I wonder what the ratio male/female is in this forum

Quoting DiegoT

I can not think of a single philosophical current started by a lady

What’s a philosophical current?

I'd suggest rephrasing the last two options to say something like:

I identify as... but am anatomically a woman.
I identify as... but am anatomically a man.

My English is faulty and I appreciate your corrections! With a current, I really meant a branch or movement or school. In Spain we say corriente, as in stream. I consider a man a person with XY cromosome and male genitalia, and a woman a person with XX cromosome and female genitalia. What happens in a person´s mind is not my business, I´m just being practical here. I know about Hildegard, Hipatia, Ayn Rand... but all these female philosophers, had they never been born, would not take with them any original space in philosophy, just some furniture in existing rooms. I wonder why this is, given that women are prone to think a lot about life, way more than men or so I thought. I want to know if it is something so universal that will affect the ratio in this forum, and ask the female members what they think.

I am a female and am aware of three other females that are active on the forum and two more that are seasonal visitors.
I will let you know if I become aware of another female. As far as the rest being men? Best I know they are but if you have any doubt, let me know and I'll have my Rottie check for ya :smirk:

Quoting DiegoT

I consider a man a person with XY cromosome and male genitalia, and a woman a person with XX cromosome and female genitalia.

What about if someone has XY chromosomes and female genitalia, or XX chromosomes and male genitalia, or XXY chromosomes, or XYY chromosomes, or both male and female genitalia, etc.?

Reply to Michael those members in the forum falling under those categories are not called to vote in this poll, as there is not an option for them. There are no options for people who cut off their genitals either, or men with two penises. Every poll has its limitations!

Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff I used to frequent a forum where 90% of members are female, and I found it very interesting, until my views critical with feminism and gender ideology led the administrators to ban me. However, the men there were very interested in "female issues" such as couples, romantic love, motherhood or fashion, becouse males do not talk much about these things. I was surprised to find that topics totally unrelated to sex and relationships were very unpopular among most women, and I thought that women overall should try to learn more about (real) science and philosophy and men more about sex, love and children.

Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff It is good that some women are interested in Philosophy.

Quoting DiegoT

those members in the forum falling under those categories are not called to vote in this poll, as there is not an option for them.

I wasn't asking about the poll. I was addressing you saying "I consider a man a person with XY cromosome and male genitalia, and a woman a person with XX cromosome and female genitalia." What do you consider the people I mentioned, if not men or women?

Quoting DiegoT

I used to frequent a forum where 90% of members are female, and I found it very interesting, until my views critical with feminism and gender ideology led the administrators to ban me. However, the men there were very interested in "female issues" such as couples, romantic love, motherhood or fashion, becouse males do not talk much about these things. I was surprised to find that topics totally unrelated to sex and relationships were very unpopular among most women, and I thought that women overall should try to learn more about (real) science and philosophy and men more about sex, love and children.

Hmmm... was it a Philosophy forum?

Well, history has proven some of your experiences the same as some of the males here are interested in cooking, exchanging recipes, high fashion and the ever exciting topic of sex! In fact the topics I just listed were all examples of threads started by men that did take off.

As far as "female issues" are concerned? Well, I am not sure that we have any "issues" so maybe you can give me an example to entertain? :smirk:

But this last part rubs me the wrong way but maybe I am interpreting what you have said wrong, let's see: "I thought that women overall should try to learn more about (real) science and philosophy"
What exactly is "real" science to you? :chin:

And although we might not be the leaders in the field of science now, I would watch your back if your job is at stake when we women take over that field like we have others. Just sayin.... :fire:

Reply to Michael for the purpose of the poll Michael. You are rather demanding, your dinings out must be entertaining. I consider those people, from a medical point of view, anomalies; exceptions that confirm the general rule or pattern we need to understand. If you are included, please refrain from taking part in the poll if this causes you a hard time. Consider how a poll about what colour is more relaxing, green or blue, would also leave out turquoise, which is a nice shade especially in the sea, but does not contribute to the question at all, only adds noise.

Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Let´s make clear that we are only debating things to chill out and learn from others, there is no political agenda here. That is what a forum (should) be about. The forum I referred to is called "enfemenino.com", it has some 245 M members throughout the world, and they chat in Spanish about female issues, topics that (according to the magazine) are of interests for women especially. Of course there are men in the forum, but are a minority. Topics are: coupling, sex, love, sex, maternity, fashion, recipes, sex, decoration and house hacks, and the like. There is a "social issues" subforum for people who are also into politics and "outdoors" matters, but it´s not the most popular.

Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff with real science and philosophy, I really meant philosophy and science based on reason, with real arguments instead of phallacies, logic, references to scientific research. As opposed to "feminist science", "gender science", "christian science" and so on. I made this qualification becouse I have also been to a "philosophy forum", managed by philosophy students of the Spanish online public university, where people too much into reason and science got bullied and expelled, and marxist and feminist views were unquestionable. I protested becouse some of us, male and female, just wanted to discuss topics in a rational and critical way, but as the student association did not depend on the University, the Defender of the students said nothing can be done.

Quoting DiegoT

for the purpose of the poll Michael. You are rather demanding, your dinings out must be entertaining.

I just asked a question. No need to be so defensive.

Quoting DiegoT

Consider how a poll about what colour is more relaxing, green or blue, would also leave out turquoise, which is a nice shade especially in the sea, but does not contribute to the question at all, only adds noise.

That question allows for the existence of other colours, e.g. turquoise as you say. So are you saying that there are genders other than man and woman? I'm curious about what those genders are, in your view.

Reply to Michael Reply to Michael turquoise is not really a colour. As you know, real colours are: blue, green, and red. Unfortunately, mammals lost colour discrimination to different degrees over the course of evolution, in favour of smelling. We are lucky that we can tell red from green, becouse at some point we had to find ripe fruit on the trees. How I envy birds or reptiles!

Colours are made by perception, dividing the light spectrum that is really continuous. So they are subjective. However, sex is not subjective:there are only two sexes, and there can only be two sexes. This is becouse sex is not a perceptual division, but a basic, natural, especialization in animals and plants of cosmic or physical principles (that is, Flow and Restriction). Isaac Asimov imagined a universe with different laws, that allowed physically for three sexes, in "The gods themselves".

Quoting DiegoT

However, sex is not subjective:there are only two sexes, and there can only be two sexes.

You said that someone is a man if they have XY chromosomes and male genitalia and a woman if they have XX chromosomes and female genitalia.

But some people have XY chromosomes and female genitalia or XX chromosomes and male genitalia or XXY chromosomes or XYY chromosomes or both male and female genitalia.

Are these people men? Are these people women? Are they both? Are they neither?

Reply to Michael

Madame Blavatsky was a woman.There are and have been women spiritual teachers in India, and i don't know that they haven't said original things.

Michael Ossipoff

Quoting Michael

But some people have XY chromosomes and female genitalia or XX chromosomes and male genitalia or XXY chromosomes or XYY chromosomes or both male and female genitalia.

My DNA, which is currently part of a major exhibit at the Smithsonian, is purely YY, with no evidence of femininity. You know how most guys have a feminine side, where they maybe tear up at sad movies or enjoy the scent of lavender? Yeah, well I don't. Pure man I am.

Quoting DiegoT

Colours are made by perception, dividing the light spectrum that is really continuous. So they are subjective. However, sex is not subjective:there are only two sexes, and there can only be two sexes. This is becouse sex is not a perceptual division, but a basic, natural, especialization in animals and plants of cosmic or physical principles (that is, Flow and Restriction). Isaac Asimov imagined a universe with different laws, that allowed physically for three sexes, in "The gods themselves".

Categories are created arbitrarily by humans. That's not to say there's not a difference between someone with blonde hair and someone with brown hair, but the naming of the categories and determining which things are filed under which category is entirely subjective and arbitrary.

I also don't follow your distinction between perceptual differences and natural differences. It sounds like Locke's distinction between primary and secondary characteristics, and it doesn't hold up under analysis. All properties are perceptual. Speaking of a characteristic as it exists independent of the way it is perceived is incoherent. You're trying to describe the noumena it seems.

Quoting Hanover

Pure man I am.

Lies. You’re a lizard. I believe that makes your chromosomes ZZ.

Quoting DiegoT

becouse

Because, not becouse.

Reply to Michael Thanks for the correction on "because"! To me sexual anomalies like the ones you are referring are chimaeras of some sort, but I´d rather leave those definitions to doctors in Medicine who know better. Madame Blavatsky does not count as a philosopher, because she did not play by the rules (Reason, Logic, Honesty). Not everything you do with a foot ball is football.

Yes, all categories are man-made, as the Uni-verse is one and strictly speaking, there is no separation. However, they are not arbitrary. Categories in our minds have a better or worse communication with patterns in the physical world (the manifested world, we know nothing about the noumenon). Sex is a very good category: it helps us many times to act in the world and recognize patterns that are relevant. There are only two sexes, male and female, the same way there´s only light and the absence of light, even if light can be constructed into different percepcions arranged around the most interesting wavelengths for our species. You can not make a new different sex by combining the two existing sexes. That´s not a useful categorization because it only responds to subjective and political realities with a very restricted contextual use, unlike the categorization of two sexes, that is seemingly very well aligned with the natural and psychological reality we share with other animals and has the power to describe human sexuality in all times and places.

Quoting DiegoT

There are only two sexes, male and female, the same way there´s only light and the absence of light,

Logically, light is to not light as male is to not male. Not male is not the logical equivalent of female under this analogy.

Quoting DiegoT

Yes, all categories are man-made, as the Uni-verse is one and strictly speaking, there is no separation. However, they are not arbitrary.

I've not argued for holism. I've only asserted that categories are the products of our minds imposed for whatever reason we choose. You ignored my comments regarding how primary and secondary traits are indistinguishable.
Quoting DiegoT

we know nothing about the noumenon

Yet you continue to want to speak about how things actually are.Quoting DiegoT

[quote="DiegoT;228280"]That´s not a useful categorization because it only responds to subjective and political realities with a very restricted contextual use, unlike the categorization of two sexes, that is seemingly very well aligned with the natural and psychological reality we share with other animals and has the power to describe human sexuality in all times and places.

Not all animals are divided into two sexes. Regardless, some humans are born sexually ambiguous. You'll have to explain why this naming convention is important to you. If you have a sexually unambiguous male who self identifies as a female and wishes to be treated as a female, that person will require a different name from his male acting counterpart. What do you propose we refer to this person as? He certainly is in a different category.

Reply to Hanover the post was about women getting more interested in philosophy...Never mind. What I think and believe is irrelevant for other members; you only need to care about my arguments, and how they help you arrange your mind better and furnish it with new objective info. Actually, each member is just thinking to himself, and people in the forum only prompt and promote that inner conversation.

I know I use a very affirmative style; like I really knew what I´m talking about. But I´m not that ignorant of my ignorance, and it´s just my direct style of saying things, assuming we are all in the know that these are just opinions and we can save energy in explaining continuously that we are only speaking our mind and not revealing truths to the world. It´s a lot more time-saving to only warn of real objective data and principles.

When we talk about the world, is only the phenomenal, sensual, represented in our mind world we discuss; by definition the noumenos is what lies beyond that, beyond the veil of Isis that we can never lift up. But a reflection on a mirror is also real.

You want to stress the importance of recognising anomalies, so that people with unusual or pathological sexualities can feel more at ease with themselves. I too want everybody who pays taxes and respect the others, to feel good with themselves in society. For that very reason, is that I have make the case for two distinct sexes we can all understand. Those people "in between" or "at the margins" are even in more want of this clear notion than normal citizens: the same way that a blind man on the street is more in want than the sighted of an ordered town, with clear signs and predictable arrangements.

Not all animals are divided into male and female; however, all living creatures manifest the functions sex derives from. We need to understand what sex is beyond the example of human sexuality, to really understand human sexuality.

what would I call people with abnormal sexual identities? I´d like to call them people with abnormal sexual identities. We all have abnormal traits in us, and men more than women, and open societies more than Islamized or Communist societies. There´s nothing good or bad in the mere fact of having abnormal sexualities, is just an statistical fact. These sexualities, like normal ones, are good or healthy when they are functional and promote psychological, biological and social integration.

I'm an anonymous subject of perception. With a beard and moustache.

that attitude won´t get you laid Ying. Women want men with an important ego, because male ego evolved to help women to keep in check their sea of feelings and emotions, that is sometimes very treacherous. In return, they create a sentimental shelter where this ego can heal its wounds and get ready for the fight again.

Try talking about your favourite philosopher and why your beard is more important than his. I promise you that it will work a lot better than "I'm an anonymous subject of perception. With a beard and moustache" as a chat-up line
"

Quoting DiegoT

that attitude won´t get you laid Ying. Women want men with an important ego, because male ego evolved to help women to keep in check their sea of feelings and emotions, that is sometimes very treacherous. In return, they create a sentimental shelter where this ego can heal its wounds and get ready for the fight again.

Try talking about your favourite philosopher and why your beard is more important than his. I promise you that it will work a lot better than "I'm an anonymous subject of perception. With a beard and moustache" as a chat-up line

That's actually from the "Phenomenology of Perception" by Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Minus the beard and moustache. That's how he describes consciousness experiencing itself. As for your notion of female psychology, yeah, keep it. Doesn't look particularly appealing to me.

Ying, why do you think women are less interested in Philosophy than men? And what is different in women who are actually interested? Is it a natural-cultural sexual difference we should not tamper with, or just a misunderstanding?

I suspect that Philosophy is too much focused in truth and abstract ideas, and not enough on feelings and relationships that is what women are (generally) interested in. When a woman seeks for what serious, legitimate Philosophy has to say about matters of the heart and practical living, she usually encounters existencialist and postmodern philosophy; that are not genuine philosophies, but really childhood and teenage traumas that some authors want to raise into universal categories; explained with words that yes, sound in the ears as if they were real philosophy. Or they may also encounter political slogans from revolutionary movements hoping to parasite her mind.

Women and also men interested in spiritual, vital concrete problems have real trouble finding really rational work on these issues, without a political agenda or personal freudian complexes behind. It might be that Jordan Peterson sells so well because he speaks rationally and deals with these problems, but he´s not a professional philosopher, but a scientist and therapist trying to fill in this mostly deserted philosophical niche. And there´s also Eastern philosophy, that still needs to find a common language with Western philosophy to really contribute to the progress of rational understanding of sentimental matters.

Quoting DiegoT

Ying, why do you think women are less interested in Philosophy than men?

Ask someone else. I don't care.

And what is different in women who are actually interested?

See my previous answer.

Is it a natural-cultural sexual difference we should not tamper with, or just a misunderstanding?

Hmmmm. Let's see. I don't care.

This is sad. A bunch of guys on a philosophy forum offering each other advice on landing the ladies. If you must know, the only way to success is having an elephant trunk schlong, which I'm fortunate enough to have, while others are limited to only having silly moustaches.

Reply to DiegoT BAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: I freak people out because of my lack of emotion, I live life with an essential blank face and people can't read me at all. Guys are definitely more emotional. And it can be annoying.

Quoting Hanover

This is sad. A bunch of guys on a philosophy forum offering each other advice on landing the ladies. If you must know, the only way to success is having an elephant trunk schlong, which I'm fortunate enough to have, while others are limited to only having silly moustaches.

But you have to get a woman into bed (or behind the dumpster in the alleyway) before she gets to see your elephant trunk schlong, right? Or do you have to wear really tight shorts at all times so that it's immediately apparent even before it's business time?

Reply to Michael You ask excellent questions. Shorts are pretty much out of the question because the monster dong tends to unfurl and creep down the leg, especially around feeding time. Even in triple pleated pants, His presence will be obvious. The ladies will instictively ask for an introduction, and per the rules of chivalry, a gentleman must oblige.

Quoting Hanover

Shorts are pretty much out of the question because the monster dong tends to unfurl and creep down the leg, especially around feeding time.

I don't understand the connection between these two things. Is exposing oneself considered bad form?

Quoting DiegoT

I made this qualification because I have also been to a "philosophy forum", managed by philosophy students of the Spanish online public university, where people too much into reason and science got bullied and expelled, and marxist and feminist views were unquestionable.

I left my last philosophy forum because they had become a sciencist closed-shop. Any topic that was not scientifically-oriented and scientifically-discussed was trolled, and treated with "flippant dismissal" by the members and the moderators alike. Intolerance is the problem, not Marxism or feminism.

Quoting DiegoT

The fact is, I know that many women are into reading and studying philosophy, so I just wonder why they are so shy about proposing new philosophical ideas of their own.

I wouldn't say it's a matter of shyness. Perhaps women are just better at not needing the approval of others or needing something in their environment to justify their beliefs.

Quoting DiegoT

How many members in this very forum are female?

Are we seriously letting this kind of discussion get two pages long?

My personal opinion:

I don't care about your gender, much less what you identify with. If you say something that interests me, and are willing to argue, we will have a good discussion. Thank you!

Where is the barking dog option??? I can't find it anywhere!