gets $10000000
Fuck
You must log in or register to comment.
- Is there a limit of how many times can I push the button?
- Once I turn into a woman can I still push the button?
- Do you carry your physical measures? I have large feet and is difficult to find men shoes of my size, women shoes of my size would be almost impossible.
On 2. I suppose you might just get more feminine
click click click click click
All the cis dudes in here thinking it wouldn’t be so bad to be a woman: you don’t know what dysphoria is like.
You just keep pressing until you turn back.
If I was a woman I wouldn’t have dysphoria, no? Unless it altered my body without doing anything to me.
(I guess if it was a sadistic genie it could also alter the brain but not the body, handing out dysphoria without physical change.)
If you are so CIS that you find male bodies ugly, … that’s a flaming lesbian as a result right there. (But I know what you mean* just a jokus)
I just presumed that turning me into a woman would entail no gender dysphoria, as opposed to like “change your body into a woman’s body” which would leave the rest of my psyche unchanged, and then probably I’d get dysphoria.
But hey, interpreting vague language is half the fun of stuff like this.
Nothing in the rules about spending a bit of your $10M to transition back
Also an option, assuming you can push the button more than once.
$10M would take the edge off
I mean as I understand it if you turn into a woman, you don’t get the $10M, so it’s a pretty big gamble unless you actually want to be a woman.
It says 99% chance of 10 mill, 1% chance of turning into a woman
-
not every trans person has dysphoria, do they?
-
considering this is a magical button the assumption would be that you become a cis woman, so you probably wouldn’t have the setbacks of body dysphoria or transphobia. just regular old misogyny.
-
I’m guessing it would affect people differently, psychologically speaking, to be in the wrong body as a result of a conscious choice as an adult knowing everything you know beforehand vs being born in it without a choice and not even understanding what always feels wrong until a certain age.
-
some people may identify as cis but not have a strong connection to their gender identity or masculinity in general. it could be cis & male privileges combined that you don’t even think about it much but still
-
Works out if you’re agender but unaware
Agender people can have dysphoria
What sane person would turn that down, even if they’re cis? I’m pressing that thing until I’m the richest woman on the planet; it’s better than being a moderately poor guy.
I’m sure it’s a popular button, but a lot of people would turn in down. If someone is comfortable with their current wealth and gender, they may turn it down. People are also likely to turn it down due to fear of unforeseen consequences (where is this money coming from)? Some people would turn it down because they really really don’t want to be a woman. And some people would turn it down because money is a corrupting evil force.
Cis male here. Im absolutely smashing that button. No current desire to be a woman, but i also dont see it as a drawback. I see no inherent “risk” to in the risk/benefit analysis
eh i don’t think it’s quite enough money to be worth it for someone who is properly cis and currently well off, like there’s a reason gender dysphoria is something people want to get rid of…
US$ ?.. or like, LD$ ?
Wait can you press it multiple times? Because, like… money button go brrr…
What happens if you’re already XX? you get XXX?
[Joking] This community is on a canadian instance, so obviously CAD.
I will press it 100 times
Only a 63% chance if you do it 100 times, do it a few thousand to be safe (and richer).
yeah, but if I get in the billionaire territory, I’ll have to kill myself
Why is that?
Just statistics, there’s a 99% chance to not turn into a woman each time, and 99% ^ 100 ≈ 37%. So the chance of turning into a woman after 100 presses is 100% - 37% = 63%.
The button does not know or care that it has been pressed by anyone. Every press is a new roll of a die, so to speak, that has an equal chance to land anywhere between 1 and 100. You can also read about the Gambler’s Fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler’s_fallacy
That’s under the (reasonable) assumption that every press is indeed a new roll of the die, of course. It can also be that someone rolled the die when they were making the button, so it always does the same thing and there’s a 99% chance that thing is giving you money.
Presses it 100 times
37% chance to make a billion dollars.
63% chance to make less than a billion dollars and turn into a woman.
Nuh uh 1% times 100 is 100% idiot
/s obviously
How many times do I have to press it to get a 90% chance of having a billion dollars? What about a 90% chance of both?
Asking for a me who took statistics too long ago and is too sick to sit down and work it out.
okay so bear with me here.
i’m going to calculate this using the binomial distribution, where n = number of button presses, and p = 0.99. so, if we let X be a random variable that follows that binomial distribution B(n, 0.99), then X corresponds to how many times we win money after pressing the button n times. (e.g., if we “only” get $10,000,000 after n button presses, then X = 1.)
in this setup, the probability of getting a billion dollars is given by
(this is basically just summing up all scenarios in which we get the money outcome at least 100 times.)
to calculate the chance of getting a billion dollars and becoming a woman, notice that we are guaranteed to be a woman so long as we hit the button fewer than n times. so, the probability of getting a billion dollars and becoming a woman is given by
to answer your questions, we just need to find the smallest value of n that makes both of the above equations greater than or equal to 0.90. there are probably some clever math tricks that could be utilized to do this, but i just wrote some python code to do it. the values are:
minimum number of presses for a 90% chance of getting a billion dollars: 102 button presses.
minimum number of presses for a 90% chance of getting a billion dollars and becoming a woman: 230 button presses.
Presses the button 230 times
How many times can I press the button?
I mean, I’m a cis man, but I’d press that button like I didn’t understand the word “inflation”, and if I turn into a chick then smack my ass and call me Judith, because this bitch just got herself a hot pink Barbie styled 6x6 Brabus G-wagon
What’s the down side?
Men exist.
I man, therefore I am. But I get it.
That there are men that think being a woman is inferior? There’s the problem.
No, the downside for most men is that they stop being themselves or alternatively they will feel dysmorphia but that depends on how the button is implemented. Does it change everything about you including the brain and basically rewire you to be a woman mentally and physically or does it just alter you physically?
But of course there are a few men that think being a woman is inferior and the opposite is true for women of course.
Ah, I was inferring a total change.
Now that you’ve pointed out to me the possibility of dysmorphia (etc) there’s now a downside I can appreciate.
Low odds but I’ll do it anyway
10000000$ isn’t that bad either 🤷
Can a statistics guy tell me how rich I’m likely to be once my body is nice?
Just keep pressing it till it works I don’t see the problem
I press the button and if you dont become a girl, i try to make the anti-trans conspiracy theories true
You don’t need the 1% chance, if you say you are a woman then you are.
Well yes, but then I would get to be a biological woman, which would be better
I don’t agree there is such a thing as a ‘biological woman’, but I do understand wanting certain body features yeah.
Er, what term would you use, for the sake of discussing medical or scientific issues? is ‘biological female’ better?
I’m fully onboard with the idea that an individual should be free to present socially however they choose, but as far as I know there’s no way to edit chromosome pairing in vivo, not even a theory about how it could be done.
I would be specific about the thing I am talking about, I would not call anyone a ‘biological’ ‘female’ nor a ‘biological’ ‘woman’ either.
Instead I would merely make references to what it is I wanted or what I am talking about without ultimately being biologically essentialist nor limiting or harmful in my talk of such things.
For example, if I wanted to be able to reproduce via ovaries and a womb, I would just say that without saying those things are inherently ‘female’ nor ‘woman’ as saying such things are transphobic and biologically essentialist to trans masc and nonbinary people who have those organs etc.
[Sincere, not mean or sarcastic] Does that make sense?
Edit: If you need or want more examples of what I would say I would be happy to give them 🙂. Ultimately the point though is to be specific and use less/no gendered or assumed sex labelling when referring to such things.
I think the issue with this is that it ends up being very verbose, which makes it annoying to talk about outside of borderline scientific contexts. If we could find a short and snappy way to describe things that would probably make it a lot easier.
i know some people say stuff like “to you penis-bearers out there” which mostly works, but it’s also very funny which isn’t always suitable.
When someone says “biological woman” I usually just assume that they mean that the individual was genetically female at birth.
Biology is a mess of stuff, so it can be interpreted a bunch of ways, meanwhile genetics are generally unchanged regardless of what may have changed to your body/biological container.
I just forgive people for using inaccurate terms and understand what they mean instead of the literal interpretation of what they’re saying.
I am not blaming anyone or seeking out to asign people as good or bad to be clear. However, gaps in knowledge and understanding are useful to be corrected.
As such, genetically female (or even male for that matter) is as much of a social construct as anything else. Asigning labels onto people at the biological levels merely seeks to continue biological essentialism and in a way continue the false assumptions of binary gender/sex thinking.
Now it is fair to say that certain traits are more common amongst people with certain genetic makeups, but what that means on a labelling level is nothing really, such things are a harmful idea, an incorrect shorthand for more complexity than most of society really either understands or cares to imagine and I personally think viewing it as such is stifling and holding us back from seeing the beauty and true nature of, well, nature 😉.
Not to mention that unfortunately using such terms and applying such ideas is often transphobic rhetoric (not accusing anyone of that here yet) as well as incorrect or at least showing a limit in understanding.
To that end, I do hope that the trans community and those we deem allies and accomplises get away from such ideas as it will probably save us all a lot of heartache if nothing else from not seeing ourselves as ‘perfect’ plus it may lead us down infinite roads of beauty and configuration.
I do completely understand thinking in such terms and being upset that we don’t have or aren’t allowed certain things we wish to have as there has not been enough research or movement in the medical/scientitific fields to give us them. Not to mention the legal and other hurdles we have to overcome.
I just think we can overcome a lot of this both in ourselves and as a community by letting go of incorrect, outdated or harmful ideas about what we are and what we assume science says, and hey if science hasn’t caught up to us yet and our beautiful futures of infinite possibilities I hope that it does some day, though recently I have seen a wave of science communicators trying to correct the misunderstandings of such rigid gender and sex ideas a lot of people seem to believe still, so that is hopeful.
All in all, again, not blaming anyone so no one needs to be forgiven (yet), just wish to correct some misunderstandings and hopefully in the process make everyone’s days and hopefully lives a little brighter as a result.
I think I understand what you’re driving at, and to me, genetically we are either male or female. This is a scientific truth, and not a matter of opinion or social construct.
In all walks of nature, with the exception of hermaphroditic organisms, or those that reproduce by mitosis (or similar biological process), all complex/multi-cellular life has genetic instructions for the sex of the organism.
From a scientific perspective, genetic males would form the appropriate structures for fertilization, in most or all primates, sperm. Conversely females would develop structures to produce ovum. There are genetic abnormalities that can happen, and they are largely outliers at most.
Since genetic manipulation isn’t legal to perform on humans, this cannot be altered with the current laws (and/or technology). Therefore those born with the XY gene (males) will always have that genetic coding, and those born with the XX gene (females) would equally always have that coding.
At present it is, in my opinion, the only thing we cannot change about an individual when performing a procedure such as SRS.
with all that being said : none of this negates or otherwise changes the fact that every individual person can, and should, have full rights to be who they are most comfortable being. Whether you have XX or XY genes, is not an important factor when discussing gender, and other gender based social constructs. It is irrelevant to the discussion. What a man is, or what a woman is, is entirely a discussion surrounding social constructs. Anyone who attempts to isolate people into whatever their genes indicate their gender was when they were incubated, is trying to tie an entirely social construct to a scientific qualification. Those two things are so different that they can not, and should not be tied together in any way, shape, or form.
Your genetics do not dictate who you are socially.
‘female’ and ‘male’ are just labels that have been applied to bodies, parts, genes etc. They aren’t necessary labels. We can more than explain things without calling anything them, so no, it is not a ‘scientific truth’ (also science doesn’t have truth nor facts, just suggestions and evidence because its goal is to understand, not to dictate), they are merely unnecessary labels to describe natural phenomena.
There is nothing in nature that binds language and thus labels to natural phenomena, just people deciding to do that. Again, they are unnecessary and everything can be described without resorting to such limiting, transphobic and biologically essentialist concepts.
i basically agree with you, but i just want to say that i think this ended up sounding a bit too aggressive for people to avoid their own biases. like just a heads up about that.
If you just lop off the end bit it’d probably go down a lot easier.
the problem is that this is only generally true, a not insignificant amount of people have confusing genetics and still look like a standard man/woman, some people outright have both genitals (or at least parts of them) that function just fine, things just aren’t quite so simple.
The way i see it is that there’s a biological basis to male/female, but it’s far from absolute and there isn’t really any benefit to continuing to have the general concept of sex and gender in our day-to-day lives.
Better to just think of people as people and nothing else, and leave sex/gender for scientists to use when they judge it actually makes sense.Some people have uteruses, some have testicles, no one should really care unless they’re selling underwear or looking to have fun with what’s contained in said underwear.
