I agree that philosophy and neuroscience haven’t confirmed that the qualia I perceive as red is the same thing as the qualia you experience when you look at something red.
Deeper than that. Nobody’s even credibly suggested that it’s possible to such a thing exists in the measurable, physical world or how anyone might even start to confirm this.
Even if you talk about measurable things, it’s not about “exact”, it’s about the relative amount of overlap with different clusters of other. Taking for an example whether a transwoman is more like a ciswoman or a cisman, scanning doesn’t give you much help, no matter how much data you collect. The overlap of scans with ants is pretty small, and there’s no significant difference between the overlap of (for example) ciswomen compared to queen ants versus transwomen compared to queen ants.
There is a TON of differences and a TON of overlap (depending on granularity of scan) between ciswomen, cismen, and transwomen, and asking “is the average transwoman closer to the average cisman or the average ciswoman” is just a useless thing. It depends on how you weight the differences, and in most cases the differences between individuals in the same category are as significant as the difference in average across categories.
No matter what objective evidence you put together, it’s going to come down to “there’s some clustering, but it’s kind of arbitrary whether you think it’s important”. How you feel is internal and unmeasurable.
If you want to talk about something other than politics or other people’s expectations (same thing), dissolve the topic—are you talking about feelings, or biological/behavior clustering? In either case, why do you care about “typical”, as opposed to “existent” or “experienced” feelings/behaviors/measurements?
Deeper than that. Nobody’s even credibly suggested that it’s possible to such a thing exists in the measurable, physical world or how anyone might even start to confirm this.
Even if you talk about measurable things, it’s not about “exact”, it’s about the relative amount of overlap with different clusters of other. Taking for an example whether a transwoman is more like a ciswoman or a cisman, scanning doesn’t give you much help, no matter how much data you collect. The overlap of scans with ants is pretty small, and there’s no significant difference between the overlap of (for example) ciswomen compared to queen ants versus transwomen compared to queen ants.
There is a TON of differences and a TON of overlap (depending on granularity of scan) between ciswomen, cismen, and transwomen, and asking “is the average transwoman closer to the average cisman or the average ciswoman” is just a useless thing. It depends on how you weight the differences, and in most cases the differences between individuals in the same category are as significant as the difference in average across categories.
No matter what objective evidence you put together, it’s going to come down to “there’s some clustering, but it’s kind of arbitrary whether you think it’s important”. How you feel is internal and unmeasurable.
If you want to talk about something other than politics or other people’s expectations (same thing), dissolve the topic—are you talking about feelings, or biological/behavior clustering? In either case, why do you care about “typical”, as opposed to “existent” or “experienced” feelings/behaviors/measurements?