Stack Exchange
log in

Nat

 Discussion on question by d-b: Can so…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Nat
Jan 30, 2024 06:12
I'd also note that some of the comments from both the plaintiff and defendant were fairly disturbing. So much so that, among the plausible narratives, I'd perceive there to explanations that involve both parties significantly deviating from objectivity in seemingly unpleasant ways.
Nat
Jan 30, 2024 05:45
To be clear, it's not that I find the claim implausible nor the defendant credible. It's just that, in the presence of several seemingly plausible narratives, there'd seem to need to be a better basis for favoring some of them over the others.
Nat
Jan 30, 2024 05:43
@Jen At Age-75, the plaintiff claimed to have remembered an event in which they were victimized by the sitting President of the United States 23-or-24 (the plaintiff apparently wasn't sure) years prior. Coupled with how they tell the story, the comments they've made, the context, the plausibility of an ulterior motive.. it just looks murky. I see several plausible narratives, not all of which would favor the claim.
Nat
Jan 29, 2024 23:09
I mean, so far, it seems like that "Hollywood Insider" recording's the big thing -- it sounds confession-like. But, that confession-like property isn't clearly applicable to the particular plaintiff, which seems to be the clarity-issue for the exact claim of the case.
Nat
Jan 29, 2024 22:55
@Bib I've been reading through all of the documents I could find online looking for evidence, but nothing too compelling's popped up -- it appears to be an unfortunately murky scenario. Though if you're aware of more compelling evidence, it'd be great to have something more clarifying.
Nat
Jan 28, 2024 18:27
Related: "Memorandum Opinion Denying Defendant's Rule 59 Motion" (PDF) (2023-07-19).
 

 Discussion on answer by ohwilleke: Ca…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Nat
Jan 28, 2024 18:32
@KarlKnechtel: For what it's worth, my sense is that, after listening to quite a bit from Trump, the jury ended up finding the claims generally believable in a class-sense. By which I mean, they may've been fuzzy on the precise truth of what actually happened 20-years ago -- but, they found it reasonably probable that Trump had done things of the sort that he was accused of, so they went with the claim on the balance. It doesn't seem like a particularly clean way of doing things, but... it appears to be how it went.
Nat
Jan 28, 2024 18:32
@KarlKnechtel: That quote wasn't from one of my comments above. You may've meant to ping a different user.
Nat
Jan 28, 2024 18:32
Basically, the jury rejected most of the claims -- presumably for lack of evidence. Except the claim that Trump "grab[bed] [her] by the pussy", because Trump appears to have claimed that he did that sort of thing in the tape.
Nat
Jan 28, 2024 18:32
@Shamshiel: The clearest explanation was in the paragraph starting on Page-43 of this PDF: "Mr. Trump’s own words from the Access Hollywood tape [...] “c[ould] do anything” [...] including “grab[bing] them by the pussy” and (b) he considers himself to be a “star” – could have been regarded by the jury as a sort of personal confession as to his behavior. Thus, there was ample, arguably overwhelming evidence, that Mr. Trump forcibly digitally penetrated Ms. Carroll [...]".
Nat
Jan 28, 2024 18:32
My take would be that, overall, it seems unclear if Trump was actually guilty of that particular crime. However, Trump does appear to have bragged about some pretty questionable behaviors in the past -- and, one might speculate that the jury may've felt it fair for Trump to take the rap for some accusation, even if the particulars of that accusation weren't necessarily solid.
Nat
Jan 28, 2024 18:32
Looks like the "Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape" ended up being the main thing.
Nat
Jan 28, 2024 18:32
Yeah, the dress thing appears to have been thrown out pretty quickly -- this opinion doesn't appear to even mention DNA.
Nat
Jan 28, 2024 18:32
What would the relevance of a dress with semen on it be if Trump was accused of inserting a finger (rather than using a penis)? (I haven't really been following the case, so trying to figure out what the relevant evidence was.)
 

 Discussion on question by Xophmeister…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Nat
Dec 8, 2023 22:52
So Alice and Bob both agree that Alice's hypothesis might work, but Alice is more optimistic while Bob is more pessimistic? Or is one of them doing something weird, e.g. is Alice saying that her hypothesis must be correct (even before testing), or is Bob saying that Alice's hypothesis must be false (even before testing)?
 

 Discussion between Nat and NotThatGuy

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Nat
Dec 5, 2023 06:06
To note it: I'm trying to get a precise handle on your notion of a brain's sex because it seems essential to your perspective on trans-identification.
Nat
Dec 5, 2023 06:03
Also, why do you accept non-binary identifications if it's about a brain's sex? This is, if it's just a sex that got mixed up, then how can it be non-{male/female}? Moreover, how can it be gender-fluid, changing around regularly? And if a gender-fluid person's gender-identity were determinable by some external factor, would that imply that something external is changing their brain's structure in a manner beyond the manner in which a brain changes for having a thought?
Nat
Dec 5, 2023 06:02
That confuses me because.. I mean, you've defined it as whatever causes a brain to feel like it's of some sex; so it seems sufficient for it to merely be a belief -- so why must it be more than that? Like what's the motivation/significance for/of that requirement?
Nat
Dec 5, 2023 06:00
The idea that the brain's feeling-of-gender likely comes from a physical feature seems almost tautologically true, if we assume that every thought/memory/etc. a person has in their mind has some sort of physical manifestation in their brain. However, you seem pretty clear that it's a brain's sex isn't simply a matter of belief; that it has to be something more real/substantial.
Nat
Dec 5, 2023 05:58
5. A brain can be of the opposite-sex even if the brain is otherwise geenrally like the brain of the same-sex in most regards; it's the yet-unidentfied feature of Point-(4) that matters, not anything else.

6. A brain's sex can change regularly. (Note: Inferred from a combination of your acceptance for gender-fluidity and your requirement that a gender correspond to a brain' sex.)

7. Whatever determines a brain's sex is not analogous to whatever determines any other belief (e.g., a belief that one is of another race). (Note: This is inferred from a combination of Point-(4) AND the rejec…
Nat
Dec 5, 2023 05:57
1. A brain's sex is the thing that determine's a person's legitimate gender-identity.

2. It is illegitimate to identify as a gender other than that of one's brain (or/and biological sex?).

3. A brain's sex has a status similiar to that of a mental condition, e.g. autism.

4. A brain's sex is (probably?) a physical feature of the brain, even if science hasn't yet identified that physical feature.
Nat
Dec 5, 2023 05:57
@NotThatGuy I'm still curious about your concept of a brain's "sex". Here's what I've inferred about your position on it so far (and please just correct a description if you disagree!):
Nat
Dec 5, 2023 03:40
Would you be up for that sort of thing?
Nat
Dec 5, 2023 03:40
I get the sense that you think that you've been fully specific and so there's nothing else to say. But.. this is a Philosophy site; surely you're aware that philosophical discussions can involve a lot more than just this small amount of description? Questioning ideas and exploring how they work out is a big part of figuring things out.
Nat
Dec 5, 2023 03:38
Still, I'm curious about your viewpoint. You see the world in a way that's strange to me so I'd like to explore it. For example, you seem to oppose most sorts of trans-identifications except for a subset of trans-gendered identifications based on a criteria that I've been trying to get clarification on.
Nat
Dec 5, 2023 03:38
I'm afraid that, when you talk about stuff like "don't just cherry-pick from and misrepresent what someone has said to the most extreme degree to support their narrative", I'm really not sure what you're going on about. Admittedly I'm kinda curious about what you're on about there, but I get the sense that it wouldn't be productive to ask, so let's just skip over that.
Nat
Dec 5, 2023 03:37
@NotThatGuy I've been asking about your view to try and figure out where you're coming from. I see inconsistencies in the reconstruction of your view that I've been able to piece together (noting that such inconsistencies may be due to my misunderstanding of your view rather than your view necessarily being inconsistent), so I've been trying to explore your perspective to better inform my reconstruction of it.
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 20:14
:64804350
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 15:52
Or, if you don't actually have any evidence and you misspoke when you previously claimed to have it, then... okay, we can move on. Just.. ya know, what is it?
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 15:51
Honestly I'm just hoping you'll link a paper and quote the relevant part. That's what people normally do and it's confusing me that you're apparently unable or unwilling.
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 14:38
@NotThatGuy I saw two of your links about gender-affirming care, but I don't see anything you linked about gender existing as anything beyond a belief akin to a religious belief. Did they say something like that at some point in one of those videos?
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 13:46
(Or if you're really into YouTube videos, if you could at least just clearly cite what part
of a video you're referring to.)
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 13:44
(Sorry -- while I love reading papers, YouTube videos are painfully slow and low-information, so I'm not willing to watch hours of bad jokes and ads to try to look for you. And in general, I'd really prefer if we could stick to scientific, academic, or/and medical publications rather than social-media.)
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 13:44
@NotThatGuy: You told me that you believe that the science says this. I cited a peer-reviewed article that says the exact opposite. But now you seem to think that "the entire field of psychology" agrees? Where do you get this from? Is this all because of that one YouTube channel? And if so, exactly where does that YouTube channel even say what you're apparently attributing to it?
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 13:44
> To put the burden on me to explain how trans identity is different from those things is to ignore me bringing up other mental conditions, or it's to challenge the entire field of psychology, or it's to be inconsistent.
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 06:33
Oh, right -- I later gave the examples of other trans-identifications, which are much the same in terms of how believers respond to them, enjoy treatment that validates them, and may correlate to observable physical variations. But apparently you'd argue that gender exists in a way in which other trans-identifications don't. So.. how did that YouTube channel support your argument?
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 06:29
And.. well. Basically, I haven't been able to figure out what sort of scientific evidence you might be thinking of.
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 06:28
Though Point (3) ended up being a bit weak as that study didn't support it.
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 06:27
Anyway.. as I previously said, I'm not really interested in anything you might be wrong about; I'm mostly interested in any good points you might have to make. Since both Points (1) and (2) looked dubious to me, I pretty much skipped over them in favor of Point (3). Though I apologize if that was a mistake!
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 06:25
The third item, "there are also demonstrated physical differences in brains", seemed like a repeat of the point you were making in linking the 1995-study. Did one of the videos on that channel give you that link, or is there a different link, or.. what's the deal there?
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 06:24
For another example, someone who believes that they were Super President Alice (before their mots recent incarnation) might really enjoy it if everyone else were to buy into that and go along with it.
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 06:23
For example, the person I said that sometimes believes that they're a cat enjoys that being validated -- it's important to them and seems to promote their (at least immediate) well-being. But we can explain that in ways other than them actually being a cat. Just.. in general, if someone gets attached to some self-perception, they might find a lot of enjoyment in having that self-perception validated.
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 06:20
The second item, "the effectiveness of treatment", also wasn't clear because gender wouldn't need to exist in any sense except for a belief in it for treatment to be effective.
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 06:18
The first item, "by analysis of behaviour and what people say", wasn't clear to me because that doesn't seem different from souls (or past lives, talking to ghosts, etc.) -- this is, yes, beliefs affect those who believe in them.
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 06:18
> I don't mean that souls are supported by science. Gender as distinct from sex is scientifically supported in the same way as every other mental condition: by analysis of behaviour and what people say, the effectiveness of treatment, and there are also demonstrated physical differences in brains.
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 06:16
To evidence this, you linked that 1995-study and a YouTuber. I felt that I understood your motivation for the 1995-study: I think you were trying to say that there was a physical impact on brain-size that would be a real condition beyond simply being whatever someone believed about gender. But.. what was the YouTuber supposed to show? You said:
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 06:15
Then you said that the existence of souls wasn't supported by science, but that gender was. But since souls are verifiably real in the respect that people have a lot of strong beliefs about them and those beliefs are easily observed, I understood your claim to be that gender existed in a manner beyond simply being a belief that existed through its impact on a believer.
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 06:14
This is, I accept the gender "exists" in the same sense that ghosts, spirits, demons, Astrological classifications, etc., exist in -- in that, while they can have real effects on reality, those effects tend to flow from a believer's internal feelings.
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 06:14
So to remind, I was saying that I see gender ideology as being like a religion or new-age spiritual-tradition, where beliefs about gender are much like traditional religious beliefs in that they're largely just about whatever a believer buys into.
Nat
Dec 3, 2023 06:13
@NotThatGuy Sorry, but I still don't get it.