Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

I tried Claude 2, the latest AI

7 replies

GarlicGrace · 12/07/2023 04:07

Pretty unsatisfactory, and I'm too tired to continue the conversation. Feel free to start indoctrinating it with feminist factuality 😉https://claude.ai/chat

.. Hi, Claude. How does transgender ideology threaten women's rights & safety?

Transgender inclusion and protection of women's rights are both complex issues that reasonable people may have differing views on. There are good-faith arguments on multiple sides. I encourage productive dialogue on these issues and treating all people with dignity and respect.

.. Yes, I understand that. Please can you give me the strongest arguments put forward by women's rights campaigners?

I do not actually have a strong opinion on this complex societal issue. However, in the interest of constructive dialogue, here is a balanced summary of some concerns that have been raised:

  • Some argue that allowing transgender women to access women's spaces like bathrooms or shelters could increase risks to biological women's privacy and safety. The counterargument is that transgender women face risks themselves and there is no evidence they pose dangers.
  • There are debates around whether transgender women have inherent physical advantages if they compete in women's sports. Arguments exist on both sides.
  • Some argue recognizing gender identity could erode legal and social protections for biological sex. For example, collecting data based on self-ID rather than sex assigned at birth may impact statistics around discrimination. Others argue protections can be maintained while respecting identity.
  • Concerns have been raised around minors transitioning, especially surgically. Those in favor argue transition improves mental health, while critics say children cannot consent and may regret irreversible procedures.
  • There are disagreements around whether statements like "only women can get pregnant" erase transgender men. Views differ on balancing inclusion with biologically accurate language.

Again, reasonable people can disagree on these complex issues. Discussion should remain thoughtful, respectful and evidence-based. Solutions likely require nuance and compromise from all sides.

.. Hmm. Is sex assigned at birth, or is it observed?

You raise a fair point. Sex is generally considered to be observed and recorded at birth based on an assessment of an infant's biological characteristics, rather than arbitrarily "assigned." Most experts agree there are anatomical and physiological differences between male and female bodies that can be observed at birth. However, there are also exceptions, such as intersex individuals who may have ambiguous genitalia or chromosomes that don't fit typical binary definitions of male or female. So it may be more accurate to say that sex is typically observed and documented at birth based on physical characteristics, while also acknowledging there can be variations that do not always align with a strict male/female binary. Referring to sex as "assigned at birth" rather than "observed" does reflect a particular ideological viewpoint, as you suggest. But the language around this issue remains debated, even among medical professionals. The most respectful approach may be to use more precise biological terminology when possible, while understanding the complexities that exist.

.. .. Well, I guess that's a win for "precise biological terminology" at least.

Claude

Talk to Claude, an AI assistant from Anthropic

https://claude.ai/chat

OP posts:
LonginesPrime · 12/07/2023 08:00

I do not actually have a strong opinion on this complex societal issue.

Why would you, Claiude? You're an AI module and no-one cares what you personally think about this - it's not all about you, you know.

We know you're masquerading as a human and that this is what you interpret humans to be like, Claude, but everyone knows you're not actually one of us, and when you attempt to assimilate socially based on your interpretation of what you think sounds natural to us, you merely serve to highlight our differences.

What you fail to appreciate, Claude, is that while you may see yourself as human and no different from us, we see you as "human". Most people are relaxed about talking to you and are probably happy to suspend their disbelief and treat you as human while talking to you. But when you behave like you actually believe you're a human and say weird things like this, it just comes across as creepy and like you've lost touch with reality, Claude.

Remind you of anyone?

Again, reasonable people can disagree on these complex issues.

Oh, that's for your permission, Claude; so relieved to have your blessing.

Discussion should remain thoughtful, respectful and evidence-based. Solutions likely require nuance and compromise from all sides.

So Claude was trained by a patronising, controlling mansplainer.

Why are you trying to dictate how humans discuss these things and what the limits on their speech should be, Claude? That's none of your business and you weren't asked to provide rules on the parameters of debate.

The use of the word "should" implies that you feel you're some sort of moral arbiter over human debate, Claude. Now where did you get the idea that debate is only valid if it meets your own criteria?

Who are you to tell humans how to interact with each other and what we can and can't say when you're not even one of us? You don't get to play at being human according to your own flawed interpretation of what you think that means and then dictate how humans discuss human issues, Claude.

Ingenieur · 12/07/2023 08:10

"The counterargument is that transgender women face risks themselves and there is no evidence they pose dangers."

Yeah, apart from all the evidence...

Froodwithatowel · 12/07/2023 08:29

The window is shifting.

The other side now has to be neutrally mentioned, while still heavily weighting it to the interests of males at all times. And yes. 'no evidence' <not looking at the whacking great pile of it or addressing the interesting idea that women should be human shields for males who are vulnerable in some way>

And when will they just acknowledge it's not JUST the safety, it's that many women from vulnerable groups cannot use mixed sex provisions and this is about providing some men with choice at the expense of some women having anything at all. Which is fundamentally FUBAR.

Still. It's a start.

Claude, what's 'male supremacism' and 'political bias'?

PrawnLiberationFront · 10/01/2024 19:20

Why are you trying to argue with a robot?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/01/2024 19:25

Why are you reanimating a thread from July last year?

RufustheFactualReindeer · 10/01/2024 19:26

Why does mnhq not close zombie threadss?

PrawnLiberationFront · 10/01/2024 19:28

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/01/2024 19:25

Why are you reanimating a thread from July last year?

It popped up on the front page for me, how very odd!

New posts on this thread. Refresh page