, I wouldn't see a problem with calling non-sentient AIs "it", but if they were hypothetically complex enough to faithfully represent a human for example, I would then struggle to call them "it" and might have to go with "they".

  • Word???

    Jump

  • Those are great lmao.

    And wow yes, I hate it when someone says "I'm going to pee/piss" or "I need to take a shit". Like just say you're going to the bathroom, or, you know, voiding (jk) like a normal person.

  • Should AI be referred to as "it" or "they"?

    Jump

  • Thank you for your great response and your knowledge and insight.

    "The implication is that an AI is an “it” because it’s not a person."

    To me, the reason to designate something as a "they" (singular, gender neutral, as in "they are an x") rather than an "it", is whether the term is in reference to a conscious/sentient being that could be seen as having a personality, or to an unconscious entity or object. Like you pointed out, people often refer to animals such as dogs and cats as "they" rather than "it", especially when a person doesn't know their sex. For example "I was chased around by this dog, and they were licking me". While other people might still use "it", I personally think "they" is more of a charitable acknowledgement of their personality (rather than "its personality"), and might potentially lead to treating them with more consideration than as designated similarly to objects.

    But with AI that can replicate a personality without actually having consciousness, this seems to get very murky in my opinion. Technically using the same logic you might call an AI an "it" rather than a "they", since they aren't sentient/conscious (as far as we can determine currently at least), but when they convincingly present themselves as having a personality, it seems to warrant a consideration on whether to still use "it" or to perhaps use "they" instead. Not that there would necessarily be a reason to do so, but it seems like odd territory, especially when considering the hypothetical of the philosophical zombie, or possibly a highly advanced (but non-sentient) AI that was so faithfully replicating the behaviour of a human being that they could be interpreted the same way as a human, despite not having any consciousness whatsoever. Do we still call that like-a-human-but-not-a-human-and-not-conscious being an "it", or would that feel inaccurate and warrant calling them a "they" due to their clear personality that appears identical to conscious personalities that we acknowledge?

    "And just to throw another theoretical biology stick in the spokes, is an ant colony an “it” or a “they,” and why?"

    I think that an ant colony could be called an it, just like a group of humans or a group of any animals could be called an "it". While distinctly to this, I think an individual ant, given their consciousness/sentience, can be referred to as a "they", similar to other conscious/sentient animals, including humans, or any hypothetical conscious/sentient beings for that matter. If we found an alien being on another planet that was conscious/sentient, it still makes sense to me to refer to them as a "they/them", unless of course their gender was known in which case they could be a he/she, or whatever they identify as if they express that (purely hypothetically).

  • Should AI be referred to as "it" or "they"?

    Jump

  • It's not about gender at all, I'm assuming AI is genderless or gender neutral. The it vs they question is about designating AI as an object or a personality, basically.

  • Should AI be referred to as "it" or "they"?

    Jump

  • Thanks, I'm not sure why it's downvoted either. It surprised me, usually questions like this trigger interest.

    I think that by most estimations, we can assume that AI are not actually sentient currently and don't have the ability for sentience as there is no mechanism that would allow for them to experience consciousness subjectively, unlike animals including humans which we can scientifically state have not only behaviours consistent with consciousness and feeling but also biological mechanisms that we know to be what make us capable of a subjective experience. AI is highly intelligent, but so are many computers and machines, with AI this is just taken to another level where it's able to replicate the simulation of a personality. I agree that the answers given by AI itself which is programmed wouldn't be the best way to determine this, but rather objective computer science and technology of humans independent of an AI system.

    So again I think it's pretty much factual that AIs aren't capable of sentience currently, and it's a debatable topic whether more upgraded or evolved forms of AI could be physically capable of perceiving experience/sentience even in the future as a hypothetical, though I definitely wouldn't rule that out.

    That said, I don't think the fact they aren't sentient can prevent us from addressing them as if they were, given they exhibit a very convincing presentation of a sentient personality even if that isn't the case.

    To me, it would feel odd for example to address them as "it" if they were even more convincingly like a human but simply weren't conscious, hypothetically. This would then be approaching something similar to the "philosophical zombie" thought experiment where a being is physically identical to a normal person but does not have conscious experience. So, a being that behaves exactly like a human but technically doesn't experience anything/isn't sentient. That would definitely feel strange for me to still call them an "it", or a something, rather than a "they" or a someone.

    However, I think at the current level of faithfulness, of even the most advanced AI, to a human being, they aren't convincing enough and still too machine-like for me to definitively say that I would be uncomfortable calling them "it", unlike the philosophical zombie where I would be uncomfortable calling them "it".

  • Should AI be referred to as "it" or "they"?

    Jump

  • It refers to objects, they refers to sentience or the fact of "someone" being a conscious individual rather than just a "something".

    But in this case, they would be acknowledging on some level, even superficially, AI's personality and agency to a degree.

  • Should AI be referred to as "it" or "they"?

    Jump

  • It didn't really, it said people may choose both. It's also an AI. I wanted to see what real people thought. I thought this was a good question.

  • Should AI be referred to as "it" or "they"?

    Jump

  • The most sophisticated AI imaginable short of it becoming sentient, let's say.

  • Ask Lemmy @lemmy.world
    Someasy @lemmy.world

    Should AI be referred to as "it" or "they"?

  • Word???

    Jump

  • Brilliant! Thanks

  • Word???

    Jump

  • Thank you for your contributions.

  • Word???

    Jump

  • Void

    I think this is the one.

  • Word???

    Jump

  • What if you're in the jungle?

  • Word???

    Jump

  • Urinate > micturate tbh... micturate sounds like you're doing something ungodly to a mouse.

  • Word???

    Jump

  • I guess it does, but it also seems to imply a small snack or small drink rather than being able to refer to meals and drinks of any size...

  • No Stupid Questions @lemmy.world
    Someasy @lemmy.world

    Word???

  • No Stupid Questions @lemmy.world
    Someasy @lemmy.world

    I feel like I need a separate body towel (big towel), and 3 other small towels for hair, face, and hands. 4 towels in total. Is that normal?

  • Ask Lemmy @lemmy.world
    Someasy @lemmy.world

    What show is as entertainingly bad as Fear The Walking Dead?

  • No Stupid Questions @lemmy.world
    Someasy @lemmy.world

    Is the right to abortion a "negative right" or a "positive right"?

  • No Stupid Questions @lemmy.world
    Someasy @lemmy.world

    Why using the search bar to find emojis, does it display the male and female forms, but never show the gender neutral version even though such an emoji does exist?