On gender
According to Jung, priests of Cybele, the goddess of full womanhood, castrated themselves in the name of Attis, the god who spoke with Cybele and castrated himself as well. This got me thinking about Trans individuals. Do these people perhaps allow the operations as a religious act somehow?
Comments (82)
Are we to see gender disphoria as part of a social institution or it is part of people's spiritual lives? The priests of old who catrated themselves may have drawn the gender disphoric into their flocks
I think that it would be worth you doing some research into trans issues. The whole medical process of changing gender is to address the experience of gender dysphoria, which is the discomfort of one's experience of being a certain gender. It requires a whole assessment process by psychiatrists.
Jung's understanding of gender is coming from a different perspective altogether, and is more a perception of androgyny as a spiritual quest, or as an archetype. He was drawing upon Gnostic ideas and was writing from a historical context, and this is rather different from the modern day trans movement, although that may go back to the essential archetype of the androgyne, but mainly in a secular context
You look to be making stuff up. The difficulty is that you may then expect others to conform to your myth.
Take a look around, instead. There are people who do not conform to your made up stuff.
The notion that women are just castrated men is profoundly corrupt.
Can we say gender identity is impossible?
What is 'simplicity of soul'? I am not sure that many women would be happy with such an idea applied to them.
Come on. You know he didn't say that.
I think gender is made from identity but the body embodies it in two forms, make and female. The female is reversible in that it can have a vagina or penis but the male form has one. I don't see how we can have gender identity without concepts about the body
I don't have any opinion on the issues in this discussion. I will say this - I don't think what you are saying is disrespectful to men, women, or transgendered people. You are getting jumped on by people who can't stand you not using the exact acceptable words to express your opinions about a sensitive subject.
I don't see why you started the discussion about transgender. Perhaps, it would have been better to start with the basis of gender because you are probably making it so much harder for yourself. I think that many discussions on this site focus on trans issues for some reason, and perhaps it is a way of avoiding thinking about what it means to be a man or a woman.
No, you are able to talk about infinities although you don't understand infinity. We can something about sexuality perhaps but if these questions just frustrate people then its not fruitful and I'll go do something else instead
The forum is full of threads where the poster doesn't do a very good job of defining his terms. I would say it's the rule rather than the exception. In this case, I believe it is the possible political implications of the content that is setting off the horns. Gregory isn't toeing the acceptable line.
It's your fallacy that not knowing everything means not knowing anything. Might as well own that
I think we all have some idea of male and female. A female has breasts by form for example. But if you are saying its all just a blur because we can't understand it completely, there no point elaborating
We have some understanding of human male and female-ness. That breasts are female and not male is obvious, except you are saying that what breasts are is inherently blurry beyond recognition. Since you won't wonder about the subject, any description of a sexually individual body will, I feel, be dismissed.
I will add that in our abortion discussions in the past you've always retreated behind the idea that personhood is an inherently opaque concept. It seems you don't desire to find anything objective in these subjects
I mentioned trans individuals because people often say we can choose our gender but then turn around and say gender is not a thing. People get very confused about this. If its not something you can reach, why are trans individuals looking for the proper gender identification to start with? Post modern people want to whole subject to be blurry beyond repair
Males "have" breasts you say, so breasts are a thing. I'm saying that "female breasts" are an ontological thing too
Everyone knows man have breasts in the sense you mean. Are you saying they have breasts in the same sense that females do?
You would tell people with gender disphoria that gender is an illusion and to "feel" whatever they like. They should feel whatever they like, but understanding which gender they are is a real question although you think apparently think you are neither male nor female (that is, you believe that is the proper philosophical position to hold. I sure you think you are great)
Most people do not understand what being a trans person means
Many people do not have clear ideas about gender and sex -- or they have extremely simple ideas
The whole topic of transgenderism may be a crock. My suspicion is that a good share of it is a crock.
Quoting Jung about males castrating themselves is not a good idea. My suspicion is that a good share of Karl Jung may be a crock (along with much of Sigmund Freud).
I do not know why transgenderism is such a hot topic now. Probably the algorithms that determine what the New York Times, New Yorker, National Public Radio, et al will natter on about decided that transgenderism was hot.
Ok. I won't post on this thread anymore. My ideas of male-ness and femininity are obviously more within certain bounds than for others. Thanks
Reproduction is part of earthly life. I was talking about male and female in the abstract, in the sense of essential form. I understand if people got confused but I don't understand what anyone would be upset by the topic. But if that's how it is, so be it
This has consequences, for instance that males are relatively freer to do other things, including risky things.
Another is that in mammals, each individual male is of far lesser reproductive value than each individual female. Males are more 'expandable' than females, females are more precious than males. In social species, when the tribe is threatened it tends to sacrifice its males first, in order to protect the females. Hence the tendency to save "women and children first" in the case of a sinking boat, or to send men at war. Men are expandable. Their most fundamental biological role (as male mammals) is to protect women and children. This of course does not mean that men or women should always and only stick to their biological role.
a) an organism of the sperm-bearing type in a species with two-part sexual reproduction in which one type carries eggs and the other carries sperm.
b) the artificial, socially constructed norms imposed on individuals born with such a body; a person who desires to adhere to, and to be recognized as adhering to, those norms (regardless of what body parts they were born with), rejecting the opportunity to live outside of any gender norms.
A female is...
a) an organism of the egg-bearing type in a species with two-part sexual reproduction in which one type carries eggs and the other carries sperm.
b) the artificial, socially constructed norms imposed on individuals born with such a body; a person who desires to adhere to, and to be recognized as adhering to, those norms (regardless of what body parts they were born with), rejecting the opportunity to live outside of any gender norms.
My personal belief: We should aim for a society in which these norms are no longer imposed on anyone. We should aim for a society where the next generation will grow up seeing those norms as just as archaic as theories of humours and astrology.
We should do this by choosing to live outside of either sets of norms, and encouraging others to do the same.
I don’t believe gender equality is possible until those norms are thoroughly deconstructed.
I do think that anyone who desires to should be allowed to change their body however they wish. I don’t think they should have to adhere to gender norms in order to do so.
In a world with the medical technology that we have, shouldn’t we put away those prehistoric notions of what people had to do when childbirth was dangerous? Shouldn’t we focus on improving medical technology even more so that reproductive concerns don’t have to dominate people’s lives and diminish their opportunities? That sort of talk is irrelevant.
Also: these norms are so different in different cultures that no one way is universal. Unless you want to say your culture is just better than everyone else’s, I think that proves that all of this is socially constructed.
Clothing, for example, has no gender. It’s just a physical object. There’s no valid reason for having separate gendered clothing styles. I think, to use Western clothing as the example, that men should wear dresses as often as women wear pants nowadays, and there should be at least as many long-haired men as short-haired women.
In a just society, there would be no outward markings of gender, because a just society would not code things that way.
I said I wasn't going to debate this further since I've been asked not too. My opinions are out there though, so I will just tell you briefly that a female human has a specific curvature, breasts, and a female soul. A male perhaps is harder to describe but he has a male soul. I know people think or want to believe these matters are completely and absolutely relative, but I think you would be VERY hard pressed to prove it. People accept things dogmatically in this society and its not different from the Inquisition forcing their opinion on others in the Middle Ages except that the medieval Catholics were generally more violent about it.
That's all folks
Reproduction is not sex or gender. It's done by bodies. Bodies which act in reproduction as they do, whether they are female, male or anything else.
People have a problem with your account because its equivocating biological reproduction with a person identity and supposing a restriction upon identities which fails to recognise, and unjustly discriminates against, whole host of people.
I didn't discriminate against anybody. I say that all humans by soul are either male or female but all have equal dignity. Representations of these genders in bodily form will, yes, take many forms but that does not mean a general outline cannot be given
As I've said many times of this forum, I'm a Hegelian materialist nominalist. But if we take twi oak trees they have something in common (clearly), and although I don't say its because of forms united to prime matter (Aristotle), the soul emerges from the brain and spinal cord and it seems to me (I am not a Pope) that it comes in 2 types. I'm trying to let this thread die because my ideas were causing people distress, but if you have a question I can answer approximately, be my guest
(I do not believe "identity" should be forced on anyone. I am politically independent and about in the middle. This is a philosophy forum though)
Why then are you insisting humans must have a male or female soul? That's enforcing an identity. You are saying the must have either of these identities, rather than respecting any fact made by their own being.
If we aren't enforcing identity, people will only have a male or female soul if they have a male or female soul. It is not necessarily humans have either.
I didnt realize how explosive this issue could be even on a philosophy forum, so be open enough to leave me with my own ontology
I'm worried about the contradiction in your statement here. You say you aren't for enforcing identity, yet that's exactly what your ontology does. Why would I be open to such a statement? We aren't even to the polical concerns yet. This doesn't make sense purely on a rational/truth/description basis of the claims itself.
Either you don't understand your ontology is enforcing an identity or you are willing to tell falsehoods that it's not. That's a violation in philosophical terms, a bad understand of your ontology at the very least, if not a bad ontology, which deserves to be called for what it is.
I never said its always psychologically valuable to find your identity. But you are denying it can ever have value to believe as I do and you have no evidence
I believe you did choose a particularly difficult subject, but at the same time I think that is exactly why an understanding would be that much more rewarding and satisfying. I suggest we all leave assumptions about one another's knowledge unsaid and just try to understand.
Can I try restating your view and see if you agree?
You don't disagree that there are two biological genders, male and female. These have their appropriate characteristics to some degree, like penis and such for the male, and breasts, curves and such for the female.
Then there are what you refer to as the abstract male and female souls. This is what everyone is having trouble grasping. It doesn't sound like you are categorizing souls by the body it inhibits, where the body determines the type of soul or the right soul is always with the right body. It sounds like instead you are asserting that, they can be mixed up, hence a need to consider trans people.
When you say male and female souls, do you believe these souls are inherently better off in their "appropriate" bodies? If so, when you say female souls have breasts, does that mean that soul needs a body with the corresponding breasts? If not, what is the significance of this and why don't male souls have this?
If someone doesn't have breasts but everyone calls them a girl, the situation is not unnatural. I assume those who appear male have male souls but I don't know for sure. The aspects I listed about how bodies show the soul to an extent shouldn't be taken to mean any body is bad or unnatural. But I do think it gives some insight into the types of souls people can have and alternative positions go to the extreme that male and female are just words, which ye does not make sense to me
I've even said that reproduction doesn't even define the sexes
So to reiterate, you consider the body a sort of mirror or window to be able to view the soul, and that an opposing position to you is that male and female are merely words.
So if that's your opposing position, then your definition for male and female is both about the body and the soul.
While I warned you away from the topic, there's nothing wrong with, on the one hand comforting the afflicted and, on the other hand, afflicting the comfortable (my favorite activity).
I am an old, ornery, binary, cisgender, gay, male, democratic socialist, W.A.S.P. (without the money and more of a Protestant atheist).
I view humans as one of many vertebrate species (and many invertebrates and plants) who are hatched out as either male or female. That physical reality is why we have 2 genders and not 3, 4, or 50. Individuals can imagine that they are not simple male or female (as per the evidence presented from an ultrasound or at birth), but almost always they are one or the other. Yes, that does limit people's gender identity options. Just drop the focus on gender. There are many ways of being in the world. There are plenty of options in that sense for everyone.
As to souls, I know nothing about them. "Soul" is a rather spongy noun.
We gather from seeing bodies and knowing people something about male and female souls. There are no perfect bodies, just clear ideas
No? What are those various reproductive parts for, then--whether they get used or not?.
I'm still having trouble seeing the importance of categorizing the soul as you describe. Why do you feel the need to call one type male and the other type female? In other words, what kind of problem arises if the gender of the soul is ignored or misdiagnosed?
I don't think genitals define the soul they are just body parts designed for pleasure, whether you use them or not
Because then everyone is androgynous
Why is that a problem? That the soul is genderless and we are stuck in a gendered body.
It's very strange to view the body as alone accounting for gender. Idn. I was raised traditional Catholic (Latin mass altar boy, choir singer, homeschooled) but left the Church when I was 18 and never went back. I was formed by religions and old movies growing up. I am aware that I see things differently than others because of my sheltered childhood, but I've been able to understand a lot of things without becoming a relativist. This topic makes sense to me as I've described it. If my ideas spread and cause harm, that is not my intent and I want to prevent it
I think the main reason that this topic became explosive is because of the mention of trans people. I still don't completely understand the connection you were trying to make when you mentioned trans people (If the body being "alone" or I assume you meant "being different", in attributes that the soul has and vice versa is weird to you, how can they be different? Are they born the same? Do they discover that their soul and body is mismatched? Does the body/soul change as time flow to become different?)
The transgender topic is one of those things you would call "rage baits." I think many people here, because you were also trying to explain something very abstract at the same time, thought you were mal-intentioned. I think why people find this topic so engaging in a bombastic way is worth a discussion on it's own but I'll leave it alone for this thread.
I asked if people having gender reassignment was an almost religious activity and drew on how I see souls in a Platonic way. I don't think asking why people get upset when transgender people are mentioned, or if abortion is brought up among people who it isn't affecting, will be fruitful at this point,.. but it might. My impression now is that *somehow* people think they are being told what to do with their genitals if someone crosses their opinion on these questions. Its dawned on me today that this is likely what it is, so I regret making this thread.
Well, I don't think the genitals define the soul either, but they certainly define the body--the part that we actually know something about. Pleasure is the bait to get us to reproduce. Maybe orgasms are proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy, but probably not.
Quoting FlaccidDoor
You can't get away with putting that interesting bait out there and then covering it up!
Sex / gender are bomb-making materials because they are such a basic part of our self-definitions. We are sexed one way or the other because we are embodied being, and how we are embodied matters to how we experience the world. Embodiment is THE fundamental fact of our existences. Start screwing around with that and you have trouble on your hands. (Not you; anybody)
So fine: you regret it. But you did, and it's a perfectly fine, if somewhat hazardous topic.
Quoting Gregory
In a sense, yes. Religious interpretations are not restricted by physical realities. One can believe that a little guardian angel perches on one shoulder, and a little winged devil perches on the other. One can believe in souls just as easily as not. One can think one's soul / or body will get brought back from the dead one day (actually it IS the body that gets resurrected). One can believe in heaven or not, because there are no local, state, federal, or international laws forbidding it. (Well, usually not, anyway.).
Thinking that one is actually a female trapped in a male body (or some such rendition of that song and dance) is like religion -- you can think whatever you wish. Of course, if wishes were horses the peasants would ride. As it happens, they are not.
I suspect that much of the gender stir is actually a proxy for the more traditional and harsher realities that people are being forced to deal with.
I did nothing of the sort. I'm pointing out you are enforcing everyone must have an identity of male or female to find physiologically.
It would only be true in cases of having a male or female identity to find. If someone had an identity to find physiologically, which was not male or female, your claim would not be true. There are souls other than male or female someone might have.
I see now. I think it may not be far from one, because you need a certain set of beliefs to conduct it and it is ritualistic in many respects. A rite of passage in a way for the gender dysphoric.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Fair enough! I think the reason it's bombastic is because a significant portion of society do not believe trans people exist, as defined by pro-transgender groups. For example, to define a transgender person, as in a person who transferred genders, one must first agree that a process to "transfer" them is valid. The current means used are hormone therapy and gender surgeries. While these words might describe a path for gender correction to one side, these, to someone who does not consider them valid, might be synonymous with chemical misuse and genital mutilation, respectively. This fundamental difference in the definitions of the words that are used by the opposing sides are not only insulting, but acts as a catalyst for misunderstanding.
Additionally there are cases in which children, without the consent of their parents, was allowed to be given hormone therapy and such. The presence of children creates a heavier moral weight for both sides and adds to the powder keg that is this topic.
I haven't said the physiology matters like that. The soul comes from neurons so that's a separate issue. Everyone's psychology is different too and won't always accord with epistemic philosophy. I can't prove anything I've said because this is not an issue that can be demonstrated. I recognize that nobody is saying that people should change their bodies without due consideration, and I know different cultures have different ways of life. What my position was, and is, is about finding some meaning and ontology in a ocean of relativism that surrounds me and a lot of other people
With or without parental consent, it seems extremely hazardous to give anyone younger than 21 sex hormones for purposes of treating 'gender dysphoria'. Giving sex hormones to children might border on criminal medical malpractice.
Even if I don't accept their premises, some people believe they will benefit from gender-reassignment therapy. I have known a number of transgender persons and they seemed happier after they completed the treatment they desired. My sample is small, however. All of these people were adults --some middle-aged. They had had enough time to mature and work through their various issues. a 10 year old or 16 year old has emphatically not had enough time. Besides which their brains are maybe a decade or two from maturation (which is around age 26).
One of the older men I knew who transitioned had been trained in college as a behaviorist. He had no patience for humanistic psychology. He was also a vet, a recovering alcoholic, and homeless when I met him (in the agency I worked for). He was about 42. As far as I know, he did not have anything removed, but did get hormones and developed a somewhat feminized body. So, he reported feeling like he had the wrong identity since being a child. The amount of harassment he went through on his way was too great to justify a moderate desire to become the opposite gender. He REALLY wanted it. So, it worked for him.
Will it work for him or anyone else in the long run? Who knows. Not my call.
I have no reason to accept the idea that there are souls to begin with, however if there were, why would the soul have a gender? Could it not be the case that at a higher level of consciousness gender is not germane? It reminds me of a question a student asked in religious education class some years ago - "Do souls have sex in heaven?" Answer (according to the Reverend Bryce) "No, now get out!"
I am interested Gregory what you are looking for in all this - some eternal essence of male and female? That's what is seems like from your second post. And I'm curious why it matters - are you trying to track this back to here and now?
My apologies, that was meant to be "psychologically".
The point I'm making is about souls/identity, not the body.
I was curious if others thought of gender in objective terms like I do. If others can talk face to face with someone without the assumption that they are either male or female, good for them. I can't do that
I personally do not agree with supporting the transgender agenda. I'm not an expert but it is my understanding that near 100% of gender dysphoria cases disappear when the gender dysphoria is not upheld by their surroundings. If they are, their suicide rates are significantly higher than the average population. I believe that going through therapy and surgery increases their suicide rates even higher but I'm not as confident in that statistic as compared to the previous ones.
Additionally many of the hormone therapy treatments, if not all of them, supposedly does not have the amount of research that it should have before it is used on humans. Lastly, gender dysphoria was regarded medically as a mental disorder (I'm not sure now). So in conclusion, being pro-transgender may be akin to pushing the mentally sick into having a terrible life (judging from the suicide rates) and with permanent consequences.
I have yet to hear positive data about it.
I think that the problem with your discussion is that you keep leaping from one area to another, transgender, souls and, reading through the thread it is a complete jumble. I am not saying that you should not have a discussion, but bearing in mind that gender is such a vast topic I think that you need to try to narrow it down in order for it to work. It is also a sensitive topic, so ideally it calls for some knowledge rather than just rambling opinion. Here, what I am talking about is the way in which there is inequality between men and women, and the experience of minorities.
So, I do think that you need to really think about is what you wish to ask. I probably won't engage further in the discussion because I don't wish to get into such a politically contentious debate on this forum. However, the one thing which I do also think that you should bear in mind is that you are talking about the whole topic in such an abstract manner, whereas, in fact, gender is a lived experience for every human being.
Ok, thanks