Is Judith Butler "Ms." Butler? I think that you should refer to em as Mx. Butler. Granted, I am just using the Spivak pronouns as I don't know what Judith Butler prefers.
I actually don't care what she prefers unless I'm given something I consider a good reason to care. ;-)
Reply to Terrapin Station Au contraire, mon ami! Judith Butler is the author of Gender Trobule, and I would bet that ey would want for you to refer to em by eir chosen pronouns.
Au contraire, mon ami! Judith Butler is the author of Gender Trobule, and I would bet that ey would want for you to refer to em by eir chosen pronouns.
I don't care either. I don't just adopt silly linguistic inventions on demand.
Terrapin StationAugust 15, 2019 at 16:39#3159430 likes
Reply to S
Well, if you want to be really lazy, you can just substitute "they" or "them" for nearly everything. That's what the queer community around here does.
Reply to Terrapin Station
I'm just saying that I think that you should care because Gender Trouble is like the seminal work on contemporary Queer Theory.
I agree with you. If Terrapin is a man by gender than I will call him “he”. If Judith is gender fluid then I will call them “they” if that’s what they prefer.
Reply to Noah Te Stroete
Thanks Noah Te Stroete. My guess would be that Judith Butler identifies as she/gender-neutral pronoun, and, so, @Terrapin Station might get away with it, but were they present, I feel like ey might correct him.
Terrapin StationAugust 15, 2019 at 16:50#3159520 likes
I'm just saying that I think that you should care because Gender Trouble is like the seminal work on contemporary Queer Theory.
I have no problem with however anyone wants to be, whatever consensual choices they want to make etc.--I'm very much a minarchist, laissez-faire libertarian in that sense, but I don't agree with a lot of the sort of LitCritty humanities theorizing that goes on. I think a lot of it is garbage philosophically. Of course, I feel that way about a lot of philosophy in general, especially LitCritty, continental, PoMo, etc. stuff. (But not just that--I think there's a lot of garbage analytic philosophy, too).
Terrapin StationAugust 15, 2019 at 16:52#3159540 likes
Reply to StreetlightX
If no one practices getting the pronouns correct then they will never become easy to use colloquially. Judith Butler may be a lesbian, but ey is not a lesbian who identifies as having a binary gender. You are correct that this is not terribly relevent, and, so, Professor Butler is probably fine.
Reply to Terrapin Station
It's a little bit nitpicky and a little too difficult to get a decent handle on, but you really should use the chosen pronouns. It's sort of like how in the 50s, when you didn't know the gender of the subject of a sentence you would just have to assume that he or she was male. It took kind of a while to alter the language so that people would say "he or she" etc. The gender-neutral pronouns are kind of the same way. If the person does not identify as being male or female, then you should refer to em by eir chosen pronouns.
Alas, though, this is off-topic.
Terrapin StationAugust 15, 2019 at 16:58#3159590 likes
It's a little bit nitpicky and a little too difficult to get a decent handle on, but you really should use the chosen pronouns. It's sort of like how in the 50s, when you didn't know the gender of the subject of a sentence you would just have to assume that he or she was male. It took kind of a while to alter the language so that people would say "he or she" etc. The gender-neutral pronouns are kind of the same way. If the person does not identify as being male or female, then you should refer to em by eir chosen pronouns.
Reply to Terrapin Station
Because ey don't identify as being male or female, and, so, it is not correct to subjectify them as either. By doing so, you have referred to another subject who is not present.
I will also begin demanding that you refer to me by the pronoun "xe" if you don't just decide to agree with me.
I will also begin demanding that you refer to me by the pronoun "xe" if you don't just decide to agree with me.
Wait, are you serious? Because it sounds almost trollish, but then I remind myself that some people out there genuinely would say such things. That's very much part of the Looney Left, and I would disassociate myself with that group.
It used to be that when you were discussing something, let's say a person driving a car, that you would assume that the gender of the person, if you didn't know it, was male.
So, "A person was driving a car. He turned left."
This was considered to be grammatically correct, but it's totally absurd. You don't know that the gender of the person driving the car is male. After a long debate with a lot of Feminists, grammarians changed this.
It became: "A person was driving a car. He or she turned left."
This is better, but it still assumes that the person driving the car identifies as being either male or female. It doesn't take too much of a stretch of the imagination to suggest that there is a real need for a gender neutral pronoun.
It should be: "A person was driving a car. Ey(or some other gender neutral pronoun) turned left."
You don't know the gender of the person driving the car, and, so, can not assume that ey are either male or female.
Saying such a thing makes me think that you're delusional or possibly a lawyer. What you demand is obviously not normal, generally speaking. It's a peculiar and recent phenomenon which most people not only reject, but find ridiculous. But I can't be bothered to read whatever small print follows the above where you presumably try to qualify that statement.
It all sounds a bit funny, but through common usage it will cease to be so strange.
Yes, if that happens, then it will cease to be an issue for me. But I don't expect that that'll happen any time soon, and if you believe otherwise, then I think that you're just thinking wishfully. Obviously, before that can happen, a vast number of people would have to go along with the silliness, and not enough people are going to do that.
Reply to S Perhaps the problem is in the sheer rarity of such people? If they had a large army, and if everyone had one as a neighbor, then things might be different. I don’t know.
Terrapin StationAugust 15, 2019 at 17:34#3159970 likes
In all of this migrating comments nonsense, this didn't get transferred:
Because ey don't identify as being male or female, and, so, it is not correct to subjectify them as either. By doing so, you have referred to another subject who is not present.
I will also begin demanding that you refer to me by the pronoun "xe" if you don't just decide to agree with
Holy moley--"correct" again.
There is no "correct" when it comes to this stuff.
I demand that you let me use language however I want to. I don't identify as a conformist to what others want.
Reply to S
Eh, I'm hopeful. It's become quite common to use the colloquial "they". That's fine by me in spite of that it actually is grammatically incorrect. I don't mind conceptualizing gender as a multiplicity, though. Reply to Noah Te Stroete
It is kind of a particular issue that only ever gets brought up in left-wing academic circles. In so far that such a community is capable of effecting any real change, things will change. You can almost be a Communist without nearly everyone assuming that you're either a Stalinist totalitarian or a backstabbing traitor now. So, they effect some sort of change. Who's to say whether or not it's really for the greater good? Reply to Terrapin Station
Your demands disregard the demands of others. Just use "they" or "them". That's what mostly everyone who cares about these things does from what I can tell.
Perhaps the problem is in the sheer rarity of such people? If they had a large army, and if everyone had one as a neighbor, then things might be different. I don’t know.
Why would it be a problem that such people are rare, or that things are the way that they are? Things are the way that they are because it's convenient, makes sense, and because we value freedom of speech. I don't think that it would solve any problem, generally speaking, if a vast number of people suddenly popped up and demanded the rest of us adopt their weird ways of speaking. It would of course suit those with that agenda, but I don't recognise it as a real problem to begin with. It might well be a problem for them, but it's not my problem. But it's a problem if some arrogant and self-obsessed individual starts demanding I call them this or that in some peculiar language. To that, I would probably tell them to do one.
Do you hang out with any feminists? Do you use “he” instead of “one” or “he or she”?
I use whatever feels right. I wouldn't use "one", as that would be silly. But I wouldn't deliberately refer to a transgender female as a he, for example. I just ain't saying all of the dumb shit, like "xe" or "ey" or whatever.
Reply to PoeticUniverse
I always forget not to say, "you guys". There have been a number of occasions when I've said something like "see you guys" to a group of either all women or people who don't identify in a binary sense. It's a strange colloquial habit that I should probably drop.
Reply to Terrapin Station
They get the preference because they have the stake in the argument. Your stubborn insistence upon maintaining the rules of English grammar does not place you in a position where you are falsely identified.
PoeticUniverseAugust 15, 2019 at 18:24#3160270 likes
Since there are no gender neutral pronouns in the English Language, how do we refer to antecedents whose gender is irrelevant, without resorting to clumsy constructions such as “he or she” (or should it be “she” or “he”), or by using the generic “he” and thereby maligning women, or by tiresomely repeating the original noun over and over.
We’ll have to invent the gender neutral pronouns.
But they won’t have a chance of getting used if they don’t sound right.
Right, they would have to be different enough from what they’re replacing to be distinct, but similar enough to suggest a ready parallel which could easily catch on. So, they’d still have to be a single syllable, for example, but without suggesting sounds already used for other common simple words, like the long vowel sound of “a” (the article “a”), “i” (the pronoun “I”), “o” (the exclamation “oh”), “u” (the pronoun “you”), and “y” (the adverb “why”), all of which, of course, are already taken.
Sounds tough.
It’s so tough that no such common gender pronouns have ever caught on, although many have been suggested, such as, for the third person subjective singular, “it”, singular “they”, “heesh”, and “thon” (the one). Yet, the problem of the third person subjective singular has been solved in the written word.
What is the solution?
“S(he)” or “s/he”.
Yes, I’ve seen it used; but of course orally it would still sound like “she” or “he or she”. What do you suggest?
Perhaps we can use the fact that “he” and “she” share the long “e” sound. “He or she” can simply be replaced by “e”; luckily, it’s the only unused long vowel sound left for use as a word of its own.
Let’s try it.
“The writer must carefully proofread what e writes.”
“After God created the Earth in six days, E rested on the seventh.”
“Everyone likes pizza, doesn’t e? (They sure do.)”
“E who hesitates is lost.”
“Every one of us knows e is fallible.”
“Everyone is invited, whether e is a member or not.”
“The quick-walker down the morning path gazes, to where e will be when the next trail blazes.”
Sounds good. Now, what about the third person objective singular. I don’t want to have to say “him or her”.
Since “him” and “her” have dissimilar sounds, we’ll have to somehow combine them, and perhaps utilize the fact that they each start with the same letter “h”, by either retaining it or dropping it, although we certainly don’t want to replace it.
How about “himer” or “herim” or “her-him”?
Too long. But that gives me an idea. How about “erm”, using this line of reasoning: “her-him” -> “herim” -> “erim” -> “erm”? I would have preferred “herm” but that’s a man’s name.
“The new class president gets elected tomorrow, so I’ll leave it up to erm.”
“Everyone came and I was glad to see erm.”
“Let everyone ask ermself to consider the implications of the lack of the epicene pronoun.”
“Either John or Mary should bring a schedule with erm.”
Maybe we could even shorten it to “em”, like “everyone came and I was glad to see em.”
I wish we could use it but “em” is also a contraction of “them”. Too bad, but maybe “erm” will catch on.
OK, maybe, but what about the third person possessive singular; I don’t want to have to say “his or hers”. I know we can’t use “hiser” or “their”, which is plural, although lots of people say wrong things like “One must watch their language” or “Does anyone want to read their best poem to us?”
The wrong usage of “their” gives me an idea. Perhaps we can yet use its wrongness to our advantage, since it has come to sound almost right. Since we can’t use the combination “ern” from “his” and “her” because “ern” conflicts with “earn”, how about another approach: let’s use “eir” and play off of the groundwork laid by good sound of the misuse of the plural “their”.
Let’s try it.
“Who dropped eir ticket?”
“Would each student please hang up eir coat upon entering the classroom.”
“One must watch eir language.”
“Does anyone want to read eir best poem to us?” And you know what the best thing about “e”, “erm”, and “eir”; something great that we didn’t even notice?
What is it?
They all start with the letter “e”. That will unify the set and make it easier to remember.
Hey, you’re right. Thanks, I’ll use that as a selling point.
Manglish
English, for all its large vocabulary, has some missing words. For one, there is no personal pronoun which means “he or she” in the epicene case (gender-neutral or non-gender-specific case). If there were, then we could use it when the gender was irrelevant or unknown. Worse yet, the present solution, he, is of the masculine case, although ‘he’ is used generically. Still, this causes males to be more often imaged in the reader’s or listener’s mind, thus rendering females less visible. A similar problem exists for “him or her” and “his or hers”. Substituting brand new words is not an easy task, or such words would have presented themselves through common usage, for example, youse, all of you, and you-all (y’all) have filled in for the non distinct plural form of you (used as both singular and plural).
Another problem is the gap left by corrupted feminine nouns. For example, ‘bachelor’ is a respectable term for an unmarried male, but the feminine counterparts of bachelor all had connotations (spinster, divorcee, maiden, old maid, widow), so much so that females had to adopt ‘bachelorette’, but this is still a male derived word and is also diminutive. Fortunately, this problem has been solved with the introduction of female single, or ‘femgle’. Not really. The word ‘female’ even contains ‘male’, which I suppose is the biblical ‘of the male’, or else is was meant to be ‘fee-male’, as taking a woman out usually means there is a fee (just a joke), and ‘woman’ embraces ‘man’ in it. So, let us try to turn Manglish back into English, but then we’d have to reprint all the books!
Examples of the Problems:
Each one of us loves his mother.
The writer must carefully proofread what he writes.
All men are created equal.
Let’s ask each of the poets what he thinks is his best work.
Let everyone ask himself to consider the problem of the lack of the epicene pronoun.
Man, being a mortal, breast feeds his young.
Well, Jane, you’re a real handyman.
After God created the Earth in six days, He rested on the seventh.
Mrs. Robert Jones is our new chairman.
Everyone likes pizza, doesn’t he? (They sure do.)
This is the house whose roof leaks.
She gave her jewels.
It’s time you (you-all) came to visit us.
Would everyone please hang up their coat.
Summary
E, eir, erm; ermself are certainly the mainstays of the new personal pronoun set, as they are the ones used most often, being in the third person. It is a fortunate coincidence that e, eir, erm; ermself all start with “e”. This unifies the set and makes them easier to remember. E is also the only vowel sound yet unused for an important word. ‘Eir’ suggests a parallel to “their”. ‘Erm’ combines ‘him’ and ‘her’.
The Final Words
Each person must watch eir words when e writes or speaks. Everyone(now plural) must try their best to be fair to both men and wym. The writer is urged to remind ermself to rewrite eir books and substitute the new pronouns so that fems can be imaged as well as males. Wimyn should then see sheir status improve. Shey can then truly say that all gen are created equal and that every hume is fairly represented in language. All genkind will benefit. Thank yous for yur interest in this subject. However, the pronoun ‘which’ is still without a possessive case, and therefore English is still a language whose missing words need attention.
(I have a full chart somewhere, if I can find it.)
Also:
Verbs has to agree with their subjects.
Be more or less specific.
It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
Avoid clichés like the plague—they’re old hat.
Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
Like, don’t use the word ‘like’, a lot, like in this sentence.
Foreign words are not apropos.
Contractions aren’t necessary and shouldn’t be used.
And don’t start a sentence with a conjunction.
No sentence fragments.
Also, too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it’s highly superfluous.
Its important to be careful about it—about it’s meaning.
I always forget not to say, "you guys". There have been a number of occasions when I've said something like "see you guys" to a group of either all women or people who don't identify in a binary sense. It's a strange colloquial habit that I should probably drop.
Oh my goodness. This is a problem of people caring too much. I often include female friends when I say "guys", as that has clearly at some point taken on a gender neutral meaning, and those taking offence are taking it too literally and being too easily offended.
They get the preference because they have the stake in the argument. Your stubborn insistence upon maintaining the rules of English grammar does not place you in a position where you are falsely identified.
Except they don't get the preference, at least where I'm from, because thankfully I'm not from an authoritarian society with people who think like you in charge. This isn't 1984.
PoeticUniverseAugust 15, 2019 at 18:35#3160360 likes
A group of all females could be called 'gnyos'.
Lately, I hear that there are 57 genders. Where does it ever end?
A few years ago, I read a book by psychiatrist Stephen Mitchell. I'd heard that it was really a good book. In the preface, he indicated that he would vary the use of the third person singular when referring to people - sometimes he would use "he" and sometimes "she." I remember being annoyed and I almost didn't read the book. When I did, though, I found that the varied use of he and she made a big difference in how I thought about what he wrote. It felt like his ideas had opened up and become more three dimensional, inclusive. I started picturing women in the situations he described as well as men. It was eye-opening.
Since then, I've tried to use the same approach, although I have not been consistent. I won't use "he or she" or "he/she." It breaks the flow of the words and sounds stupid. Sometimes I'll use "it," e.g. when I'm referring to a construction contractor.
My sister's eldest child is a male who identifies himself as non-gendered. If he identified himself as a woman, I would have no problem saying "she." General principle - call people what they want to be called. But I have a hard time calling a person "they." It bothers me a lot. Makes talking about them difficult. I find myself using his name rather than using a pronoun, although that can sound goofy after a while. I call him "my sister's eldest child" rather than my nephew. I avoid the issue to the extent I can. when I'm around them because I love them both and have no desire to show disrespect. I would never say this to my former nephew, but I think it to myself - transgender people make up 0.3% of the US population. That comes to about a million people. I don't know what proportion of those consider themselves male, female, or ungendered. My point - I bothers me that we should change a major part of our language for such a small group.
There's a wonderful set of books by Anne Leckie - Ancillary Sword, Ancillary Justice, and Ancillary Mercy. It takes place in the far future in a culture where there are no distinctions based on gender. Leckie handles that by using all female pronouns - everyone is she. Grown up people are women. When they need to refer to men, they are called women with penises.
Reply to PoeticUniverse
This was a lengthy and informative reply. Thanks, PoeticUniverse. I don't mean to assume that you're unaware of them, but I think that you have just rediscovered the Spivak pronouns.
Reply to S
Submit to the newspeak and let the queer community destroy the English language, S!
Reply to T Clark
I think that I've heard of those. It sounds pretty fascinating, T Clark.
Oh my goodness. This is a problem of people caring too much. I often include female friends when I say "guys", as that has clearly at some point taken on a gender neutral meaning, and those taking offence are taking it too literally and being too easily offended.
Living here in the northeast US, referring to mixed groups of men and women is common. I've never seen a woman being offended by that, although I tend to hang around with a rough and tumble group of people. I have known women who are creeped out when someone will say "guys and gals."
In the south, they say "you'all" which is good, but I never feel right saying it.
This brings to mind something from the old "National Lampoon" back in the 1970s - the term they used was "vagino-Americans." I still laugh whenever I hear that.
Terrapin StationAugust 15, 2019 at 18:54#3160480 likes
Shey might not go for that, plus the 'o' is kind of a male ending, such as with 'filipino' (vs filipina) which still would be good for males who have converted, leaving 'vaginas' for true females. Yes, men are 'dicks'.
Reply to Terrapin Station
Ey are asking that you respect who ey attest that ey are. You have no existential stake in the argument. Reply to PoeticUniverse
They are there, but some people have qualms with them. I think that they're pretty good. Reply to S
There are not 57 genders. Gender is performative and sexuality is fluid. You perform an infinite array of gender roles whilst generally carrying on however. Someone may have counted that there are 57 different ways that people identify, but they have bound to have missed someone. There are an infinite number of genders as each one is particular to each situation.
Submit to the newspeak and let the queer community destroy the English language, S!
You know, the "queer" community doesn't have a hive mind. There are plenty of people, including myself and a number of my close friends, who are not heterosexual, yet do not make the silly demands of some of the more outspoken members who associate themselves with the LGBT+ group, and are in fact in agreement with me, and with with the majority who have yet to lose grasp of their good sense.
There are not 57 genders. Gender is performative and sexuality is fluid. You perform an infinite array of gender roles whilst generally carrying on however. Someone may have counted that there are 57 different ways that people identify, but they have bound to have missed someone. There are an infinite number of genders as each one is particular to each situation.
I find that last sentence hilarious. Absolutely bonkers.
Reply to S
Are we speaking of the queer community, the LGBT community, the LGBTQ community, or, the LGBT+ community, or the LBGTQ+ community? From my experience, the queer community does care about gender pronouns.
Reply to S
How is it bonkers? In so far that gender is performative (That is a claim that is not necessarily accepted by the queer community as a whole, although, from what I glean, it seems to be a consensus.), the gender that you perform is particular to the situation that you are in. There are as many genders as there are particular situations. We can, therefore, say that there are something like an infinite number of genders.
From my experience, the queer community does care about gender pronouns.
Well then your experience must be very limited. And regardless, you're simply not qualified to speak for the community as a whole, as though you are it's mouthpiece. It comes across as very arrogant.
Reply to thewonder Look, I'm not going to continue this discussion with someone with such an extreme set of beliefs. You're like a parody, and I can't really take you seriously. So let's just agree to disagree and leave it there. Have fun with your nonsense.
Reply to S
I have included qualifying terms in all of my arguments and have not claimed to speak for the community as a whole. I do indentify as being queer as I do accept that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid, but, as I, for all intensive purposes, am functionally straight, I just let people refer to me as being male.
What I mean is that there are a lot of internal divisions within the LGBTQ+ community, many of which revolve around the queer community. Not everyone in the LBGTQ+ community accepts Queer Theory as being valid.
Not everyone in the LBGTQ+ community accepts Queer Theory as being valid.
It isn't. I treat that word as basically synonymous with "gay" and "homosexual" and the rest of it is just elaborate nonsense. It's as much nonsense as the following:
I do indentify as being queer as I do accept that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid, but, as I, for all intensive purposes, am functionally straight, I just let people refer to me as being male.
Identify as being queer, but functionally straight? Lol.
I just don't understand the need to care so much about this. Why are so many people pedants when it comes to inventing pronouns when:
"humba wumba shlumba dumbha, these sounds even in the haze"
"Twas brillig and the slithy toves..."
"embiggen"
are fine. Do people see no difference between sex and gender? As it applies arbitrarily; at one point does a river in France stop having a penis and become a giant vagina? Well no of course it only applies to bodies. But that's sex, right? Gender's a social construct linked to sexed and sexualised bodies.
But then there's intersex people, demipenises and stuff (I could eat a whole box of those). And chromosomes? Intersex can change that too.
If someone wants to be a fucking genderqueer blue wolf who uses "zem" pronouns why the hell do you care.
Reply to S
Being queer is not at all equivalent with being "gay" or "homosexual", though. My interpretation of Queer Theory is that it posits that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid. This is what I understand from my reading of Gender Trouble. I accept this hypothesis, and, therefore, identify as being "queer". Not all of the queer community accepts this, and not all of the queer community considers for Gender Trouble to be the seminal text on Queer Theory. Some people interpret eir postulation as having quite negative results. See Gender Nihilism. My speculation (I haven't read it, but should.) upon Gender Nihilism is that, while it may be a legitimate critique of Queer Theory, it is too deterministic.
PoeticUniverseAugust 15, 2019 at 19:38#3160730 likes
Reply to thewonder Frankly, I don't care what you say or think. You don't seem to realise that you aren't dictator of language, as though you can simply declare the universal meaning of language, and it will be so. That's simply not how it works. The word "queer" has been treated as synonymous with "gay" and "homosexual" for quite some time, whether you personally accept that or not. You need to distinguish your own personal fringe beliefs from what's generally the case irrespective of them.
Terrapin StationAugust 15, 2019 at 19:48#3160760 likes
Reply to S
They aren't fringe beliefs in this regard, though. Being "queer" is not synonymous with being "homosexual". "Homosexuals" are just often called "queers" in a pejorative sense. Queer Theory can be summarized as being a radical reconceptualization of sexuality and gender. It is related to Gay and Lesbian Studies, but is not synonymous with it,
They aren't fringe beliefs in this regard, though. Being "queer" is not synonymous with being "homosexual". "Homosexuals" are just often called "queers" in a pejorative sense. Queer Theory can be summarized as being a radical reconceptualization of sexuality and gender. It is related to Gay and Lesbian Studies, but is not synonymous with them.
And that's why discussion with you is pointless. I think you're in denial. I feel as though if I were to say that the sky is blue, you would deny it and say that it is red, because you've attended Sky Colouration Studies or some shit, and the modern trend in such groups is the indoctrination that the colour of the sky is a matter of personal identification. Perhaps in your world you can even make up funny-sounding colours which don't really exist, like cerphleem. Yes, the sky is cerphleem.
They aren't fringe beliefs in this regard, though. Being "queer" is not synonymous with being "homosexual". "Homosexuals" are just often called "queers" in a pejorative sense. Queer Theory can be summarized as being a radical reconceptualization of sexuality and gender. It is related to Gay and Lesbian Studies, but is not synonymous with them.
Sorry, you can't be queer if you're not a homosexual. And you can't be a feminist if you are a man. And you can't be a black power advocate if you're white. You can be a white, straight, man who tries to be sympathetic and respectful of black, gay, and female people, but it's disrespectful and creepy to claim more than that.
Reply to S
If I experience the sky as being red, then it is red to me. A person who is colorblind may experience the sky as being red.
I'm just explaining that the equation of homosexuality with queerness is as a result of the slur, "queer". Identifying as being "queer" does, whether or not someone accepts Queer Theory, refer to something other than being "homosexual".
Reply to T Clark Au contraire! I have posited that what being "queer" means is that you generally accept something along the lines of that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid as per Queer Theory. This does not necessarily imply that a person has to be a homosexual in order to be queer.
Reply to S
If you want to identify as being a unicorn, then that is something that I am willing to accept.
Au contraire! I have posited that what being "queer" means is that you generally accept something along the lines of that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid as per Queer Theory. This does not necessarily imply that a person has to be a homosexual in order to be queer.
No, I'm saying a person has to be a homosexual to be queer. Using that word differently based on your own political preferences or desire to be included with the cool guys is, as I said, disrespectful and creepy.
Sorry, you can't be queer if you're not a homosexual. And you can't be a feminist if you are a man. And you can't be a black power advocate if you're white. You can be a white, straight, man who tries to be sympathetic and respectful of black, gay, and female people, but it's disrespectful and creepy to claim more than that.
I'm fully with you on that first sentence, but the next two sentences are false, even if it might strike some as peculiar. Being queer - outside of the bizarre make-believe world that people like thewonder comes from - just means being gay, albeit with nonidentical connotations. However, there is nothing in the meaning of feminism or black power advocation which precludes males or whites, nor should there be in the case of feminism especially, which is all about gender equality.
Au contraire! I have posited that what being "queer" means is that you generally accept something along the lines of that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid as per Queer Theory. This does not necessarily imply that a person has to be a homosexual in order to be queer.
That you've posited something does not make it so. You do understand that, right? You are of course free to go by your own meanings, but no one is obliged to do likewise. When I was talking about the meaning of the word "queer", I was speaking generally. It might help if you thought outside of your own belief system instead of forgetting its status as a fringe view which many people outright reject. "Queer Theory" is not the norm. It is not widely accepted, nor even seen as a credible academic subject by lot of people.
However, there is nothing in the meaning of feminism or black power advocation which precludes males or whites, nor should there be in the case of feminism especially, which is all about gender equality.
Don't agree. You don't have to be a feminist to believe in gender equality. For a man to call himself a feminist is to try to coopt for himself whatever power and authority comes with that word. A lot of times it's also a way of avoiding personal guilt for gender conditions. Just the same for race.
Terrapin StationAugust 15, 2019 at 20:26#3160950 likes
If someone wants to be a fucking genderqueer blue wolf who uses "zem" pronouns why the hell do you care.
I certainly don't care. It's just that I'm not going to be restricted to how other people want me to use language, unless I think there's a good reason to cater to the person's requests.
That's kind of in line with me not caring for conventions of etiquette in general. If you're going to have a problem with me not using the "right" silverware, not eating in the "right" order, not following some arbitrary set of ritualistic behavior, etc., then you'd probably better not hang out with me. You can do whatever you want and I won't give you a hard time about it. But I'm going to do the same thing, and I expect you to not give me a hard time about it, too.
Each one of us loves his mother.
The writer must carefully proofread what he writes.
All men are created equal.
Let’s ask each of the poets what he thinks is his best work.
Let everyone ask himself to consider the problem of the lack of the epicene pronoun.
Man, being a mortal, breast feeds his young.
...
Examples of available solutions:
People love their mothers.
Writers must carefully proofread their writing.
All people are created equal.
Let's ask the poets to name each of their best works.
Let's all ask ourselves to consider...
Being mortal, we breastfeed our young / Humans breastfeed their young.
And so on.
All of which pay heed to grammar and gender neutrality. Where the two must conflict for stylistic reasons, it's generally acceptable (and often desirable) to bend the grammar rules, especially concerning verb-subject agreement.
But they won’t have a chance of getting used if they don’t sound right.
They probably won't have a chance, period. The difficulty with messing with the pronouns is that they're a closed word class and very resistant to change. So, it's not something that can really be subject to decree. Having said that, I don't get the self-righteous refusal not to respect—within reason—others choices about how they want to be addressed. Seems like an unnecessary way to make enemies.
Don't agree. You don't have to be a feminist to believe in gender equality.
But that's not implied by what I said. That's actually a fallacious inference. Feminism, as I characterised it, is all about gender equality, but that is not at all to suggest that one must be a feminist to believe in gender equality. Feminism is just a form of gender equality advocation with a focus on females.
For a man to call himself a feminist is to try to coopt for himself whatever power and authority comes with that word. A lot of times it's also a way of avoiding personal guilt for gender conditions. Just the same for race.
That's a load of rubbish. I don't identify as a feminist, as it happens, but if I did I would be doing nothing of the sort. I would be expressing my support and identification with female focused equal rights.
Any ideology which claims to be feminism but is not about and in favour of gender equality is just another form of sexism.
That's kind of in line with me not caring for conventions of etiquette in general. If you're going to have a problem with me not using the "right" silverware, not eating in the "right" order, not following some arbitrary set of ritualistic behavior, etc., then you'd probably better not hang out with me. You can do whatever you want and I won't give you a hard time about it. But I'm going to do the same thing, and I expect you to not give me a hard time about it, too.
If you don't care about etiquette in general this is a deeper problem than just apparently bollocks pronouns, sis.
Reply to S Reply to T Clark
That is just my summary of what Queer Theory is. I think that it suffices, but other people can disagree with it. It doesn't really seem like anyone knows quite enough about Queer Theory to really discount it. I fail to see how a theory which challanges traditional gender roles necessitates that a person has to be a homosexual in order to believe in it.
I actually think that that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid is just simply a statement of affairs. Being queer is not a choice in lifestyle, it's just simply describes the relationship that everyone has to sexuality and gender. I identify as being queer because I think that the traditional roles that we are assigned to at birth ought to be challanged. I don't always perform my gender as a male. I don't think that anyone does. I usually do, however. as I'm not usually in a situation where it is advantageous to behave otherwise. I actually think that everyone is queer. Identifying as such is also a partial means to promote the theory which I see as being mostly positive.
I just don't understand the need to care so much about this. Why are so many people pedants when it comes to inventing pronouns when:
"humba wumba shlumba dumbha, these sounds even in the haze"
"Twas brillig and the slithy toves..."
"embiggen"
For the simple and fairly obvious reason that people ambiguous in appearance are not speaking out in significant numbers and demanding that I adopt [i]that particular[/I] terminology in reference to them. So it's a non-issue. That's just a segment of deliberately nonsensical poetry. It's not the same.
But if they were, then my position would essentially be no different. I simply won't be browbeaten into adopting nonsense terminology or be made to feel bad every time the situation calls for the use of personal pronouns, and it's as simple as that. It's only an issue because people have made it into one. I would rather the whole thing were not an issue, as it is an embarrassing distraction from more serious and worthy causes, but this is what certain contemporary groups have been making noise about, and yes, it has pretty much become a parody of itself.
Terrapin StationAugust 15, 2019 at 20:45#3161040 likes
Reply to Terrapin Station
There is a good reason, though. You ought to respect their chosen identity.
Imagine if I exclusively decided to refer to you as "she" or "her" in a demeaning sexist sense. Terrapin Station made a comment. She is totally off of her rocker. You would, at first, probably ignore this as you would consider yourself to be someone who is above engaging in such a discourse, but would probably eventually be bothered by it enough to address me with why it is that you don't think that I should do that.
I think that respecting chosen pronouns is kind of similar.
PoeticUniverseAugust 15, 2019 at 20:50#3161070 likes
I actually think that everyone is queer, however. Identifying as such is also a partial means to promote the theory which I see as being mostly positive.
Yes, probably, as not 100% all one way, just as many might have some amount of any condition, such as depression, but not really notice, since it doesn't exceed some threshold.
Imagine if I exclusively decided to refer to you as "she" or "her" in a demeaning sexist sense. Terrapin Station made a comment. She is totally off of her rocker. You would, at first, probably ignore this as you would consider yourself to be someone who is above engaging in such a discourse, but would probably eventually be bothered by it enough to address me with why it is that you don't think that I should do that.
Actually I couldn't care less how you address me, what you call me. The only "requirement" if you want a response is that I have to be able to figure out that you're addressing me somehow. But you don't have to care about that, of course.
Reply to Terrapin Station
There is no claim that you attest by making an argument. You aren't of a marginalized position and don't need to stake your existence when engaging in debate. I'm not quite sure how to put this effectively. A person who is queer has to contend the validity of their being while making an argument for that you should use their chosen pronouns. Because you are, I assume, heteronormative, you don't risk anything by engaging in the debate.
Reply to S
How is that there are an arbitrary set of behaviors that are considered to be masculine and feminine more reasonable than what Queer Theory posits?
Terrapin StationAugust 15, 2019 at 20:57#3161160 likes
I think it should function as the converse of a necessary apology that's accepted with the condition of necessity being negated.
As in:
A: "I really must apologize about X" (Obligation presumed)
B: "Oh, there's no need to apologize" (Obligation negated)(But with the unspoken necessary condition of negation here being the original assumption of obligation in the apology itself)
So, the converse is that someone asks you as a favour to refer to them by their preferred pronoun presuming no obligation. Then, on the basis of that lack of presumption, you accept it as an obligation. In other words the obligatory etiquette arises out of its voluntary negation by its beneficiary.
As in:
A: "I'd really appreciate it if you would refer to me as "they" rather than "he or she". You don't have, to of course, but I do prefer it." (Obligation negated)
B: "Sure, of course." (Obligation presumed)(On the unspoken necessary condition of the original negation of obligation).
This is how etiquette works. Give and take in a space created by charity and good-will. There is nothing to be proud of in a vulgar rejection of this aspect of human relations.
(In other words, a normatively phrased demand (You should refer to me as.../ You should not expect me to refer to you as... ) by either party short-circuits the solution from both ends.)
If you were to engage in a debate with an Arab Muslim over Islam, then they would have more of an existential stake in the debate. The hegemony of Western culture does not deny your right to exist. You don't really have anything to lose by engaging in the debate. The other perspective has more 'weight' to it or something. It doesn't mean that they're right. It just means that they have more of an existential stake in the debate.
Should that be taken into consideration? I think so. A person who has an existential stake in a debate is somewhat unfairly subject to it. There shouldn't really be a reason for it to matter whether or not a person is proven right or wrong.
There's probably some other philosophical term for this which better describes what I have just cooked up, but I don't know what it is.
If you were to engage in a debate with an Arab Muslim over Islam, then they would have more of an existential stake in the debate. The hegemony of Western culture does not deny your right to exist. You don't really have anything to lose by engaging in the debate. The other perspective has more 'weight' to it or something. It doesn't mean that they're right. It just means that they have more of an existential stake in the debate.
What are we talking about re "denying your 'right' to exist" though? What's an example of that?
Reply to Terrapin Station
I'm just trying to explain what I mean by "existential stake". I didn't mean to imply that you were denying anyone's right to exist, although, refusing to use a person's chosen pronouns does slightly deny their right to exist as such.
Having said that, I don't get the self-righteous refusal not to respect—within reason—others choices about how they want to be addressed. Seems like an unnecessary way to make enemies.
That's oddly one-sided. Why wouldn't the person demanding that I adopt a terminology which I find silly, at the cost of seeing me as personally affronting them, be the one who is being difficult? I'm not doing anything wrong. If a transgender woman, who has quite clearly changed their appearance to reflect the appearance roughly associated with their gender, wants to be referred to with feminine personal pronouns, then that's absolutely fine with me, but I'm simply refusing to adopt awkward, unaccustomed, and frankly ridiculous-sounding terminology which has only recently been made up - and I don't think that there's anything wrong with that, irrespective of whether that's considered offensive. The offended party is not in the right by default simply by virtue of being offended.
Why wouldn't the person demanding that I adopt a terminology which I find silly, at the cost of seeing me as personally affronting them, be the one who is being difficult?
Either party can be the one being difficult. Have a look at my next post and see what you think
(In other words, a normatively phrased demand (You should refer to me as.../ You should not expect me to refer to you as... ) by either party short-circuits the solution from both ends.)
It sure is strange making demands of others when what you are arguing against is others making demands of you - like conforming to some way of dressing, behaving, or speaking.
How is that there are an arbitrary set of behaviors that are considered to be masculine and feminine more reasonable than what Queer Theory posits?
How does that supposedly relate to my reply, qualifying that one ought to respect a person's chosen identity [i]within reason[/I]?
You seem to be ignoring what I said and putting words into my mouth. It's evident that there are indeed a whole range of things, including behaviours, which are typically considered masculine or feminine. Much of it makes little sense when properly analysed, and some of it I find harmful and offensive. But it's just the way that things are, like it or not, and I don't think that that's something that'll ever change entirely, nor should it. An entirely gender neutral world seems bland as fuck. Sure, so-called "girls toys" and "boys toys" is a good example of the kind of thing that really gets my goat, but let's not go overboard.
And as for what you've said of "Queer Theory", you know what I think about that already. I simply don't agree with you. You're wrong, except in the isolated context you've created for yourself, where apparently you can be whatever you want to be, no matter how ridiculous, like a queer unicorn under a red sky, even though you're actually just a straight man under the blue sky with the rest of us. What more is there to be said? You clearly let your imagination and wishful beliefs get the better of you. I'm just not like that. If I want to escape reality, I'll do some hard drugs or something.
In Gender Nihilism she (ey?) sort of implies that experience of being female is ultimately negative and that gender needs to be abolished altogether.
That is subjective. If she expects others to respect her views, then should respect others that may not share her view that being female is ultimately negative.
So, the converse is that someone asks you as a favour to refer to them by their preferred pronoun presuming no obligation. Then, on the basis of that lack of presumption, you accept it as an obligation. In other words the obligatory etiquette arises out of its voluntary negation by its beneficiary.
As in:
A: "I'd really appreciate it if you would refer to me as "they" rather than "he or she". You don't have, to of course, but I do prefer it." (Obligation negated)
B: "Sure, of course." (Obligation presumed)(On the unspoken necessary condition of the original negation of obligation).
This is how etiquette works. Give and take in a space created by charity and good-will. There is nothing to be proud of in a vulgar rejection of this aspect of human relations.
I'm simply not going to refer to the other person using language I'm not comfortable with. So it would depend entirely on how I felt at the time. They don't have to cause a scene and make it a big issue if I don't do exactly as they want, but my preference is that they get over themselves. It's rude to pressure someone into doing something they're not comfortable doing, and to use etiquette as an excuse.
Reply to S
I was countering that you think that Queer Theory is absurd with that what already stands is absurd. The search for a gender neutral pronoun is an emergent phenomenon and so it does seem a bit odd. I don't think that it is absurd to suggest that there ought to be one. I would argue that Queer Theory necessarily is of a radical position in so far that it seeks to totally reconceptualize gender and sexuality, but that the position is not necessarily extreme or outlandish. I do think that if a person asks that you use certain pronouns that it is not unreasonable to expect for the other person to consent to their request.
I do think that if a person asks that you use certain pronouns that it is not unreasonable to expect for the other person to consent to their request.
And I don't think that it's as clear cut as that. There are multiple layers to this, and your take is too one sided. See my replies to Baden above for a different interpretation.
Terrapin StationAugust 15, 2019 at 21:45#3161450 likes
Reply to Harry Hindu
Being transgender is complex, but I don't think that all transgendered people fall prey to the trappings of traditional gender roles. In Gender Nihilism she (ey?) sort of implies that experience of being female is ultimately negative and that gender needs to be abolished altogether. I don't wholly agree, but thought that that was an interesting argument. I think that it sees too much in the way of deterministic interpellation. I could see that transgendered people could end up sort of accidentally parodizing the roles which they have switched to, and that this could be somewhat dissociative. I don't think that that's too common, though. People figure things out however.
Yeah, well, you can't get along with everyone. I'm probably not going to get along with someone who oversteps the line by pressuring me to do something I'm not comfortable with doing. You can pretend that it's just a simple matter of etiquette, but the truth is that there's more to it underneath the surface.
As is much of what he has been saying: "infinite genders, queer yet functionally straight, the sky is red to me if that's what I believe, if you identify as a unicorn I would respect that..." Surely he's trolling?
(In other words, a normatively phrased demand (You should refer to me as.../ You should not expect me to refer to you as... ) by either party short-circuits the solution from both ends.)
I have no idea what that really means or why you think it.
1) New pronouns won't take off, so even if I had any political or aesthetic objections to them, it wouldn't matter in the bigger picture.
2) I generally accede to polite requests that cost me nothing. And would regardless of my propensity to be altruistic because of the good will fostered. It's trading a negligible cost for a non-negligible benefit.
So, I don't feel any pressure in the above case. I feel like I'm winning. And even where a demand is made then I'd consider the presenting of the obligation to negate itself by its presentation as such and so again feel no pressure.
I have no idea what that really means or why you think it
I may have made the original post a bit concise. And it's based on an idea that could probably do with more explication. But it is essentially all in there.
Thats the problem. Those arbitrary behaviors (wearing skirts, earrings or long hair) are being incorrectly categorized as masuline and feminine, when they should simply be categorized as human behaviors.
Of course there are masculine and feminine behaviors that are not arbitrary as those that relate to one's physiology.
The problem we have is transgenders reinforce those arbitrary categorizations, by claiming to feel like the opposite sex, and then adopting those arbitrary behaviors that are considered masuline or feminine as if those behaviors only belong to that sex.
But they're not simply human behaviours. They [i]are[/I] predominantly more masculine or more feminine. Of course, there's nothing inherent about length of hair, for example, that makes it masculine or feminine, but it's nonsense to think that there would be nothing feminine about wearing your hair in lengthy pigtails, large hoop earrings, and a pink dress. If you don't believe me, then just give it a try and see how people react. That it exists on a cultural level, rather than physical reality, is not that there's no such thing or that it doesn't exist at all. It is very evident that it does exist, and that there's something to it, which is also why transgendered men and women exist and can be visibly noticed as such.
1) New pronouns won't take off, so even if I had any political or aesthetic objections to them, it wouldn't matter in the bigger picture.
Okay, fine, I get that, although we're on a philosophy forum after all. How much of what we talk about here really matters in the bigger picture? How much of it is hypothetical? The fact is, we're discussing it regardless, and not for the first time.
2) I generally accede to polite requests that cost me nothing. And would regardless of my propensity to be altruistic because of the good will fostered. It's trading a negligible cost for a non-negligible benefit.
It wouldn't cost me nothing, so your second point wouldn't apply to me. It would mean caving in on a principle, and I don't do that lightly.
So, I don't feel any pressure in the above case. I feel like I'm winning. And even where a demand is made then I'd consider the presenting of the obligation to negate itself by its presentation as such and so again feel no pressure.
Well if there's no pressure, then there should be no problem with my lack of conformity, should there? Easygoing people aren't the kind of people that kick up a fuss if you don't do as they want. No pressure to conform, no problem. But I think we both know that there [i]is[/I] pressure, whether cloaked in polite language or otherwise.
But they're not simply human behaviours. They are predominantly more masculine or more feminine. Of course, there's nothing inherent about length of hair, for example, that makes it masculine or feminine.
Exactly. There's nothing inherently more masculine ir feminine about how someone wears their hair or what jewelry they wear or what kind of clothes they wear. Those are human behaviors that are not inhibited by one's sexual physiology.
but it's nonsense to think that there would be nothing feminine about wearing your hair in lengthy pigtails, large hoop earrings, and a pink dress. If you don't believe me, then just give it a try and see how people react. That it exists on a cultural level, rather than physical reality, is not that there's no such thing or that it doesn't exist at all.
But that is what I'm getting at - the incorrect cultural notions that they are governed by ones sexual physiology, thereby labeling them as masuline and feminine. Im not saying that peoples reactions don't exist. Im saying that their reactions are wrong - a category error.
Exactly. There's nothing inherently more masculine ir feminine about how someone wears their hair or what jewelry they wear or what kind of clothes they wear. Those are human behaviors that are not inhibited by one's sexual physiology.
But it's not about inherent qualities or sexual physiology. It's not on that basis that we talk about feminine hair, jewellery, and clothes. Of course it doesn't make sense in that respect, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense in other respects.
But that is what I'm getting at - the incorrect cultural notions that they are governed by ones sexual physiology, thereby labeling them as masuline and feminine. Im not saying that peoples reactions don't exist. Im saying that their reactions are wrong - a category error.
It's not a category error. You're just thinking about it in a way that leads to that conclusion, but you don't have to think about it that way. You're choosing to do so. It's like if I were to deny that there are no punks or hippies, just people. It's not a category error on a cultural level. On a cultural level, there are indeed punks, hippies, masculine and feminine, and many other identifiable categories of that sort.
But it's not about inherent qualities or sexual physiology. It's not on that basis that we talk about feminine hair, jewellery, and clothes. Of course it doesn't make sense in that respect, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense in other respects.
That isnt how "masculine" and "feminine" are defined. They are defined as relating to one's sex.
This was considered to be grammatically correct, but it's totally absurd.
It's not absurd. The reason underlying the grammatical correctness of using "he" is because in English, "man" is the default general term for "human, mankind, people". If you know that the person in question is female, then it would be incorrect to use "he" rather than "she".
If you want to be grammatical, forget about making up new pronouns:
That isnt how "masculine" and "feminine" are defined. They are defined as relating to one's sex.
Yes, relating to one's sex, but you're stretching that to absurdity when there's no need. They relate to cultural conceptions of sex in terms of image, behaviour, desires, and so on. Without overthinking it, if you were asked to think of a woman, it's more likely than not that you'll think of something pretty close to the stereotype. That's just how our brains work. It's like how a lot of people would think of the red heart symbol with two curves at the top if they were asked to think of a heart, instead of thinking of any actual heart which looks very different. It's not a category error, just two different ways of thinking.
Yes, relating to one's sex, but you're stretching that to absurdity when there's no need. They relate to cultural conceptions of sex in terms of image, behaviour, desires, and so on. Without overthinking it, if you were asked to think of a woman, it's more likely than not that you'll think of something pretty close to the stereotype. That's just how our brains work. It's like how a lot of people would think of the red heart symbol with two curves at the top if they were asked to think of a heart, instead of thinking of any actual heart which looks very different. It's not a category error, just two different ways of thinking.
You keep referring to our cultural inclination to think of the sexes in a certain way which is no different than how one thinks about the existence of gods. Just because we've been culturally conditioned to think a certain way doesn't mean that thinking is correct. What is being stretched is the idea of sex beyond what it is. Sex is not how you wear your clothes or your hair. Sex is physiology.
You keep referring to our cultural inclination to think of the sexes in a certain way which is no different than how one thinks about the existence of gods. Just because we've been culturally conditioned to think a certain way doesn't mean that thinking is correct. What is being stretched is the idea of sex beyond what it is. Sex is not how you wear your clothes or your hair. Sex is physiology.
We weren't talking about sex, we were talking about the concepts of masculine and feminine, and it would be utterly wrongheaded to think about that exclusively in terms of the physiology of sex, whilst willfully ignoring what an explanation in terms of culture adds. The two go hand in hand, and don't make sense otherwise. These aren't empty concepts. That would be absurd. There's clearly something to them. Masculine and feminine are concepts relating to the two sexes, male and female, in terms of cultural associations in the form of image, fashion, mannerisms, behaviour, characteristics, personality traits, etc., and there's no rational reason I can think of for you to arbitrarily scrap any reference to culture here.
Look, if you want to think about it like that, then so be it, but you can count me out.
I don't think that all transgendered people fall prey to the trappings of traditional gender roles.
This is way outside my experience, but it seems to me that biological men who feel as if they're women and who want to live as women in their societies would see living in accordance with society's gender roles as a benchmark to show that they are truly women. I can't imagine that many would see the world through the eyes of Gender Nihilism. Living in accordance with gender roles would be one of their primary goals, wishes, dreams. Am I wrong about that?
This is way outside my experience, but it seems to me that biological men who feel as if they're women and who want to live as women in their societies would see living in accordance with society's gender roles as a benchmark to show that they are truly women. I can't imagine that many would see the world through the eyes of Gender Nihilism. Living in accordance with gender roles would be one of their primary goals, wishes, dreams. Am I wrong about that?
That one's actually pretty easy to figure out, even without the aid of Google. It means something along the lines that you don't identify as a single, set gender over time, but are flexible or "fluid" enough to identify with whatever seems right in the moment or to not identify at all.
That one's actually pretty easy to figure out, even without the aid of Google. It means something along the lines that you don't identify as a single, set gender over time, but are flexible or "fluid" enough to identify with whatever seems right in the moment or to not identify at all.
That was my intuition as well. It’s weird, I think, but who am I to judge? I suppose one could live one’s life this way, but I think it just invites bullying, and who would want that? Not that they deserve bullying but that’s not something that one would expect a Cro-Magnon type to understand and accept. Why go through the trouble?
This is way outside my experience, but it seems to me that biological men who feel as if they're women and who want to live as women in their societies would see living in accordance with society's gender roles as a benchmark to show that they are truly women
I have yet to hear or read an explanation by anyone that maps out the metaphysics of transgenderism.
What is a "true woman"?
What does it mean to "feel" like one?
What about you can be "in the wrong body"?
I have yet to hear or read an explanation by anyone that maps out the metaphysics of transgenderism.
What is a "true woman"?
What does it mean to "feel" like one?
What about you can be "in the wrong body"?
Simple - if a man were to tell me he feels like a woman, considers himself one, and would like to be treated like one, I would respond "ok." What more do we need to know.
That was my intuition as well. It’s weird, I think, but who am I to judge? I suppose one could live one’s life this way, but I think it just invites bullying, and who would want that? Not that they deserve bullying but that’s not something that one would expect a Cro-Magnon type to understand and accept. Why go through the trouble?
Depends how important it is to the person. If it was that important to me, why would I let the fear of being bullied repress me? For comparison, I didn't come out publicly with my true sexual identity whilst in school for that very reason, but I haven't let homophobes or other judgemental types silence me or keep me in pretence for quite some time now - although I am typically quite private about my sexuality and rarely bring it up. There are still plenty of homophobes and judgemental types around.
Depends how important it is to the person. If it was that important to me, why would I let the fear of being bullied repress me? For comparison, I didn't come out publicly with my true sexual identity whilst in school for that very reason, but I haven't let homophobes or other judgemental types silence me or keep me in pretence for quite some time now, and there are still plenty of homophobes and judgemental types around.
Good on you. I don’t let a fear of bullying about my mental disorder stop me from being open about it, so I can relate on some level.
I have yet to hear or read an explanation by anyone that maps out the metaphysics of transgenderism.
What is a "true woman"?
What does it mean to "feel" like one?
What about you can be "in the wrong body"?
It relates to what we were just talking about in terms of masculine and feminine. I don't literally believe the part about being in the wrong body, but other than that, I don't see why the rest of it should be so hard for you to understand. Just go watch a few videos about transgender females by transgender females themselves on YouTube, or better yet, meet some in person. I've done both. And I think it has little to do with metaphysics. It has more to do with psychology and social science.
Reply to Bitter Crank
I will use they in colloquial speech and "he or she" or "ey" before I simply use "he" and you are who will have to get used to that (In so far that I am posting here, I guess.).
Reply to Baden
I had thought that "he or she" had caught on more by now.
Reply to T Clark
Well, her (eir?), declaration seems to be against that there are roles at all. I assume that most queer people want to create new gender roles. I'm sure that relationship that transgendered people have to their chosen sex is somewhat tenuous. I wouldn't think that the experience should just be negative, though. You get to sort of reinvent the wheel. Gender Nihilism seems to be like other Nihilist texts in that it seems to adopt a somewhat fatalistic pessimism. I think that such Nihilist notions are somewhat pathological. The critique is there, and they glean a lot of things about the world, but the worldview is just too bleak for my tastes. I feel like things don't go well for Nihilists because they have such a gloomy outlook. But yeah, from her perspective, it seems like she is kind of bothered by that by becoming a woman she has picked all of the baggage of being female. I would suggest that she should try to see what was originally liberating in her general way of going about and doing things, but I doubt that she would care for my psychologisms.
I'm not a transgendered person, and, so, I can't really tell you too much about it. I don't know that they could tell you too much about it either to be honest. I bet that they're all a bit torn as to how it is that they want to go about living as the other sex.
Well, her (eir?), declaration seems to be against that there are roles at all.
Well, no matter what she declares, there are and likely always be gender roles. Men have penises that they put in women's vaginas. The man ejaculates into the woman's vagina and the sperm enters the woman's uterus where it ....Well, let's leave it at that. If you need more detail, I'm sure @Bitter Crank or @s can do a better job explaining it than I can.
That, along with all the other baggage women carry and all the baggage men carry, is known as "life." That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't try to make it more humane, but in the mean time, the solution is to suck it up. Which is kind of a masculine thing to say.
Reply to T Clark
I'm not going to explain that being queer is not the same thing as being a homosexual again.
Here are the begining paragraphs to the Wikipedia article:
Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender. Originally meaning "strange" or "peculiar", queer came to be used pejoratively against those with same-sex desires or relationships in the late 19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, queer activists, such as the members of Queer Nation, began to reclaim the word as a deliberately provocative and politically radical alternative to the more assimilationist branches of the LGBT community.[1][2]
In the 2000s and on, queer became increasingly used to describe a broad spectrum of non-normative[note 1] (i.e. anti-heteronormative and anti-homonormative) sexual and gender identities and politics.[3] Academic disciplines such as queer theory and queer studies share a general opposition to binarism, normativity, and a perceived lack of intersectionality, some of them only tangentially connected to the LGBT movement. Queer arts, queer cultural groups, and queer political groups are examples of modern expressions of queer identities.
Critics of the use of the term include members of the LGBT community who associate the term more with its colloquial, derogatory usage,[4] those who wish to dissociate themselves from queer radicalism,[5] and those who see it as amorphous and trendy.[6] The expansion of queer to include queer heterosexuality has been criticized by those who argue that the term can only be reclaimed by those it has been used to oppress.[7]
I'm not going to explain that being queer is not the same thing as being a homosexual again.
So, given that definition, I'll restate the comment I was referring to:
People who reject current gender roles want to create new gender roles.
Seems more like they want there to be no gender roles which, as I said, ain't going to happen until eggs are fertilized in vitro and placed in artificial uteruses and then raised by non-gendered robots. It might be easiest if we get rid of all the men and fertilize the women's eggs using modified cells from other women.
Isn't that the real beef - it's heterosexual men who are the problem. Let's bad mouth them until we can come up with a final technological solution.
Reply to T Clark
In a nutshell, I suppose. It's not a terribly homogeneous field, and, so, whatever anyone says Queer Theory is just sort of true. They don't want for there to be roles. It's late and I'm not sure as to what it was that I was trying to get at there. It's like a reinvention of a way of life. You would identify as a woman and want to be regarded as such, but not necessarily to live out the role of a woman in a negative sense. You would want to create a new way of life as a woman.
I'm not going to explain that being queer is not the same thing as being a homosexual again.
Stop lying. It's getting on my nerves. It still has that meaning, with a derogatory use, as can be verified by online dictionaries. From my own experience, I can tell you that it has had that meaning at least since my childhood in the early 90's, when I first heard it being used in that way, and also much earlier than that according to the Wikipedia article which you yourself quoted. I only found out about the more recent usage you refer to much later in life. Just because you clearly favour the later interpretation, that doesn't mean that other interpretations cease to count. That is just your own personal belief. Once again, I feel it necessary to point out that you are not the sole arbiter of what a word does or doesn't mean.
Simple - if a man were to tell me he feels like a woman, considers himself one, and would like to be treated like one, I would respond "ok." What more do we need to know.
I would agree with treating anyone how they like to be treated. I'm not sure why that entails believing them about their self-id. There are countless examples of self-id that we do not and should not take at face value, so there have to be other criteria to believe it.
I don't literally believe the part about being in the wrong body, but other than that, I don't see why the rest of it should be so hard for you to understand. Just go watch a few videos about transgender females by transgender females themselves on YouTube, or better yet, meet some in person. I've done both. And I think it has little to do with metaphysics. It has more to do with psychology and social science.
I agree it's boils down to psychology and social science in essence. But then you still have many (not all, it's not a uniform group in their thinking) transgenders insisting that they "really are" a woman/man. And that is a metaphysical claim, which they have (to my knowledge) never fully explained.
If you have an resources that do explain it, I'd appreciate it if you provided them here instead of just waving nebulously into the wilds of the interwebs. :wink:
Oh, and I have met many transgender and gender fluid people. The latter tend to make more sensible claims, in my opinion. But apparently it's not good form to ask them to explain transgenderism. It's considered "questioning their existence." Which is unphilosophical, but, hey, that's what fora like this one are for.
I agree it's boils down to psychology and social science in essence. But then you still have many (not all, it's not a uniform group in their thinking) transgenders insisting that they "really are" a woman/man. And that is a metaphysical claim, which they have (to my knowledge) never fully explained.
Those claims can be categorised along with many religious, supernatural, and conspiracy theory claims. They can be filed away in the "special cabinet", i.e. the dustbin.
If you have any resources that do explain it, I'd appreciate it if you provided them here instead of just waving nebulously into the wilds of the interwebs. :wink:
Oh, and I have met many transgender and gender fluid people. The latter tend to make more sensible claims, in my opinion. But apparently it's not good form to ask them to explain transgenderism. It's considered "questioning their existence." Which is unphilosophical, but, hey, that's what fora like this one are for.
Nope, no resources which explain what can't be truly explained in that way. That wouldn't be an explanation, it would be a story.
Interesting experience. I've experienced the opposite. I've been told that they'd rather people just ask them directly instead of staring and being awkward around them, although I think I can also recall one of my transgender friends saying that it can get annoying, which is understandable. I've met both male to female, and female to male. I also know someone who might now identify as gender neutral after the transformation didn't exactly work out so well, and I know someone who doesn't identify as transgender, but rather as an occasional cross dresser.
Those claims can be categorised along with many religious, supernatural, and conspiracy theory claims. They can be filed away in the "special cabinet", i.e. the dustbin.
I've been told that they'd rather people just ask them directly instead of staring and being awkward around them,
I can imagine that would be weird :snicker:
I don't think philosophical differences should be a reason to stare or be awkward. Anything beyond the theoretical aspects is just none of my business.
You would identify as a woman and want to be regarded as such, but not necessarily to live out the role of a woman in a negative sense. You would want to create a new way of life as a woman.
That seems very unlikely to me. Intuitively I would think that a transgender woman would want very much to fit in with societal gender roles. That would sort of be the whole point. Again, I'm talking about something where I don't have much experience.
I would agree with treating anyone how they like to be treated. I'm not sure why that entails believing them about their self-id.
I agree with you at least to this extent - I think the whole transgender thing can be really dangerous to vulnerable young people. I met a girl - she was 16 at the time - who wanted to be treated as a boy. She was obsessed with manga and a specific male character. She also was extremely depressed - lost. She had serious psychological problems which her mother treated using Reiki and aromatherapy.
Reply to S
Well, okay, but I think that the Wikipedia article is fine. Reply to T Clark
It sems like we both would be. I'm not sure that there is much to be gained through speculation. I would assume that most transgendered people wouldn't accept the traditional role of women, though.
Simple - if a man were to tell me he feels like a woman, considers himself one, and would like to be treated like one, I would respond "ok." What more do we need to know
I would agree with treating anyone how they like to be treated. I'm not sure why that entails believing them about their self-id. There are countless examples of self-id that we do not and should not take at face value, so there have to be other criteria to believe it.
Back in the early '80s I lived in a building with a guy who believed he was Jesus returned to usher in the Kingdom of Heaven. He was a well-educated, urbane, gay, New Englander in his 30s and was a productive individual. "Jesus" was a great conversational partner. Really interesting on many levels.
Did I think he was Jesus of Nazareth? No. I thought he was either very deluded or enjoyed faking a delusion. I lost track of him back then when I moved, but lo these many years later, it doesn't seem like the Kingdom of Heaven has been inaugurated.
I've known transsexuals, some of them fairly well. Did I think that they were actually a man/woman in the wrong body? No. Did they seem to benefit from taking testosterone or estrogen, and undergoing plastic surgery? Yes. Does that convince me that they were not deluded? No.
Would I be polite to these delusional people? Of course.
But what is the root of this delusion? Not quite sure, but probably deep dissatisfactions. "The times they live in" have made it possible to reach farther out for what they imagine will be more satisfying ways of being in the world. in 1300 a.d. France or in 1845 Virginia, the solution to profound and deep dissatisfactions were structured along different lines than in 1930, 1960, or 1990...
Take Bitter Crank. Here is a guy who has nursed certain delusions about possible better worlds that are possible because of the times he lives in. Imagining that he is living out these delusions has at times been quite comforting. At other times it has generated a lot of internal and external static. He persists in these delusions, nonetheless, even those there is little evidence that his delusional aspirations are possible/probable/feasible etc. I blame the original Jesus for inspiring these delusions in the first place.
I've known transsexuals, some of them fairly well. Did I think that they were actually a man/woman in the wrong body? No. Did they seem to benefit from taking testosterone or estrogen, and undergoing plastic surgery? Yes. Does that convince me that they were not deluded? No.
I don't think anything you're saying is in conflict with the things I wrote. It's not that I think transgender people are or are not really men or really women, it's that I have no reason not to accept their statement at face value. Except, as I said, sometimes I do - as in the case of the vulnerable 16 year old girl.
There is no doubt in the world that your experience in this area is much greater than mine. I take your opinion seriously.
Oh, and I have met many transgender and gender fluid people. The latter tend to make more sensible claims, in my opinion. But apparently it's not good form to ask them to explain transgenderism. It's considered "questioning their existence." Which is unphilosophical, but, hey, that's what fora like this one are for.
The "gender-fluid" people I've met strike me as fairly confused and irrational about sex, bodies, roles, and so forth. Their confusions are aided and abetted by the times they live in.
I have long felt that bisexuals and trans people were inappropriately included in what was first the "Gay and Lesbian Liberation movement". "Bisexuals" just don't seem like they ever developed an identity as such. Trans-gendered people are not homosexuals, presumably. Then there are the "queers" who are some sort of limp dick nouvelle cuisine. So we now have the GLBTQ movement.
There is a specific political reasons for grafting bisexuals (a '3' on the Kinsey Scale), transgendered, and 'queers' onto the movement, such as it is: Numbers. The conventional politics of gay liberation has required respectable numbers, with "10%" being the desired [and delusional] portion of the population belonging to the gay movement. As Mike McCarthy famously said, "If 10% of men are gay, who is getting my share?"
Partisan politicians get away with the 10% figure because it sufficiently nebulous to disprove. So, 10% it is. (The percentage of people in the US who identify and perform as gays and lesbians is probably below 4%. Transgendered persons constitute less than 1/2 of 1% (based on surveys).
If by "queer" you mean "homosexual," this is not true at all in my experience. Perhaps others with more can shed light on this.
In the last 50 years, all the homosexual men I have met were interested in having pretty conventional sex (adjusted for male anatomy) OR were interested in having sex with somebody else. I don't know... human anatomy doesn't really allow for much variation in sexual mechanics. There are shafts, orifices, hands, and brains.
Partisan politicians get away with the 10% figure because it sufficiently nebulous to disprove. So, 10% it is. (The percentage of people in the US who identify and perform as gays and lesbians is probably below 4%. Transgendered persons constitute less than 1/2 of 1% (based on surveys).
My daughter's intimate personal relationships are with women. I found this out about seven years ago when she was 31. I know she had relationships with men when she was younger. I know she didn't wait till she was 31 to tell my wife and me because she was afraid of our reaction. She knew we wouldn't care and she wouldn't let herself care if we did.
Of course I don't think of her as gay. She's my daughter. I call her gay when the subject comes up because I don't want people to think I'm ashamed or avoiding the subject. She has told me that she doesn't self-identify as gay. I know she's not ashamed of it and isn't afraid to face other people's reactions.
Reply to T Clark As a rule I do not discuss female sexuality, because it is pretty much outside my ken. But... what I have observed (and read) is that women often establish sexual relationships with other women later in life than gay men do with other men. While a "lesbian" identity seems to be very strong for some women, many women in same-sex relationships don't identify strongly as lesbian or homosexual.
Sex seems to work a bit differently for women (so I have heard) than for men, for which there are various evolutionary reasons.
But... what I have observed (and read) is that women often establish sexual relationships with other women later in life than gay men do with other men. While a "lesbian" identity seems to be very strong for some women, many women in same-sex relationships don't identify strongly as lesbian or homosexual.
That seems consistent with how my daughter lives her life.
TheWillowOfDarknessAugust 16, 2019 at 23:51#3165940 likes
The answer to this one is a bit complex. There a many layers. One level is a personal identity, how someone understands how they belong, similar to people understanding the belong to a gender son account of a particular trait the posses. Someone thinking they are a man because they have a penis is one example.
Another is the confusion or doubt people have about being accepted. Under social pressure of needing to be something to belong, people will play out certain behaviours. They’ll pretend, even to themselves, they need to as or have something to feel like they belong in terms of others.
Others might just knowing feel falsehoods in pubic to fit in, just to avoid the tension or drama or violence other would subject upon them for breaking their gender expectations. Even if you know a gender role is bullshit and it has no place win your identity, it’s sometimes easier or safer just to play along, to get others to recognise a gendered belonging. One may not care for long hair and dresses, but that might be one of the only way to get other people too read them as a woman.
In terms of the question you appear to be going for, it does becomes a cultural thing for some. Dressing and presenting up as “feminine” as possible. This kind of culture has the same kind of problem did does amongst cisgender roles. Cis gender roles get in trouble for insisting someone only come in the particular shapes, such roles within trans culture have the some problem of ignoring the existing of women who fall outside those standards. Just like a cis gender role claiming the absurdity that a woman with short hair and pants is not women/less of a woman, the trans version ignores woman come in al shapes and sizes.
So it foes happen, but it is not good. It is not the reason (even amongst trans women who perform those roles) a trans woman is a woman. It can never be the point because such gender roles only amount to following a rule other insist upon you. They aren’t descriptions of a gender itself. Just like cis gender roles, some may think they have to perform certain behaviours or characteristics to belong to to a gender, but it's really just a violence of a social hierarchy.
TheWillowOfDarknessAugust 17, 2019 at 00:04#3165970 likes
thewonder:I have yet to hear or read an explanation by anyone that maps out the metaphysics of transgenderism.
What is a "true woman"?
What does it mean to "feel" like one?
What about you can be "in the wrong body"?
The tricky thing is there isn't an answer to these question. Gender it always a question of the particular identity itself. It has no standard for when it appears or not.
Take the example of being "in the wrong body." There is no reason or constraint for this to amount to a transition in gender. To someone is might appear appear in purely biological terms. We might have, for example, a man who felt a body of a vagina and breast. He might have no identity or identification as a woman. Describing himself, he might say: "I am a man. I've always been a man. My body just feels like/ought to be one of breasts and a vagina."
For the instance of the "wrong body" to amount to a transition of gender, there has to be a certain kind of identity truth present itself. The body must come in tandem with a particular truth of identity itself, a fact that this particular instance of the body is a certain gender.
Using the usual concepts of gender, the metaphysics are impossible to grasp because they don't really talk about them. Everyday notions of gender just view gender as an act of following a rule. They don't give truth to gender itself.
DeleteduserrcAugust 17, 2019 at 00:40#3166060 likes
Reply to TheWillowOfDarkness
At the limit isn't a singular identity almost contradictory? If I'm not constrained by any accidental properties, I float off into the aether.
TheWillowOfDarknessAugust 17, 2019 at 01:17#3166160 likes
Whether we manage to find ourselves there or not, each of us is one floating around others. Identity is always singular and never constrained. The contradiction is to think the accidental was ever given by a property.
If you were not floating in aether, if you were the constraint of something else (not you ), you would not exist at all. There would just be a dick. Or a vagina. Or some short hair. Or a dress hanging on a body.
At least that would be the mirage. Till the question of who or what they were was asked, then they would be discovered to be floating in the aether themselves. They would be realised as accidental singulars, given by no property of constraint. Or else themselves become a mirage of the world of no dicks, vaginas, shot hair or bodies wearing dresses.
So the cycle will repeat endlessly, until one is comfortable recognising singular difference.
I'm not sure I've ever seen csalisbury speak proverbial English, poetic flourish has been his demeanour for as long as I can remember.
My feeling is he's going for a certain sense that would be lost in technical outlay.
The English version of what I just said might be:
Things are present on account of themselves. Until we reorganise this, we'll endlessly be rejecting the existence of things and be incapable of describing the metaphysical relation. We'll be stuck thinking everything is something else (a given "property" which supposedly make a thing).
To being this back around to the topic, this is why the wonder cannot identify the metaphysics of sex and gender. If we are describing the presence of something with a sex or gender, we are referring to a specific existing person.
So if I try to take the route of defining sex on the basis of the property of a certain kind of body, my metaphysics will fail. My movement is try to say that this person is present as they are (e.g. someone with the sex of male) on account of something which isn't them at all, just the property of having a bodily characteristic (e.g. penis, which might be found on all sorts off people). I've left the person I'm trying to describe out entirely.
DeleteduserrcAugust 17, 2019 at 02:09#3166290 likes
Whether we manage to find ourselves there or not, each of us is one floating around others. Identity is always singular and never constrained. The contradiction is to think the accidental was ever given by a property.
Focusing in on one part - what does it mean to say 'accidental given by a property'? That makes me think something like this: 'A property is still too general; what's accidental, is singularly accidental.' Sure, but ---
There comes a moment where someone asks 'who are you?' and you say ' nothing you could ever recognize' and to that I agree! but thats what floats out endlessly. What makes a life is the clash of that singularity against the recognizable, right?
You can drop it all, but at the cost of floating beyond anyone's grasp, ever - safe, but alone. Self-realized, with no actual realization.
TheWillowOfDarknessAugust 17, 2019 at 02:18#3166330 likes
Ah but that is the reverse mirage formed on trying to find other in properties: we already know our singular selves in that situation. Who are you asking the question about if you don't know this?
I'm telling a falsehood and your question is asking for what you already know.
I have floated/I am out endlessly, which you have recognised is asking a question about who I am. What endlessly floats out is the opposite of unrecognisable, you already know it perfectly.
DeleteduserrcAugust 17, 2019 at 02:25#3166350 likes
Reply to TheWillowOfDarkness Well I know you, so I'm asking it of someone who meticulously opposes the singular to the universal. And really I truly [I]don't[/i] know you because you've brilliantly posted up on the paradox itself. but the cost of that is I might as well be talking to the paradox. Everythig eternally orbits around that. Its the safest space around. Willow vanishes in the concept.
So then a metaphysics of gender is ultimately doomed to failure? My intuitive sense is that a person identifies as a certain gender because of their emotional feeling reflecting their concept (often cultural biases and norms) of what the gender is. I identify as a heterosexual man because I am sexually attracted to the opposite sex and I have a penis. I also like having a penis. This is my concept of a heterosexual man. Now that’s not to say that some people wouldn’t perceive in me anything feminine, as most of us fall on a spectrum from totally masculine to totally feminine (which as concepts are mostly cultural biases and norms).
So, a transgender male born in a female body would most likely feel like they should have a penis and they don’t belong in a body with a vagina. They can be gay, straight, or bi or whatever sexuality they are. So sexual orientation is an instinctive drive, while sex is anatomical (and can be changed through surgery and hormones), while gender is a feeling on a spectrum based on concepts of male and female roles (or masculine or feminine attitudes or traits) situated in cultural biases and norms.
In terms of the question you appear to be going for, it does becomes a cultural thing for some. Dressing and presenting up as “feminine” as possible. This kind of culture has the same kind of problem did does amongst cisgender roles. Cis gender roles get in trouble for insisting someone only come in the particular shapes, such roles within trans culture have the some problem of ignoring the existing of women who fall outside those standards. Just like a cis gender role claiming the absurdity that a woman with short hair and pants is not women/less of a woman, the trans version ignores woman come in al shapes and sizes.
I don't have any problem with what you're saying. My comment that you're responding to is this:
Intuitively I would think that a transgender woman would want very much to fit in with societal gender roles. That would sort of be the whole point. Again, I'm talking about something where I don't have much experience.
This still seems right to me. If a man is going through all the difficulties it requires to become and be accepted as a women, it just seems to me she would want to be considered a woman as typically defined in society at large. That's my intuition. More than that, it's what I feel when I try to place myself in their shoes. Yes, of course, it is a bit presumptuous for me to think I can do that, but it's disrespectful for me not to try.
TheWillowOfDarknessAugust 17, 2019 at 02:41#3166420 likes
I'm inclined to say that means you don't really see me.
When presented with my singular difference, you seem to want to insist you don't I exist unless I met some standard of properties, unless I'm able to tell you everything I am at the moment or how I am constrained.
You do truly know me, but you're unwilling to accept that you do, for it is not enough. Willow vanishes because you need me to be more than just Willow to qualify for existence. To just know my difference, is not enough for you. You want me to be funny. Or smart. Or insightful. Or something. For me to just be is not enough for you.
Perhaps then, that is why the paradox is so intractable to many. They want others to be something more to them than just a singular they exist with. Sometimes, this is great and necessary of course-- relationships, teachers, ideas, ethics, etc.-- but it seems to easily spill over into a demand people can only exist if they are this something more.
DeleteduserrcAugust 17, 2019 at 03:00#3166460 likes
Reply to TheWillowOfDarkness I'd love to meet Willow, but I don't feel like I ever have. I've met ideas about Spinoza. I've met patterns of thought. That all tend to general concepts about what exceeds the general.
You do truly know me, but you're unwilling to accept that you do, for it is not enough. Willow vanishes because you need me to be more than just Willow to qualify for existence. To just know my difference, is not enough for you. You want me to be funny. Or smart. Or insightful. Or something. For me to just be is not enough for you.
Well, I don't know you in real life. I know you online, on philosophy sites, where you talk about certain things. You could just be, and not talk about philosophy, but I mean, that's not what you're doing here, on philosophy forums, talking about specific conceptual areas.
I would agree that I don't see you, but how would I?
TheWillowOfDarknessAugust 17, 2019 at 04:57#3166650 likes
Metaphysics trying to describe gender or sex by talking about something else are doomed to failure. If you are trying to find gender or sex be the fact someone has a particularly body part or behaves in certain way, it will always fail because you aren't talking about the existence of a person's gender. You're just describing the presence of another kind of fact.
The description of gender or sex you are tying to give just because an ad hoc just so story about a person-- e.g. "Well, this person a penis, so must be a man..."-- which doesn't engage with describing a fact of sex or gender itself.
You identify as heterosexual because you are heterosexual and recognise it. Plenty of people are attracted to the opposite sex and have a penis, but are not heterosexual. Those two properties don't define one as heterosexual.
One cannot be heterosexual just because they have a penis and are attracted to the opposite sex. There are many sexual orientations a person with attraction to the opposite and a penis might take. It's even possible they might have none (e.g. a person who falls outside of categorising their sexual attraction under an orientation).
There's perfectly a coherent metaphysics of sex, gender or sexual orientation. People just have to realise they aren't talking about the fact a penis exists. Or that any instance of anatomy exist. Or the fact of someone being attracted to the opposite sex. That sex, gender or sexual orientation is it's own fact about a person itself. A truth not given by properties (e.g. "I'm a man because I have a penis"), but rather one given in itself (e.g. "I am a man") which occurs alongside their properties (whatever those might be, be they a penis or a vagina, burly or scrawny, short hair or long, etc.)
Terrapin StationAugust 17, 2019 at 13:21#3167900 likes
You identify as heterosexual because you are heterosexual and recognise it. Plenty of people are attracted to the opposite sex and have a penis, but are not heterosexual. Those two properties don't define one as heterosexual.
One cannot be heterosexual just because they have a penis and are attracted to the opposite sex. There are many sexual orientations a person with attraction to the opposite and a penis might take. It's even possible they might have none (e.g. a person who falls outside of categorising their sexual attraction under an orientation).
It's not clear to me what you have in mind here. I might agree with you, but I don't know what an example would be.
There's perfectly a coherent metaphysics of sex, gender or sexual orientation. People just have to realise they aren't talking about the fact a penis exists. Or that any instance of anatomy exist. Or the fact of someone being attracted to the opposite sex. That sex, gender or sexual orientation is it's own fact about a person itself. A truth not given by properties (e.g. "I'm a man because I have a penis"), but rather one given in itself (e.g. "I am a man") which occurs alongside their properties (whatever those might be, be they a penis or a vagina, burly or scrawny, short hair or long, etc.)
I can accept that (many, not all) aspects of gender are social constructions.
It makes no sense to define sex as such. Sex refers only to biology. You're born male/female/intersex, and that's just the reality you have to live with and can choose to shape your gender presentation around.
sex, gender or sexual orientation is it's own fact about a person itself. A truth not given by properties (e.g. "I'm a man because I have a penis"), but rather one given in itself (e.g. "I am a man") which occurs alongside their properties (whatever those might be, be they a penis or a vagina, burly or scrawny, short hair or long, etc.)
What is the truth of belonging to identity itself? What kind of identity do you use here?
Do we need the principle of identity to define gender or sexual orientation? Butler claims that categories themselves, as products of regimes of power, produce the identity they are deemed to be simply representing.
"A genealogical critique refuses to search for the origins of
gender, the inner truth of female desire, a genuine or authentic
sexual identity that repression has kept from view; rather
genealogy investigates the political stakes in designating as
an origin and cause those identity categories that are in fact
the effects of institutions, practices, discourses with multiple
and diffuse points of origin."
Just like a cisgender role claiming the absurdity that a woman with short hair and pants is not a woman or less of a woman, the trans version ignores the fact that women come in all shapes and sizes.
That's simply not true, it's merely biased speculation on your part. It's illogical to jump from the fact that a transgender woman - or someone who has a desire to become one - wants to transform themselves to reflect a more traditionally feminine image, to the conclusion that therefore they ignore the fact that women come in all shapes and sizes.
Intuitively I would think that a transgender woman would want very much to fit in with societal gender roles. That would sort of be the whole point. Again, I'm talking about something where I don't have much experience.
— T Clark
This still seems right to me. If a man is going through all the difficulties it requires to become and be accepted as a women, it just seems to me she would want to be considered a woman as typically defined in society at large. That's my intuition. More than that, it's what I feel when I try to place myself in their shoes. Yes, of course, it is a bit presumptuous for me to think I can do that, but it's disrespectful for me not to try.
It's not far off, and I'll just come out and say that, yes, that's based on my own experience of having had these sort of thoughts and feelings ever since I was a child, to varying degrees over the years.
I just used "ey" for God in a different thread. I kind of think that God should have eir own pronoun. I was thinking azey, azem, and azir, but it's too alpha and omega. What about just ay, am, and aur? Maybe "ae"? I kind of like "ae" better.
I also just changed that on the other thread so that this will catch on.
This is the most sensible talk about transgender people and transgender metaphysics I have come across so far. Perfectly captures my view on the matter at least.
Whether we manage to find ourselves there or not, each of us is one floating around others. Identity is always singular and never constrained. The contradiction is to think the accidental was ever given by a property.
This doesn't account for the instances where we can be wrong about our identity. There are no accidents in a deterministic world. Genetics AND upbringing are the primary contributors to the essence of one's identity.
There's perfectly a coherent metaphysics of sex, gender or sexual orientation. People just have to realise they aren't talking about the fact a penis exists. Or that any instance of anatomy exist. Or the fact of someone being attracted to the opposite sex. That sex, gender or sexual orientation is it's own fact about a person itself. A truth not given by properties (e.g. "I'm a man because I have a penis"), but rather one given in itself (e.g. "I am a man") which occurs alongside their properties (whatever those might be, be they a penis or a vagina, burly or scrawny, short hair or long, etc.)
If someone isn't referring to some physical property about themselves that distinguishes them from "not-man" when they say "I am a man", then what use does the word, "man" have? What would it mean?
Besides being ugly, the hubbub over gender pronouns is not the use of these terms, but the demand for them, that people must conform to your language even if they know them to be untrue.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 01, 2019 at 21:03#3478450 likes
That's why they matter in the first place: to misgender speaks an untruth about someone.
Demands are made prescisly because what is thought untrue is actually true. After all, it is this truth speaking the terms is about. The language was never isolated to "terms" which were just a fun, arbitrary nickname.
That's why the matter in the first place: to misgender speaks an untruth about someone.
Demands are made prescisly because what is thought untrue is actually true. After all, it is this truth speaking the terms is about. The language was never isolated to "terms" which were just a fun, arbitrary nickname.
But who is speaking the untruth? If I see a person asserting what appears to be the opposite of the case, their “truth” can be doubted,
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 01, 2019 at 21:16#3478540 likes
Such "doubt" is dime-a-dozen and not at all instructive. Anyone can "doubt" quite literally anything in this way. Just see a claim, assert we don't know anything about it.
It's lazy and directed at "winning" an argument. The question of what is true is not even approached.
If we are concerned with what is true and what we know, this approach is closed to us. We have to turn upon our own "doubt." For if something is true, if there is good reason to accept it, taking a postion in which we just reject anything is a gross error.
Likewise, any claim is a dime-a-dozen. Anyone can claim literally anything. It’s not only a lazy argument, but not even an argument.
In this case, the reason to doubt it, even to fully refute it, is that the assertion does not match up to the biology, the claim contradicts the reality.
Which is a failure to recognise the distinction between sex and gender; and indeed, a failure to recognise that gender is not binary; indeed, failure to notice that even sex is not binary.
Now if my memory serves me well, Nos is one of the influx of Christians presently infesting the forums.
The lack of regard for the huge variations of which people are capable is a hallmark of their thinking. Their purpose is not to learn, not to do philosophy, but to defend their faith.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 01, 2019 at 21:28#3478600 likes
We know stuff, make claims, describe what's happening to us all the time. Our lives are filled with experiences of what's going on around us. People speak truths all the time without jumping through some triplicate justification game.
In most respects, knowledge and justification are actually separate axis. The former is to understanding something is true, the latter is to engage in some game with others which allows your statements to be justified.
As I spoke about a few posts up, there is no question of biology here. An identity is not the presence of a body. Pronouns are not given in the existence of a body. They are a social fact about people with bodies.
We know stuff, make claims, describe what's happening to us all the time. Our lives are filled with experiences of what's going on around us all the time. People speak truths all the time without jumping through some triplicate justification game.
In most respects, knowledge and justification are actually separate axis. The former is to understanding something is true, the latter is to engage in some game with others which allows your statements to be justified.
As I spoke about a few posts up, there is no question of biology here. An identity is not the presence of a body. Pronouns are not given in the existence of a body. They are a social fact about people with bodies.
Even if I grant all that, a person who claims to be a woman but appears to me to be a man has neither the right nor the justification to demand I conform to their language, especially when that language is used to refer to them in the third person, that is, in conversation with anyone besides them.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 01, 2019 at 21:44#3478670 likes
You're contradicting yourself: in your first post you claimed it wasn't just a question of terms. Now your running back to an insistence others cannot demand you use terms.
What's more, they (we all should) can indeed demand it. Misgendering them tells a falsehood about them, casts aspersions upon them as a trans person, denies there very existence, etc.
We have many ethical and descriptive reasons to respect.their identity, using the language which recognises it. Using it amongst others, in the "third person" is actually really important. It means we've recognised their identity for the objective truth of is, rather than disrespecting it as a delusion we only entertain for their feelings.
They can demand anything they want. By the same token I can refuse. None of this involves casting aspersions or denying anyone’s existence.
I respect their identities and their right to be who they want and express themselves how they see fit. But I would expect the same treatment, that I can express myself how I wish, and that includes refusing to distort my own language to appease the demands of those who think I should speak otherwise.
Is it really about language if you doubt that the terms you're contesting actually have referents?
That's the philosophical issue.
Why have you made a demand for linguistic purity which imposes a heavy personal and social cost on people you (and I quote) "respect"?
That's the political one.
It is extremely important to allow those who experience conflict with societal norms to work out their own liberating vocabularies and modes of thought.
Would you make the same demand for free expression for why you should be able to go around calling every black guy a nigger? If not, why not?
I take offence to your use of that term. Do I demand you speak otherwise? No.
Pronouns are an important functional element to speaking. The n-word isn’t.
If someone demands that you call them the n-word, will you refer to them as such in conversation with others?
Do you believe the same or would you refer to him as the n-word to others?
Besides being ugly, the hubbub over the (censorship of the) n-word is not the use of it, but the demand for it, that people must conform to your language even if they know it to be untrue...
Besides being ugly, the hubbub over gender pronouns is not the use of these terms, but the demand for them, that people must conform to your language even if they know them to be untrue.
Besides being ugly, the hubbub over the n-word is not the use of it, but the demand for them, that people must conform to your language even if they know them to be untrue...
I’m sorry but is this some form of argument I’m not aware of? I appreciate you mirroring my argument but copying and pasting them for me is a little much.
That I can use what you've written, with word substitutions and minor edits to preserve grammar, to defend calling people racial slurs if you feel like it should probably disturb you.
You used racial slurs and I did not once demand you speak otherwise. It does disturb me that you use racial slurs, but I am quite proud to defend your right to speak how you like.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 01, 2019 at 22:42#3478950 likes
I'd go at this from a related but different angle. All language functions in thidsmanner of talking about something.
If NOS4A2's postion is taken to be the case, There are no rules or justifications for.the use of.langauge. We are not just free to say anything we want, but incapable of being wrong in our language use. Anyone could take any statement by another and claim it said anything. We could give any description of any one, no matter how false or deflamantory and it would be fine.
This is not just a defence of racial slurs in the end, but a defence of any lie or flasehood told about anyone or anything.
You made arguments which can be used to justify the use of racial slurs.
Which is worse: some fuck like me saying the racial slurs or you making arguments which allow their use for everyone?
Yes, defences on the grounds of free speech applies to all speech. But it also applies to the voices of the oppressed and marginalized, including the trans community. It’s worse, and ironic, you using racial slurs to make an argument against free speech.
I'd go at this from a related but different angle. All language functions in thidsmanner of talking about something.
If NOS4A2's postion is taken to be the case, There are no rules or justifications for.the use of.langauge . We are not just free to say anything we want, but incapable of being wrong in our language use. Anyone could take any statement by another and claim it said anything. We could give any description of any one, no matter how false or deflamantory and it would be fine.
This is not just a defence of racial slurs in the end, but a defence of any lie or flasehood told about anyone or anything.
That’s not quite true. The rules and justifications still apply, it’s just that everyone isn’t forced to use them via threat and coercion.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 01, 2019 at 23:10#3479070 likes
Yes, but I was going for a little bit more than just oppourtuinistic defences.
I'm saying, in this case, we actually have thesis no-one can make a mistake in the words they use. It's not just that people ought to be able to tell lies, flasehoods, vilifications, but that there are no grounds to even assert these are occurring.
In the case of allowing such speech, it is still false/unjustified, etc., we just grant a permission to speak the words. NOS4A2 appears to be taking a postion beyond even this, where any speech is completely fine.
Yes, but I was going for a little bit more than just oppourtuinistic defences.
Ah, sorry, I didn't read your posts in thread. I just saw the same old shit from @NOS4A2 (also shit I used to say in this context) and wanted to chime in with the argument that convinced me to stop being an ass and start seeing things structurally.
In the case of allowing such speech, it is still false/unjustified, etc., we just grant a permission to speak the words. NOS4A2 appears to be taking a postion beyond even this, where any speech is completely fine.
I never said nor implied any speech was completely fine, only that no one can coerce you to speak how he wants you to. Think of it this way: imagine if someone told a trans person he was not aloud to express himself how he wishes.
This same sledgehammer was used to defend the rights of abolitionists and civil rights activists, who were routinely censored for their views.
What a reasonable, critical individual would do is drop the bad argument form you're using. Or be happy that 60 years ago you would be defending the widespread censorship of abolitionists and civil rights activists in public. With the same strategy.
I'm very happy that you've come round to seeing the importance of amplifying the voices of marginalised people and allowing them to (1) state their existence (2) demand recognition in their own terms and (3) do what they need to to get it.
Think about the political positioning of this 'matter of principle'; of what role you are playing in the discourse. Do you go into discussions about systemic racism arguing that use of the n-word is fine on a free speech basis? Have you tweeted Youtube for censoring ISIS material? I very much doubt it.
I respect free speech, I don't respect its selective invocation. I very much hope you are a true warrior of it, demanding that Youtube allows ISIS propaganda to propagate globally, and picking a fight with any verbally abused kid you see who wants his insulters to stop.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 01, 2019 at 23:32#3479130 likes
But that's just the issue: if the speech is not completely, then coercion is in play.
At the very least, there is the reason/shame of being mistaken, the ethical question of speaking how one should. Even if we take a postion, for example, that some offensive comments can be uttered, we are still in a space of cocerion because the identification of them as offensive marks the utter as shameful. It's still the case one ought not be speaking that way, even if they are allowed to. Pressure of cocerion is being applied in the mere recognition of a vilification, falsehood or lie.
I'm very happy that you've come round to seeing the importance of amplifying the voices of marginalised people and allowing them to (1) state their existence (2) demand recognition in their own terms and (3) do what they need to to get it.
Think about the political positioning of this 'matter of principle'; of what role you are playing in the discourse. Do you go into discussions about systemic racism arguing that use of the n-word is fine on a free speech basis? Have you tweeted Youtube for censoring ISIS material? I very much doubt it.
I respect free speech, I don't respect its selective invocation. I very much hope you are a true warrior of it, demanding that Youtube allows ISIS propaganda to propagate globally, and picking a fight with any verbally abused kid you see who wants his insulters to stop.
The main reason I defend free speech is for the marginalized voices, especially for those who risk death for the mere act of speaking. What I will not do is risk defending their right to speak because of the implications of free speech, that some bigot may find comfort in it down the road.
I do not agree that ISIS propaganda should be censored. I have read enough of it to know what my enemies believe, what they think of me, and how they aim to murder me. Those who cannot read it will continue to remain ignorant of it.
I don’t respect censorship. I suspect it, and those who preach it.
The main reason I defend free speech is for the marginalized voices,
Then it is strange that you are not on the side of the normalisation of language that recognises flaws in how we think about gender that undermine the disastrous effects of its norms. Maintaining a sense of linguistic decorum in the face of the measurable harm it causes should not be construed as noble.
But that's just the issue: if the speech is not completely, then coercion is in play.
At the very least, there is the reason/shame of being mistaken, the ethical question of speaking how one should. Even if we take a postion, for example, that some offensive comments can be uttered, we are still in a space of cocerion because the identification of them as offensive marks the utter as shameful. It's still the case one ought not be speaking that way, even if they are allowed to. Pressure of cocerion is being applied in the mere recognition of a vilification, falsehood or lie.
They ought not to be speaking in a manner that belittles or dehumanizes the trans person. On that we can agree. But we do no service to the trans person to coerce those who refuse to conform or agree with him. I’m not sure of the answer, but perhaps there are other remedies, and I believe on such remedy is championing the free speech of trans people.
Amplifying someone's voice != championing free speech. Free speech is already why they can say what they say, it's why we can have this discussion to begin with. You want to amplify their voice? Listen to their concerns and act in accord with them; form relationships of solidarity, think critically; what's needed is a new scalpel (critically motivated, recognition enabling vocabulary) rather than a redundant sledgehammer (the capacity to speak like that without punishment).
Why you frame your responses in this thread as an intent to amplify the free speech of gender non-conforming people rather than as an invocation of free speech to resist the perturbation of language norms is beyond me. It's like you're using free speech to marginalise someone; to stop them from articulating suffering so you do not have to accept it.
Amplifying someone's voice != championing free speech. Free speech is already why they can say what they say, it's why we can have this discussion to begin with. You want to amplify their voice? Listen to their concerns and act in accord with them; form relationships of solidarity, think critically; what's needed is a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer.
I’ve said nothing of “amplifying someone’s voice”. They can amplify their own voice, and I will defend to the death their right to do so. None of that means I have to “act in accord with them” or “form relationships of solidarity”, especially with people I do not know.
Why you frame your responses in this thread as an intent to amplify the free speech of gender non-conforming people rather than as an invocation of free speech to resist the perturbation of language norms is beyond me. It's like you're using free speech to marginalise someone; to stop them from articulating suffering so you do not have to accept it.
I have expressed no such intent, so anything that arises from this misrepresentation is more misrepresentation.
DingoJonesNovember 02, 2019 at 06:41#3479700 likes
I applaud your patience and calm responses sir, but I cant help but wonder why you keep at it. Neither of those two are really listening, and constantly use straw men In their “arguments”. Its just a bunch of self righteous douchery, id have given up long ago.
What are you getting out if it, if you dont mind me asking?
Deleted UserNovember 02, 2019 at 06:53#3479730 likes
Just use whatever their fucking name is. Gender is a social construct, biological sex isn’t. However I’d prefer not to be him, I’d just prefer my name to be used. If we can demand anything, it should just be our name. Impersonal language in my opinion is always kind of rude if not offensive whether you identify as a man, women or gender queer space dragon. Just tell us your name.
Why you frame your responses in this thread as an intent to amplify the free speech of gender non-conforming people rather than as an invocation of free speech to resist the perturbation of language norms is beyond me. It's like you're using free speech to marginalise someone; to stop them from articulating suffering so you do not have to accept it.
No one's voice should be amplified in a society where we are all equal and have free speech. That is something you don't seem to understand. Free speech doesn't mean that you get to use your emotional state to dictate what others can or can't say. It means that others can stay things that you don't agree with and you have to live with it or argue against it using logic, not your subjective emotional state, because everyone has subjective emotional states, so who's subjective emotional states win, and who decides? Logic should be the only process by which people's words are accepted or rejected.
Deleted UserNovember 02, 2019 at 14:30#3480510 likes
Logic should be the only process by which people's words are accepted or rejected.
It's your subjective emotional locus vis-a-vis logic that compels you to proclaim the preeminence of logic. You have a feeling that logic is of a higher order than a feeling.
Deleted UserNovember 02, 2019 at 14:32#3480530 likes
Just use whatever their fucking name is. Gender is a social construct, biological sex isn’t. However I’d prefer not to be him, I’d just prefer my name to be used. If we can demand anything, it should just be our name. Impersonal language in my opinion is always kind of rude if not offensive whether you identify as a man, women or gender queer space dragon. Just tell us your name.
It leads to bad speaking and writing no matter the concessions we make. Only using proper nouns would be repetitive and cumbersome. Pronouns are necessary to everyday conversation.
No one's voice should be amplified in a society where we are all equal and have free speech
Yes. Why do you think people want to have their voices amplified then? Say someone who's been skeptical of their gender from birth, but doesn't identify with the...
Wait you don't believe in that, either.
It's just another internet right talking point, and you're here to take the predictable line under the banner of truth and reason.
Terrapin StationNovember 02, 2019 at 18:57#3480980 likes
Um, you asked me what kind of kindess I value. There's not really any set criteria for the kindness I value. On what grounds can you say that it's not accurate to say that there's no set criteria for the kindness I value? You're claiming to know my mind better than I do?
I don't buy unconscious mental content, by the way.
Do you only show kindness to people who have earned your respect?
Right, so when I say there's no set criteria for it, really, that's what I mean. So no. And I don't necessarily show kindness in particular ways to people who have earned my respect, either. It depends on the situation, really, the way I feel at that moment, what's being asked, what's being interpreted as kindness--all sorts of things.
Deleted UserNovember 02, 2019 at 21:07#3481240 likes
Right, so when I say there's no set criteria for it, really, that's what I mean. So no. And I don't necessarily show kindness in particular ways to people who have earned my respect, either. It depends on the situation, really, the way I feel at that moment, what's being asked, what's being interpreted as kindness--all sorts of things.
It sounds like you're just not a very kind person. That squares with your other assertions above. Fin.
Terrapin StationNovember 02, 2019 at 21:09#3481260 likes
Say someone who's been skeptical of their gender from birth, but doesn't identify with the...
phhhtttttlmao - skeptical of their "gender" from birth? How do you know that a newborn that has just come out of it's mother is skeptical of it's gender when it doesn't even know it has arms and legs yet?
It's just another internet right talking point, and you're here to take the predictable line under the banner of truth and reason.
Well, yes. Just take your own argument and apply it to Christian vs. atheist debates, or "white privilege" debates where you can say what you want that offends others. If you were consistent, then we shouldn't be telling Christians that their god doesn't exist because it hurts their feelings, and we shouldn't be labeling others as racist because it offends them.
You seem to think free speech entails only saying things that don't hurt YOUR feelings, and to hell with everyone else's feelings that disagrees with you.
phhhtttttlmao - skeptical of their "gender" from birth? How do you know that a newborn that has just come out of it's mother is skeptical of it's gender when it doesn't even know it has arms and legs yet?
Calm down. From age 3. This happens. If you were interested in finding out anything about what you're criticising, you'd probably not have jumped on any chance to show the world I'm an idiot.
If you were consistent, then we shouldn't be telling Christians that their god doesn't exist because it hurts their feelings, and we shouldn't be labeling others as racist because it offends them.
How can I be consistent when you've decided what I've believed is inconsistent? You never actually go away and read anything about anything. I would love to have an informed discussion with you about this kind of thing, but you never want to inform yourself about the perspectives you're criticisng. You put accounts in some box purely of your own invention (well, your ideology's), decide what people are saying, then come in all guns blazing.
There is a place for that, sometimes, of course.
You're obviously not interested in having a "reasoned debate" on the topic. In which people at least understand the other's perspective and then criticise it. You're interested in a bloodsport of worldviews, that you're going to portray as the natural functioning of reason or logic, which is always in agreement with what you've decided is true beforehand. Funny that.
What terrible consequence happens if your ideological enemies win an internet argument? People use zir as a word? Jesus.
Harry HinduNovember 03, 2019 at 13:45#3482780 likes
Because they want special treatment, not equal treatment.
— Harry Hindu
Baseless assertion.
No it isn't. I don't make baseless assertions. I make assertions based on observation and logic. If you want people to change the words they use around certain people because of their feelings, then you should be applying that rule to everyone, not just those whose political ideology you support.
How can I be consistent when you've decided what I've believed is inconsistent? You never actually go away and read anything about anything. I would love to have an informed discussion with you about this kind of thing, but you never want to inform yourself about the perspectives you're criticisng. You accounts in some box purely of your own invention (well, your ideology's), decide what people are saying, then come in all guns blazing.
You're obviously not interested in having a "reasoned debate" on the topic. In which people at least understand the other's perspective and then criticise it. You're interested in a bloodsport of worldviews, that you're going to portray as the natural functioning of reason on logic, which is always in agreement with what you've decided is true beforehand. Funny that.
I only decide something after I have evidence, and you provided plenty of evidence that you aren't consistent. How would you know if I ever go away and read anything about anything? Talk about baseless assertions. You are consistent when your statements are consistent.
I take what you say, and ask you to clarify for consistency's sake, but you'd rather engage in ad hominems rather than answer the questions. They aren't rhetorical. Then need answers to make sense of what you already said. You seem to think that your words are religious gospel and uncontestable. I'm sorry to hurt your feelings. They aren't.
Harry HinduNovember 03, 2019 at 13:48#3482790 likes
Calm down. From age 3. This happens. If you were interested in finding out anything about what you're criticising, you'd probably not have jumped on any chance to show the world I'm an idiot.
You're the one not interested in finding out anything. You don't even wonder how it is even possible or coherent for a man to claim to be a woman. You simply take their word for it. Why don't you take a schizophrenic's word for it? Again, I'm asking for consistency in the application of your arguments.
Terrapin StationNovember 03, 2019 at 13:51#3482800 likes
If want people to change the words they use around certain people because of their feelings, then you should be applying that rule to everyone, not just those whose political ideology you support.
Yeah, I agree with this.
At that, I don't have any problem with the idea of someone being transgender, but I have no problem with the idea of someone thinking that they're really a dragon or a toaster or whatever. I'm not necessarily going to call them a dragon or toaster, but I don't have any problem with people thinking that.
Harry HinduNovember 03, 2019 at 13:52#3482810 likes
Say someone who's been skeptical of their gender from birth, but doesn't identify with the...
So I went away and did some reading by way of a Google search for "differences in gender brains" and can you guess what kind of search results I received? Why don't you go away and do the same thing and see if you get the same results and then come back here and lets have a reasonable discussion about it. :cool:
Harry HinduNovember 03, 2019 at 13:55#3482820 likes
At that, I don't have any problem with the idea of someone being transgender, but I have no problem with the idea of someone thinking that they're really a dragon or a toaster or whatever. I'm not necessarily going to call them a dragon or toaster, but I don't have any problem with people thinking that.
Sure, but like religion, they are trying to use the government to push their ideology and make it a crime to say certain things. That is when it crosses the line.
The social acceptance of new pronouns has never just been about the feelings of people involved. That's part of it, though. Enough of a part of it to inspire people to join political movements; being misgendered really matters to people darlings. But the people in those movements are campaigning for social recognition, to perturb norms to be more inclusive, in order to end discrimination against them for something as arbitrary as not fitting into how people think of gender, which does indeed have measureable social effects.
Gender nonconformity often leads to bullying and social exclusion; it leads to mental health disorders, it leads to workplace discrimination and hiring discrimination, it affects long term life outcomes pretty much everywhere. But it doesn't always, why? Why don't these people just "buck up" and accept their lot and work with it? Thing is, they already are. In some communities, gender nonconformity is a life or death matter. And that matters, because people's arbitrary social expectations should not inspire mistreatment of any demographic. This is the "we're all created equal"; but who we are is always to a greater or lesser degree in contrast with societal expectations. They shoulder all this while working like you do. Could you stand the same burden? I doubt it, we'd crumple like the sensitive little flowers we are.
Think of a societal expectation as a norm of interpretation; a prediction of someone's behaviour; they are also of course moral standards; if you do not behave consistently with society's norms, you will face social costs. Whether this is socially excluding the tomboy, beating the shit out of a guy at school for being "gay" because he seems feminine, or a trans woman losing a loving relationship just because "they're really a man".
This latter point, necessarily dichotomising people into genders and the normative consequences that entails based on sex is usually something which is presented as a consequence of a reactionary belief system, but should really be seen as a premise rooted in avoidance of punishment for society's norms shifting underneath them. It is a transference mechanism to avoid that vaunted conservative sense of social responsibility even applying to shifting their worldview. If these people cared about truth, they would fess up to their obvious mistakes in public. "This threatens society" <=> "This threatens me". It is a self defending response to something which, if they would only be more logical and observant, could be challenged; and a more informed, inclusive worldview would result. Alas, it is not. These people would burn the world and harm those in it because it does not satisfy their expectations; they are triggered by the fact that they are involved in systems of suppression and subjugation. But they will never thematise their response as emotionally driven; reason for them here is little more than an identity signifier and a defense mechanism. It's just tribalism expressing itself through stupidly motivated arguments, fisking condescension, and a total inability to consistently argue the same points.
Then there's the equal under the law stuff; hiring policies are written to be gender neutral, for example, but this does not imply that hiring is gender unprejudiced (see the article "Discriminating Systems" for a thorough data driven treatment of the issue). When even fucking Google and Facebook know that gender archetypes negatively impact their talent acquisition, one wonders why it is so difficult for people on the internet right to think in these terms.
Underneath all this is a state of prelapsarian (white, almost always male) bliss, a garden of Eden absent from politics that classifies anything which would perturb the current social order as political; as inappropriate state or community interventions; but the forces which to benefit of the people I'm criticising maintain the present social order and their place in it. Inappropriate political action is just that which does not maintain my "rightful" (pfft, entitled buggers) place in things. This is only sustainable by a blinkering of perspective away from systemic issues; which is funny, as political leaders have to be able to think like that about social issues. Think structurally, not personally, and allow suffering to speak.
The apoplectic resistance any systemic critique encounters by the internet right stems from an obvious failure of thought which absolves them from a guilty conscience; don't worry, mummy's already made the bad things go away, they don't exist because they're logically impossible. But you, dear reader, need not feel guilty. Just try and be better in what limited ways you can! And it's hard!
So this is ultimately why internet reactionaries are drawn like flies to the same topics. They don't need to have a consistent worldview to defend themselves; it's a a panic response expressing itself through white nerd rage. You don't need to panic, the world will be better eventually since you're wrong.
It ain't the left who're triggered, darlings.
Terrapin StationNovember 03, 2019 at 15:58#3483020 likes
I feel like I've been here before, but this is a pernicious myth. It is not feelings which are determining truth at any point. One's feelings are just one sense of what's happening.
We might say they are the means by which one knows their sex or gender. Any time we understand something we have a similar sort of feeling, that specfic meanings are of certain things or events.
Like these many other situations, what makes a gender or sex true is not a fact someone feels it, but a truth of sex or gender itself about the particualr person in question. We are bound to recognise trans people not because they feel a certain way, but instead because it is true they have a particualr idenity.
When we misgender a person, we are telling a falsehood about their idenity. We are claiming their idenity is something which it is not.
Deleted UserNovember 03, 2019 at 21:08#3483620 likes
I started a thread on the subject so you can get a broader look at a range of opinions.
I don't know what's difficult to understand about me asking YOU what YOU accept as plausible evidence of unconscious mental content, but apparently it's difficult to understand.
So far the consensus is that your question doesn't make sense.
You said that you accept that there's unconscious mental content. If you think the idea of that doesn't make sense, then it wouldn't make sense to say that there is such a thing. If you think it makes sense and you think there is such a thing as unconscious mental content, then presumably you could tell me what YOU accept as plausible evidence of it.
It's a simple question. I'm sick of playing these sorts of stupid games online where someone can't answer a simple question.
How am I going to have an interesting/worthwhile conversation with you when you can't even answer a simple question about what you accept as support as something that you said you buy? I've got a play a game trying to get you to answer the question. It's like trying to take a journey with someone and they want to play a game to get their shoe on first.
Deleted UserNovember 03, 2019 at 23:46#3483970 likes
The unconscious mind (or the unconscious) consists of the processes in the mind which occur automatically and are not available to introspection, and include thought processes, memories, interests, and motivations.[1]
Even though these processes exist well under the surface of conscious awareness, they are theorized to exert an impact on behavior. The term was coined by the 18th-century German Romantic philosopher Friedrich Schelling and later introduced into English by the poet and essayist Samuel Taylor Coleridge.[2][3]
Empirical evidence suggests that unconscious phenomena include repressed feelings, automatic skills, subliminal perceptions, and automatic reactions,[1] and possibly also complexes, hidden phobias, and desires.
The concept was popularized by the Austrian neurologist and psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. In psychoanalytic theory, unconscious processes are understood to be directly represented in dreams, as well as in slips of the tongue and jokes.
Thus the unconscious mind can be seen as the source of dreams and automatic thoughts (those that appear without any apparent cause), the repository of forgotten memories (that may still be accessible to consciousness at some later time), and the locus of implicit knowledge (the things that we have learned so well that we do them without thinking).
It has been argued that consciousness is influenced by other parts of the mind. These include unconsciousness as a personal habit, being unaware, and intuition. Phenomena related to semi-consciousness include awakening, implicit memory, subliminal messages, trances, hypnagogia, and hypnosis. While sleep, sleepwalking, dreaming, delirium, and comas may signal the presence of unconscious processes, these processes are seen as symptoms rather than the unconscious mind itself.
Some critics have doubted the existence of the unconscious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_mind
Deleted UserNovember 03, 2019 at 23:49#3483990 likes
How am I going to have an interesting/worthwhile conversation with you...
I'm not interested in debating the existence of unconscious mental content so you're not "going to have an interesting/worthwhile conversation with [me]" on this subject.
Deleted UserNovember 03, 2019 at 23:51#3484000 likes
If you think the idea of that doesn't make sense, then it wouldn't make sense to say that there is such a thing.
I didn't say the idea of unconscious mental content doesn't make sense. I said the consensus on the thread I created (so far) is that your question doesn't make sense.
Your question is: What is the empirical evidence for unconscious mental content?
I don't agree that your question doesn't make sense. As I've said a number of times: I'm not interested in having a debate about the existence of unconscious mental content. It seems really, really silly to me.
Deleted UserNovember 03, 2019 at 23:53#3484010 likes
So then why, when I said, "I don't buy unconscious mental content, by the way," did you quote that and start responding to it instead of arguing about kindness and its connection to the pronoun debate?
Deleted UserNovember 04, 2019 at 00:36#3484140 likes
So then why, when I said, "I don't buy unconscious mental content, by the way," did you quote that and start responding to it instead of arguing about kindness and its connection to the pronoun debate?
Just an aside.
I gave you my opinion: If you don't believe in unconscious mental content, you likely haven't read very deeply in psychology and have likely expended very little effort in analyzing your own mind.
I'm not interested in defending my position. Unconscious mental content is widely accepted and in my opinion isn't worth defending. If you don't believe in these things, you have your reasons. But I'm not interested in your reasons.
Terrapin StationNovember 04, 2019 at 00:38#3484150 likes
If you don't believe in unconscious mental content, you likely haven't read very deeply in psychology and have likely expended very little effort in analyzing your own mind.
The irony here is amusing.
Deleted UserNovember 04, 2019 at 00:57#3484160 likes
If you'd like to defend your naysay vis-a-vis a phenomenon almost universally accepted in modern psychology, I'm listening.
For example: If an obscure memory of trick-or-treating with my mom as a child blipped into consciousness three days ago on Halloween, 2019, in what sense was this memory, prior to its arising, conscious?
If (as you say) you don't believe in unconscious mental content, then all mental content must be, at all times, conscious. In what sense was an obscure memory of trick-or-treating with my mom as a child conscious when there was no consciousness of it? In short, how can what was unconscious be said to be conscious?
These are the kinds of ludicrosities your position gives rise to.
Deleted UserNovember 04, 2019 at 01:00#3484170 likes
Again from the wiki page: The Unconscious Mind.
The unconscious mind (or the unconscious) consists of the processes in the mind which occur automatically and are not available to introspection, and include thought processes, memories, interests, and motivations.
Deleted UserNovember 04, 2019 at 01:09#3484180 likes
A preemption: A wide variety of memories "are not available to introspection" but rather blip into consciousness by way of an unknown mechanism and impetus. See Proust et al for details.
Deleted UserNovember 04, 2019 at 01:14#3484210 likes
So then why, when I said, "I don't buy unconscious mental content, by the way," did you quote that and start responding to it instead of arguing about kindness and its connection to the pronoun debate?
Also I felt it was important to assert (having a passion for psychology) that although you have no criteria, visible in consciousness, for the application of kindness, you certainly have unconscious criteria. There is in every case some methodology - of which you confess unconsciousness - arbitrating your choice to be kind or to be unkind.
Terrapin StationNovember 04, 2019 at 13:39#3485370 likes
If an obscure memory of trick-or-treating with my mom as a child blipped into consciousness three days ago on Halloween, 2019, in what sense was this memory, prior to its arising, conscious?
What would be the reason to believe that prior to it "blipping into your consciousness," it exists as the memory--with just the same qualities it has when you're aware of it--with the only difference being that you're not aware of it? It's making an analogy to something like a paper in a folder in a filing cabinet, where you can then open the filing cabinet, pull out the paper and look at it. What's the justification for analogies like that, though? It's not as if it's the case for all phenomena that it always exists more or less the same, just it's often hiding.
For example, take a car alarm. Is it always going off, just most of the time it's going off in hiding? And then it blips wholesale into something no longer in hiding? Or is the car alarm something that only sounds when it's in a particular dynamic state, and when it's silent, it simply has the potential to be in that state (because the of structure of the materials, and the possible states it can be in as a result of those materials and structures), but it's not actually in that state (in hiding)?
When we misgender a person, we are telling a falsehood about their idenity. We are claiming their idenity is something which it is not.
I just want to get a grasp on this point. Is this falsehood about their identity false because only they can determine their identity, and therefor what is true or false about it?
Harry HinduNovember 04, 2019 at 16:42#3485990 likes
I feel like I've been here before, but this is a pernicious myth. It is not feelings which are determining truth at any point. One's feelings are just one sense of what's happening.
You feel like you've been here before because you say the same thing in every similar thread and when I respond to it, you ignore it and then repeat yourself in the next thread.
We might say they are the means by which one knows their sex or gender. Any time we understand something we have a similar sort of feeling, that specfic meanings are of certain things or events.
Like these many other situations, what makes a gender or sex true is not a fact someone feels it, but a truth of sex or gender itself about the particualr person in question. We are bound to recognise trans people not because they feel a certain way, but instead because it is true they have a particualr idenity.
When we misgender a person, we are telling a falsehood about their idenity. We are claiming their idenity is something which it is not.
And I already pointed out that people's own identities about themselves can be wrong. Some people are delusional. Some people think that they are a special creation of some god. Telling them that they aren't is no different than telling a man who thinks he's a woman that he isn't. I can't make him believe that. He has to come to that realization himself, but he can't make me use words that don't represent my identity. I am a man - a human male. His declaration of being a woman makes my (and everyone else who identifies the same), use of the word, "man" and "woman" incoherent.
but he can't make me use words that don't represent my identity. I am a man - a human male.
I guess your identity comes directly from your dick. That fits. Although for most people, there's this thing called society that gets in between dangly bits and their identity-forming powers.
Deleted UserNovember 04, 2019 at 21:54#3487240 likes
with just the same qualities it has when you're aware of it--with the only difference being that you're not aware of it?
From your statement it appears you do believe in unconscious mental content. But you have a question about the form it takes.
Its form is unknown. It's safe to say it isn't like a filing cabinet. It may be more like a digital file stored on a hard drive. But, again, its form is unknown. (I certainly never asserted my memory exists in identical form in its conscious and unconscious states.)
Analogies are always imprecise.
Terrapin StationNovember 04, 2019 at 21:58#3487260 likes
And I already pointed out that people's own identities about themselves can be wrong. Some people are delusional. Some people think that they are a special creation of some god. Telling them that they aren't is no different than telling a man who thinks he's a woman that he isn't.
Is it? For example, a transwoman's belief that she is a woman is not really like a delusional belief: It is an inherent aspect of the person that believes it and it comes from a psychological/neurological difference from the others that it is a core aspect of it -it is not simply someone believing an extraordinary thing later in life (and it is also based around a more defensible claim, i.e. their gender is different).
In your example, them believing they are a special creation of some god (assuming it is not an unrelated insult at religions and it is about a person who believes they were created by god in a particularly very special fashion) is not a core aspect of the person- it would not have been that way if the culture was different, they would have believed something extraordinary instead. But the transwoman would have still believed only that and, if she was allowed to transition, would not have gone back to being a man after some consideration. If you fed into a delusional person's beliefs, they would have only grown more unstable and not more stable. That is not what we observe with trans people unless discrimination is involved.
He has to come to that realization himself, but he can't make me use words that don't represent my identity. I am a man - a human male. His declaration of being a woman makes my (and everyone else who identifies the same), use of the word, "man" and "woman" incoherent.
That's mainly because you (and everyone else who identifiesthe same) equate being a man with having certain genitals and being a woman with having another set of genitals. Of course, from that perspective, that person will be a "man"-but a man that dresses like a woman, sounds like a woman, literally has boobs and the curves of a woman, has a generally feminine body and prefers to be on the girl side of things nonetheless.
I would say that a social perspective of gender ("gender as a social construct") can more accurately represent those kinds of situtations than a simple biological definition.
Terrapin StationNovember 04, 2019 at 23:12#3487630 likes
Do you accept that an obscure memory ("not available to introspection") can blip into consciousness?
You can suddenly have a memory. There is nothing like a memory, with the same qualities that you're aware of when you're aware of a memory, that's present in your mind that you're just not aware of at other times however.
Deleted UserNovember 04, 2019 at 23:20#3487720 likes
It's not anything like mental content when unconscious. Hence there isn't unconscious mental content.
Mental content is phenomena such as thoughts, desires, ideas, concepts, propositional attitudes, etc.
It's just like the car alarm (as a particular sort of sound) is not anything like that sound when the alarm is not going off. It's not that the sound is present but just hidden.
Deleted UserNovember 04, 2019 at 23:33#3487810 likes
It's not anything like mental content when unconscious
I've already agreed the memory in question takes a different form in its conscious and unconscious states. When I'm unconscious of the obscure memory in question it isn't floating around in my mind in an unconscious state. But it certainly is in my mind. It's stored in my mind and can be retrieved.
Does the hard drive analogy help?
A file saved on a hard drive is certainly digital content. The file as it appears on the screen is also digital content.
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 00:13#3488030 likes
You claim it isn't mental content. So I have to ask: Is it nonmental content?
If it's nonmental content, what specific kind of nonmental content is it?
You'd have nonmental potentials, which amount to specific brain states (structures and processes that can respond in specific dynamic ways), that can result in mental content, which is necessarily conscious. Again, it's just like a car alarm, where particular structures/processes can respond in specific dynamic ways to produce a sound.
In fact, all I have to do to explode your definition of mental content is add - memories.
It wasn't an exhaustive list. And sure, memories are an example. Again, there's no reason to believe that there are unconscious memories.
Most people would probably say that there are unconscious thoughts, desires, etc. too. Unconscious, or colloquially, "subconscious" mental content is a very popular idea.
The definition wasn't gerrymandered to pick out only uncontroversially-conscious phenomena. If there were unconscious mental phenomena, unconscious desires, thoughts, memories, etc. would be an example.
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 00:44#3488180 likes
You'd have nonmental potentials, which amount to specific brain states...
What I call "unconscious mental content" you call "brain states with the potential to create mental content." You leap from the psychological to the physical to avoid using a phrase that rings nonsensical to you. I prefer to describe the mind without referencing the physical.
The mind is mysterious. There's no one right way to describe it. Your way is fine and my way is fine.
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 00:54#3488210 likes
You'd have nonmental potentials, which amount to specific brain states (structures and processes that can respond in specific dynamic ways), that can result in mental content
One trouble with leaping from the psychological to the physical in a description of the mind is - one is no longer describing the mind.
I say obscure memories ("not available to introspection" - the blipping kind of memory) are "unconscious mental content." I'm describing some facet of the mind.
You reduce this sort of memory to a brain state. You're no longer describing the mind. It's a kind of surrender.
Unless for you minds and brains are the same. That happens too.
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 00:55#3488230 likes
What I call "unconscious mental content" you call "brain states with the potential to create mental content." You leap from the psychological to the physical to avoid using a phrase that rings nonsensical to you. I prefer to describe the mind without referencing the physical.
I'm a physicalist. I don't think anything about mind is nonphysical. I'm not "leaping to the physical." I think the idea of nonphysical >>whatevers<< is incoherent.
What I'm describing as potentials etc. isn't anything qualitatively like mental states (which are purely physical), so I'm not about to start calling them mental states.
Again, this is why I'm using the car alarm analogy. There's nothing controversial about that only being physical. It shouldn't be hard to understand that it isn't the case that the sound is present at all times but just hidden most of the time. And there's nothing qualitatively like the sound as a property of the alarm when the alarm isn't going off. So it would be silly to call certain states of the non-sounding alarm something like the "inaudible alarm." (Using "alarm" there in the sense of the sound it makes when triggered.)
That's an extreme variety of physicalism. I suppose if you hold the image of a tree in your mind you make the attempt via the intellect to reduce this tree-thought to its physical counterpart. But, of course, the tree-thought itself is nonphysical. (I suppose you disagree.)
The tree-thought exists and the brain state giving rise to the tree-thought exists. One is psychical and one is physical. (I suppose you disagree.)
To reduce the mind to physicality is to fatally limit your scope of exploration. It's a dogmatism and hence fatally limiting.
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 01:11#3488270 likes
But to return to your criteria for practicing kindness. Let me use your language:
You may think you have no set criteria for practicing kindness but in fact there is a particular concatenation and mechanism of neurons and other unspecified brainstuffs that determine when you will and when you will not practice kindness.
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 03:05#3488490 likes
That's an extreme variety of physicalism. I suppose if you hold the image of a tree in your mind you make the attempt via the intellect to reduce this tree-thought to something physical. But, of course, the tree-thought itself is nonphysical. (I suppose you disagree.)
The tree-thought exists and the brain state giving rise to the tree-thought exists. One is psychological and one is physical. (I suppose you disagree.)
To reduce the mind to physicality is to fatally limit your scope of exploration. It's a dogmatism and hence fatally limiting.
Yes, I disagree. I think everything is physical, and I don't deny thoughts or anything psychological, so I think psychological phenomena are physical.
Again, I'd say that the very notion of nonphysical >>whatevers<< is incoherent.
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 03:09#3488520 likes
You may think you have no set criteria for practicing kindness but in fact there is a particular concatenation and mechanism of neurons and other unspecified brainstuffs that determine when you will and when you will not practice kindness.
I don't buy determinism, either, but at any rate, non-mental reasons for something aren't "criteria for kindness." Criteria for kindness would refer to reasons that we can practically state as sentences, reasoned or emoted conditions, etc.
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 03:35#3488540 likes
Let's suppose you decide to be unkind to X. You're conscious of no special criteria underpinning your decision to be unkind. You're curious about this and devote long, painstaking hours to self-examination. After a period of introspection you realize Y is why you made the decision to be unkind.
That's what I mean by unconscious criteria.
To use your language (supposing throughout that minds and thoughts are brains and brainstates, respectively):
A certain brain-state was present at the time I made my decision to be unkind. I was at that time unaware of the relationship of this brain-state to the decision to be unkind. After long hours of self-examination, I discovered brain-state-Y to be present at the moment of my decision to be unkind. At the moment I made the decision to be unkind I believed there was no special criteria, but through introspection I've learned that brain-state-Y underpinned my decision to be unkind.
Again: This is what I mean by unconscious criteria.
Harry HinduNovember 05, 2019 at 12:13#3489380 likes
I guess your identity comes directly from your dick. That fits. Although for most people, there's this thing called society that gets in between dangly bits and their identity-forming powers.
As I said, I'm a man - a human male. So there was more to my identity than my dick. My first identity was that of a human with my sex being secondary.
It's no surprise that sex was the first thing to come to your mind - as if sexual identity trumps species identity. The authoritarian left has this fetish with sexual identities.
You have the additional problem of your argument getting in the way of everyone's identity forming - including "transgenders". Your argument supports the idea that society, not the individuals, form identities of individuals. So, how is that a man can identify as a woman, and society not get in the way of their identity-forming? You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
What is it about religion and politics that makes people throw logic and reason out the window?
Harry HinduNovember 05, 2019 at 12:21#3489400 likes
Is it? For example, a transwoman's belief that she is a woman is not really like a delusional belief: It is an inherent aspect of the person that believes it and it comes from a psychological/neurological difference from the others that it is a core aspect of it -it is not simply someone believing an extraordinary thing later in life (and it is also based around a more defensible claim, i.e. their gender is different).
In your example, them believing they are a special creation of some god (assuming it is not an unrelated insult at religions and it is about a person who believes they were created by god in a particularly very special fashion) is not a core aspect of the person- it would not have been that way if the culture was different, they would have believed something extraordinary instead. But the transwoman would have still believed only that and, if she was allowed to transition, would not have gone back to being a man after some consideration. If you fed into a delusional person's beliefs, they would have only grown more unstable and not more stable. That is not what we observe with trans people unless discrimination is involved.
That's mainly because you (and everyone else who identifiesthe same) equate being a man with having certain genitals and being a woman with having another set of genitals. Of course, from that perspective, that person will be a "man"-but a man that dresses like a woman, sounds like a woman, literally has boobs and the curves of a woman, has a generally feminine body and prefers to be on the girl side of things nonetheless.
I would say that a social perspective of gender ("gender as a social construct") can more accurately represent those kinds of situtations than a simple biological definition.
It would have been different in another culture. Just ask anyone around these parts and they will tell you that gender is a social construction. That means, that in order to change one's gender, they'd have to change their culture that they were raised in, not their clothes. In the same vein, religious people would have to change the culture that they were raised in order to have a different religion.
So, is "gender" a social construction, or a individual feeling? If is it an individual feeling, then how does a man know what it feels like to be a woman to claim that they are a woman? These are very basic questions that everyone should be asking, but they don't because they have an emotional attachment to their political beliefs, no different than a religious person.
You don't seem to understand what a social construction is. It is a shared assumption about others identities, which means that it comes from society, not the individual. Also, these assumptions can be wrong AND SEXIST. The assumption that a person wearing a dress is automatically a woman is wrong AND SEXIST. A man can wear dresses and still be a man. You're conflating the shared assumption of an individual with the actual physical characteristics of that individual and promoting SEXISM.
1) Society mediates biological identity.
2) The subject is socially embedded.
3) What do you disagree with re 1) and 2)? And how does what I said exclude personal psychological input into identity formation?
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 12:43#3489510 likes
Let's suppose you decide to be unkind to X. You're conscious of no special criteria underpinning your decision to be unkind. You're curious about this and devote long, painstaking hours to self-examination. After a period of introspection you realize Y is why you made the decision to be unkind.
On my view, what people are doing in that situation is making up a reason to "explain" why they did the behavior they did, because they have a belief that there should be a (stateable-in-a-"reasoned"-sentence) explanation for everything, and for some unknown, irrational reason, people have a tendency to think that there always need to be one or two "background" reasons, but that there do not need to be one or two "background" reasons for the background reasons.
A certain brain-state was present at the time I made my decision to be unkind. I was at that time unaware of the relationship of this brain-state to the decision to be unkind. After long hours of self-examination, I discovered brain-state-Y to be present at the moment of my decision to be unkind. At the moment I made the decision to be unkind I believed there was no special criteria, but through introspection I've learned that brain-state-Y underpinned my decision to be unkind.
Again, "Criteria for kindness would refer to reasons that we can practically state as sentences, reasoned or emoted conditions, etc.," which the brain states in question wouldn't be. They're not mental brain states.
And that is if the antecedent brain states are even causal to the behavior in question. Again, I don't buy determinism.
That's why I mentioned all of that in the first place. Either you're ignoring what I said or you don't understand it.
Harry HinduNovember 05, 2019 at 12:47#3489530 likes
1) Society mediates biological identity.
2) The subject is socially embedded.
3) What do you disagree with re 1) and 2)? And how does what I said exclude personal psychological input into identity formation?
I don't agree with 1 or 2.
Natural selection mediates biological identity and by extension, social interactions.
What does it even mean to be a "subject" that is socially embedded?
I already explained how your personal psychological input is excluded from identity formation. Based on your own arguments, it is a social construction and it is the identity that society is assuming of a person that is sexist. So transgenders are reinforcing sexist assumptions of the society they are in.
Natural selection mediates biological identity and by extension, social interactions.
This has nothing to do with natural selection. We're presuming the existence of humans of both sexes. So, I'll try again. To start off: Society, at whatever level, is involved in forming the identity of individual humans? Yes or no?
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 12:55#3489580 likes
Do you realize that I asked a simpler question above in order to begin the process of clarification? Do you realize that above you answered that simpler question intended to help clarify things with another question? Do you understand that I'm aware that you use this tactic all the time to avoid addressing issues and waste other posters' time?
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 13:05#3489640 likes
So no. You're not capable of clarifying the claim you're making. Maybe work on being able to articulate your ideas better. Try writing (and try publishing because that will push you more) some of your ideas out as a paper, so that you need to be clear and detailed about what you're claiming without interacting with others. That will help you be able to articulate your ideas better.
You're on Chrome extension ignore now. Harry Hindu, if you're capable, answer the question.
Don't get pissy with other people just because you can't articulate your ideas well. Work on yourself instead.
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 13:14#3489670 likes
This is a good example of why this forum can be so frustrating. I'm interested in the claim you're making, but it's not clear to me. So I ask for clarification, and because you can't articulate your ideas well--can't explain them in other words, in more detail, etc., you get defensive and pissy about it, and then it's just ego battle crap and a waste of time.
HereToDisscussNovember 05, 2019 at 13:50#3489880 likes
No, the core part would have been the same-to "be a woman." The difference lies in different cultures having different established social rules on what women should do.Quoting Harry Hindu
Just ask anyone around these parts and they will tell you that gender is a social construction. That means, that in order to change one's gender, they'd have to change their culture that they were raised in, not their clothes. In the same vein, religious people would have to change the culture that they were raised in order to have a different religion.
Or change how they talk, act and sound to that of a the other gender's-the subtle differences that makes someone of a gender along with the more usual ones.
That isn't contrary to what i said.Quoting Harry Hindu
So, is "gender" a social construction, or a individual feeling? If is it an individual feeling, then how does a man know what it feels like to be a woman to claim that they are a woman? These are very basic questions that everyone should be asking, but they don't because they have an emotional attachment to their political beliefs, no different than a religious person.
It is both. You have to both act and look the way of the other gender (and no, acting masculine/feminine is not what i'm talking about, but rather what makes someone recognize,in a social setting, someone else as a male or a female) and feel that way. Albeit the individual feeling comes first since it determines which way one should act.
As for the question, "feeling like a woman" is not really seen as that much of a real thing anyways-even by trans people as far as i'm aware. It is rather a feeling that tells you that you are a woman deep inside and you are of the other gender. A feeling of connection to the idea of being a woman. "It just feels right."
You don't seem to understand what a social construction is. It is a shared assumption about others identities, which means that it comes from society, not the individual. Also, these assumptions can be wrong AND SEXIST. The assumption that a person wearing a dress is automatically a woman is wrong AND SEXIST. A man can wear dresses and still be a man. You're conflating the shared assumption of an individual with the actual physical characteristics of that individual and promoting SEXISM.
Well, i apologize. Using "social construct" when i was just talking about how we use it in a social setting (which, to clarify, is what i'm asserting is more accurate) was clearly wrong on my behalf-albeit i do not get how i'm promoting sexism since i was not talking about people acting stereotypically like the other gender. (In your example, that is still a man since he, even if we grant that he can make a woman's voice and can look like a woman, does not "act that way" and does not feel that way.)
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 13:51#3489890 likes
From this statement it appears you don't accept that a person can engage in self-examination to learn more about his past behavior.
They're not going to learn something like, "I did x because I think y," where at the time they did x, T1, there was no thought like y present to their consciousness. They'd be making up the notion, at time T2, that they thought y at time T1 (but they just weren't aware of it at T1). It's a fiction.
You don't believe that brain states cause behavior?
They can, but they don't necessarily. There's no reason to believe that some events can't occur acausally (including probabilistically but not ultimately causally).
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 14:00#3489950 likes
That's a dogmatic assertion that you can't possibly defend (except with more dogma).
The way it's defended is that there's zero evidence of y being present at T1. There would need to be some evidence of it being present at T1 in order to not say it's a fiction.
Is this your belief or is this the absolute truth of the situation?
"Absolute truth" is a nonsensical phrase. There's no reason to believe that something else is the case in lieu of any evidence that something else is the case.
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 14:29#3490120 likes
Sure. so how would you finish this sentence: "Socialization mediates biological identity by ________"?
...the process of internalizing the norms and ideologies of society. Socialization encompasses both learning and teaching and is thus "the means by which social and cultural continuity are attained".[1]:5[2]
Socialization is strongly connected to developmental psychology.[3] Humans need social experiences to learn their culture and to survive.[4]
Socialization essentially represents the whole process of learning throughout the life course and is a central influence on the behavior, beliefs, and actions of adults as well as of children.[5][6]
Socialization may lead to desirable outcomes—sometimes labeled "moral"—as regards the society where it occurs. Individual views are influenced by the society's consensus and usually tend toward what that society finds acceptable or "normal". Socialization provides only a partial explanation for human beliefs and behaviors, maintaining that agents are not blank slates predetermined by their environment;[7] scientific research provides evidence that people are shaped by both social influences and genes.[8][9][10][11]
Genetic studies have shown that a person's environment interacts with his or her genotype to influence behavioral outcomes.[12]
Wiki
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 14:30#3490130 likes
The way it's defended is that there's zero evidence of y being present at T1. There would need to be some evidence of it being present at T1 in order to not say it's a fiction.
There's plenty of evidence vis-a-vis the continuity of personality.
Through self-examination I discover that at T2, T3, T4 and T5 I behaved in such and such a way in light of thought-pattern X.
Considering T1, and noting its similarities to T2, T3, T4 and T5, I hypothesize that thought-pattern X was at play at that time as well.
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 14:33#3490150 likes
So if you're defining "personality" conventionally, this:
===================================
To this:
Through self-examination I discover that at T2, T3, T4 and T5 I behaved in such and such a way in light of thought-pattern X.
Considering T1, and noting its similarities to T2, T3, T4 and T5, I hypothesize that thought-pattern X was at play at that time as well.
===================================
Has nothing to do with "continuity of personality"
Explain what you take issue with in this scenario:
We're getting to it. I won't do more than one "issue" at a time. You mentioned "continuity of personality" first. And you just introduced a whole host of other issues that we have to cover first, because we're now much further away from talking about how observables would count as "continuity of personality" than we were a few steps ago.
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 14:46#3490220 likes
So if you're defining "personality" conventionally, this:
===================================
To this:
Through self-examination I discover that at T2, T3, T4 and T5 I behaved in such and such a way in light of thought-pattern X.
Considering T1, and noting its similarities to T2, T3, T4 and T5, I hypothesize that thought-pattern X was at play at that time as well.
===================================
Has nothing to do with "continuity of personality"
Okay. I disagree but it's not important. Moving on.
Please explain what you take issue with in this scenario:
At T2, T3, T4 and T5 I behaved in such and such a way in light of thought-pattern X. Thought-pattern X was present and conscious at T2, T3, T4 and T5.
Considering T1, and noting its similarities to T2, T3, T4 and T5, I hypothesize that thought-pattern X was in play at that time as well.
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 14:47#3490230 likes
It was conscious at those times? Okay. And we're saying that to that person's mind, at those times, they acted in such and such way because of thought-pattern x?
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 14:53#3490270 likes
It was conscious at those times? Okay. And we're saying that to that person's mind, at those times, they acted in such and such way because of thought-pattern x?
Not necessarily because of. Possibly because of. Definitely in correlation with.
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 14:54#3490280 likes
Okay, so at another time, where X isn't consciously present, we're saying that it was unconsciously present because we believe in induction (with respect to sameness) strongly enough when there's similarity that we're willing to posit thoughts that we aren't aware of?
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 15:01#3490300 likes
Okay, so at another time, where X isn't present, we're saying that it was because we believe in induction strongly enough when there's similarity that we're willing to posit thoughts that we aren't aware of?
I might substitute "conscious" for "present".
And instead of "thoughts that we aren't aware of" I might say "unconscious cognitive structures that may or may not give rise to conscious thought-pattern X." It's the same to say thought-pattern X is "in play." via "unconscious cognitive structures."
The power of attention comes into play here.
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 15:03#3490320 likes
So at T1 brain-state X is unconscious to you. At T2, T3, T4 and T5, brain-state Y is conscious to you. You note the similarities between T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 and hypothesize that brain-state X may be similiar to brainstate Y, the central distinction being, possibly, that at T1 I was unconscious of the nature of brainstate X.
What do you take issue with here?
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 15:15#3490410 likes
"Strength of an analogy
Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy:
The relevance (positive or negative) of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion.[2][3]
The degree of relevant similarity (or dissimilarity) between the two objects.[2]
The amount and variety of instances that form the basis of the analogy.[2]"
Noting that there's an ontological difference between A and B is irrelevant to whether the analogy works. It's stupid to suggest that it's relevant. Analogized things are necessarily different ontologically, otherwise it's not an analogy. You need to be able to focus on what's being analogized, not irrelevant ontological differences.
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 15:19#3490460 likes
There's going to be some state as long as there's a brain, sure. What are we using for evidence of the state in question, and what does it have to do with anything cognitive or conscious if we're not aware of it?
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 15:20#3490470 likes
There's going to be some state as long as there's a brain, sure.
So let's call it brain-state X.
Again:
So at T1 brain-state X is unconscious to you. At T2, T3, T4 and T5, brain-state Y is conscious to you. You note the similarities between T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 and hypothesize that brain-state X may be similiar to brainstate Y, the central distinction being, possibly, that at T1 you were unconscious of the nature of brainstate X.
What do you take issue with here?
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 15:22#3490480 likes
So at T1 brain-state X is unconscious to you. At T2, T3, T4 and T5, brain-state Y is conscious to you. You note the similarities between T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 and hypothesize that brain-state X may be similiar to brainstate Y, the central distinction being, possibly, that at T1 you were unconscious of the nature of brainstate X.
The next problem: what similarities are we noting? You're saying something about similarities, but you're not saying what's supposed to be similar. Similarities of brain states? To whom?
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 15:25#3490490 likes
The next problem: what similarities are we noting? You're saying something about similarities, but you're not saying what's supposed to be similar. Similarities of brain states? To whom?
Sorry, I'm not answering your questions until you've answered mine.
What do you take issue with in the above scenario?
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 15:25#3490500 likes
"The next problem" should cue you in to the fact that that's something I take issue with.
We're not going to add that you have reading comprehension problems to the rest of this now, are we? I'm so tired of the complete bullshit way that folks like you try to have conversations online.
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 15:30#3490520 likes
We're looking at a logical abstraction. It isn't necessary to know what the similarities are. What do you take issue with in the logic of this abstraction?
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 15:30#3490530 likes
So you're incapable of specifying any sort of similarity we could be noting?
I'm interested in the logic of the abstraction. Not in filling in the variables.
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 15:34#3490600 likes
"You note the similarities between T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 " -- it can't be the person who had the conscious thoughts at T2, T3, etc. noting similarities of the conscious thoughts and X at T1, because they're not similar.
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 15:35#3490610 likes
If it's supposed to be someone noting the similarities of the brain states from a third-person observational perspective, then we could specify that easily enough, but we'd have to justify how they're warranted in making a conclusion about there being mental content at T1 when the person with the brain in question wasn't aware of mental content at T1.
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 15:38#3490620 likes
Without bogging down the discussion by filling in variables, is there something you take issue with in the logical form of the abstraction?
I just pointed out the problems with it. If you want to just ignore that, I guess you can. That would suck from any sort of conversational or philosophical standpoint though.
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 15:42#3490640 likes
I just pointed out the problems with it. If you want to just ignore that, I guess you can. That would suck from any sort of conversational or philosophical standpoint though.
The logical form. The logical structure. What do you take issue with in the logical form or structure?
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 15:44#3490660 likes
I always feel like I'm dealing with children (well, or teens/people with a teen mentality) who are trying to find creative ways to be "difficult," and that's all I'm doing. I'd rather have what I'd consider a good faith conversation with an adult.
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 16:21#3490810 likes
There's a lot of ego in that attitude.
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 16:22#3490820 likes
Maybe something in your unconsciousness affecting your perception of reality. Stranger things.
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 16:28#3490830 likes
Dogs are animals. Therefore if x is an animal, x is a dog?
This rejoinder would be relevant if I had said:
Minds are brains = brains are minds.
I haven't said that.
To be clear I changed the = to an 'is'.
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 17:56#3491260 likes
Reply to ZzzoneiroCosm Yes, mental content is brain content. Just like dog behavior is animal behavior. It doesn't follow from this that all brain states are mental states. Just like it doesn't follow that all animal behavior is dog behavior.
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 17:58#3491280 likes
Yes. Thoughts, desires, emotions, memories, etc. are physical. They're properties of molecules/atoms in particular relations (structures), undergoing particular processes (so the structures are dynamic).
Why would it seem more plausible to you to say that thoughts are vague "nonphysical" > >whatevers<< ?
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 18:10#3491430 likes
duplicate post
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 18:13#3491450 likes
So the thought-tree is a property of a molecule or atom?
As I said above: "They're properties of molecules/atoms in particular relations (structures), undergoing particular processes (so the structures are dynamic)."
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 19:05#3491830 likes
So you're not using "perception" in the conventional sense, because that has a connotation of information obtained via our senses. You're just saying that you can be aware of something, it's "noticeable," and that's a property of nonphysical things. Being noticeable isn't a property of physical things though?
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 19:08#3491850 likes
"They're properties of molecules/atoms in particular relations (structures), undergoing particular processes (so the structures are dynamic)."
It seems far-fetched to call a thought-tree a property of atoms or molecules. At best it's an imprecise use of language.
A thought-tree may be a product or correlate of "molecules/atoms in particular relations (structures), undergoing particular processes (so the structures are dynamic)."
It's a dogmatic leap to reduce the thought-tree to a property.
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 19:10#3491860 likes
It's not a property of atoms, molecules, particles.
How are they not noticeable? Note that we're not saying that we can't perceive them with our senses, because that's not what you're saying about thoughts, either.
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 19:34#3491950 likes
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2019 at 19:37#3491970 likes
An atom is just as mysterious as a thought.
I don't know what a thought is made of. And I don't know what an atom is made of.
I don't know what a thought is made of. And I don't know what a particle is made of.
Again, note that we're NOT talking about perception in the sense of receiving data via your senses here (sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch). Because you weren't saying that thought is perceived via your senses. You said you just "notice" it. If you don't notice atoms in the same way, how do you even have any idea about them?
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 20:45#3492310 likes
Again, note that we're NOT talking about perception in the sense of receiving data via your senses here (sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch). Because you weren't saying that thought is perceived via your senses. You said you just "notice" it. If you don't notice atoms in the same way, how do you even have any idea about them?
There's a lot about transgender sues that I don't get. I've outed the issues I see in a few threads over the last year or so. they are mostly to do with distinguishing private from public knowledge; knowing one is a woman, for example, despite being male.
But that's fine. There will be a way to set out the these issues so that they make sense - I just haven't worked it out yet.
I don't know.
In the mean time, I'll still try to refer to some folk as "they" rather than "he" or "she", because although I do not get it, it makes sense to them.
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 21:40#3492680 likes
Atoms are present to mind--when you think about them, for example, right?
That's pretty weak.
Thought-atoms, like thought-trees, are noticeable.
1) I don't think you believe physical objects are made of thought-atoms.
2) If thought-atoms are the same as atoms, thought-trees are the same as trees.
Terrapin StationNovember 05, 2019 at 22:13#3492890 likes
It's weak to say that a property of nonphysicals, akin to a property like location for molecules, is that you "notice" them (at least when they're thoughts that you happen to have).
Please explain in what way you've noticed an atom.
One way is through models and enlarged photos. I can also read about atoms and notice their existence. Does that answer that? If not, please explain how you "notice" thoughts and we can re-word in a way that fits.
I think all @Terrapin Station is saying is that saying "I don't know" is less of an explanation than saying the part you do know. "I don't know" is NOT an explanation. But I agree (and I think Terrapin would too) that it is sometimes worthwhile to admit ignorance.
Harry HinduNovember 06, 2019 at 12:54#3494170 likes
This has nothing to do with natural selection. We're presuming the existence of humans of both sexes. So, I'll try again. To start off: Society, at whatever level, is involved in forming the identity of individual humans? Yes or no?
I wouldn't say it like that.
Society, at whatever level, is involved in forming assumptions and expectations about the identities of individual humans.
You seem to be saying that our biology already provides the identity of being a male or female, and then society comes along and creates assumptions, or expectations of those biological identities. Those assumptions and expectations are usually wrong which makes them sexist.
This is what I've been saying all along - that you and others are confusing the shared expectation of a particular sex as the actual identity of being that sex.
Harry HinduNovember 06, 2019 at 13:01#3494200 likes
No, the core part would have been the same-to "be a woman." The difference lies in different cultures having different established social rules on what women should do.
Exactly. Societies have different established social rules on what women should do, not what makes one a woman. Those rules are sexist because they put women in boxes that limit them. Why can't a woman wear pants and have short hair and join the military and still be a woman?
What makes a person a man or woman? Natural selection.
What makes a person a man or woman? Natural selection.
Do you even care if anything you write is true? I mean, if you're going to appeal to biology, at least know something about it. Why any particular baby has a natal sex (all else held equal) is due to essentially random union of gametes. On the individual level this has nothing to do with natural selection.
Sexual reproduction is evolutionarily old, need not have just 2 sexes, need not have one sex per organism. And you wanna reduce all of the question of "what makes a person a man or a woman?" down to evolutionary adaptations that occurred prior to the evolution of humans. What in the fuck are you even talking about.
If you press these guys enough, you'll find that it's never about the language issue, it's about something more fundamental. This is a major part of why people are campaigning for more inclusive language might actually be effective to some extent; if it becomes hard to articulate prejudice (misgendering is punishable), proponents of bigotry and ignorance have to speak in terms of their underlying (badly researched or wilfully ignorant) ideas about reality.
And they'll keep going, really, because it's never about the fact of the matter (if it were, they wouldn't behave like douchenozzles trying to refute you on all points and being internally inconsistent in the process), it's about a personal feeling of discomfort with norms shifting underneath them.
Harry HinduNovember 06, 2019 at 14:10#3494350 likes
Do you even care if anything you write is true? I mean, if you're going to appeal to biology, at least know something about it. Why any particular baby has a natal sex (all else held equal) is due to essentially random union of gametes. On the individual level this has nothing to do with natural selection.
Of course I care if it's true. I answer your questions because I seek out criticism of my ideas in order to fine tune them. You're not returning the favor and it's not just me that notices.
I've already done the research on evolution and natural selection as it is what changed me from being a theist to being an atheist. What I see is the same thing happening in politics - that many atheists have simply swapped one big brother for another. They make the same logical errors that the theists do and don't even question their beliefs, or what they are told, like when a man claims to be a woman.
How do you think two different gametes came about?
Wikipedia:The first mathematical model to explain the evolution of anisogamy via individual level selection, and one that became widely accepted was the theory of gamete or sperm competition. Here, selection happens at the individual level: those individuals that produce more (but smaller) gametes also gain a larger proportion of fertilizations simply because they produce a larger number of gametes that 'seek out' those of the larger type. However, because zygotes formed from larger gametes have better survival prospects, this process can again lead to the divergence of gametes sizes into large and small (female and male) gametes. The end result is one where it seems that the numerous, small gametes compete for the large gametes that are tasked with providing maximal resources for the offspring.
Sexual reproduction is evolutionarily old, need not have just 2 sexes, need not have one sex per organism. And you wanna reduce all of the question of "what makes a person a man or a woman?" down to evolutionary adaptations that occurred prior to the evolution of humans. What in the fuck are you even talking about.
In order to procreate as a human you need two different sex systems - a vagina/ovaries and a penis/testicles. Each system includes the storage for the gametes and their delivery method. It seems to me that you need both to have a functional system. Those that are born with both don't have both as fully functioning - it's either one or the other or none at all. We usually say that they are intersex, which reflects their condition of being between the two sexes, but typically they lean one way or the other because of which system is more fully functional.
Wikipedia:Many taxonomic groups of animals (mostly invertebrates) do not have separate sexes. In these groups, hermaphroditism is a normal condition, enabling a form of sexual reproduction in which either partner can act as the "female" or "male." For example, the great majority of tunicates, pulmonate snails, opisthobranch snails, earthworms, and slugs are hermaphrodites. Hermaphroditism is also found in some fish species and to a lesser degree in other vertebrates. Most plants are also hermaphrodites.
Hermaphroditism is old. Sex isn't. You are the one that doesn't know what they are talking about.
Humans are still born with tails from time to time. We still carry genes from our distant ancestral species that get activated by some mutation in the copying of genes when a person is being conceived.
If you press these guys enough, you'll find that it's never about the language issue, it's about something more fundamental. This is a major part of why people are campaigning for more inclusive language might actually be effective to some extent; if it becomes hard to articulate prejudice (misgendering is punishable), proponents of bigotry and ignorance have to speak in terms of their underlying (badly researched or wilfully ignorant) ideas about reality.
And they'll keep going, really, because it's never about the fact of the matter (if it were, they wouldn't behave like douchenozzles trying to refute you on all points and being internally inconsistent in the process), it's about a personal feeling of discomfort with norms shifting underneath them.
The entire point of that argument strategy is to get us talking about biological sex, as if it's relevant to gender at all...
We went over this already.
If "gender" isn't about sex, then what is "gender"?
You defined "gender" as a social construction.
"Social construction" is defined as a shared assumption or expectation.
This means that "gender" would be kind of shared assumption or expectation, but a shared assumption or expectation of what?
The answer: the behavior of the different sexes within a culture.
So, again you are confusing a shared assumption or expectation with the actual sexual identity of that person, which is the result of millions of years of evolution and nothing that they have any control over.
Those shared assumptions or expectations are sexist, so when someone claims to identify with them, they are the actual proponents of sexism.
Harry HinduNovember 06, 2019 at 14:26#3494390 likes
Do you even care if anything you write is true? I mean, if you're going to appeal to biology, at least know something about it. Why any particular baby has a natal sex (all else held equal) is due to essentially random union of gametes. On the individual level this has nothing to do with natural selection.
Sexual reproduction is evolutionarily old, need not have just 2 sexes, need not have one sex per organism. And you wanna reduce all of the question of "what makes a person a man or a woman?" down to evolutionary adaptations that occurred prior to the evolution of humans. What in the fuck are you even talking about.
The entire point of that argument strategy is to get us talking about biological sex, as if it's relevant to gender at all...
Right, so when I show you that you're wrong and don't know what you're talking about your tactic is to then say it doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. :roll:
So, again you are confusing a shared assumption or expectation with the actual sexual identity of that person, which is the result of millions of years of evolution and nothing that they have any control over.
No. You've just conceded that gender is a social construction, so it's not a confusion at all. Social constructions are like the boxes available on a census form, you still get to pick which one to tick.
Yes, some social constructions are sexist (that's my particular beef with some radical trans philosophy that seems to reify such constructions), but..
The important thing is that people are required to choose anyway in order to take part in the culture which has just constructed those options.
So the trans thing is really about support for a choice between options which someone else presented but where 'none of the above' isn't an option.
Note - philosophically, 'none of the above' is what I agree with, but practically it can only go one way, society changes the choices first.
You've not established that the evolution of sex is relevant to gender at all. You've left it in the background as a framing device. We're not arguing about whether sex is relevant to gender, you invited me to argue about the specifics of the evolution of sex as if it were relevant to gender, this is just something you do. You say you want to "refine your worldview", you mean "perform certainty about it". If you were interested in questioning aspects of it, you would stay on topic, and not rabidly and uncharitably jump on anything you see as false while keeping your presumptions in the background.
You're only caring about evolution as it applies to producing typically sexed human bodies. Like it was a biological necessity. Like all the social stuff regarding gender is reducible to it. This is a major error.
Hermaphroditism is old. Sex isn't. You are the one that doesn't know what they are talking about.
"fdrake is wrong because hermaphroditism isn't a form of sexual reproduction"
"provides quote showing hermaphroditism is a form of sexual reproduction"
Wikipedia:Many taxonomic groups of animals (mostly invertebrates) do not have separate sexes. In these groups, hermaphroditism is a normal condition, enabling a form of sexual reproduction in which either partner can act as the "female" or "male." For example, the great majority of tunicates, pulmonate snails, opisthobranch snails, earthworms, and slugs are hermaphrodites. Hermaphroditism is also found in some fish species and to a lesser degree in other vertebrates. Most plants are also hermaphrodites
The entire point of raising hermaphroditism here is to undermine your claim that "we have the sexes we have because of natural selection", because evolution also produces hermaphrodites and species with more than two sexes...
Edit: I don't even mean to say that natural selection has nothing to do with human sexuality, just the story is way more complicated than you're giving it credit for. Well, what you're leaving in the background unexamined is giving it credit for, anyway.
What would you say a verb refers too? Let's consider "run".
So one way to know what "run" refers to is to use a dictionary; "Run," in one sense of the term, refers to "moving at a speed faster than a walk, while never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time."
Can we stop pretending that you're a toddler now?
HereToDisscussNovember 06, 2019 at 15:05#3494460 likes
Exactly. Societies have different established social rules on what women should do, not what makes one a woman. Those rules are sexist because they put women in boxes that limit them. Why can't a woman wear pants and have short hair and join the military and still be a woman?
If a woman has a short hair, they're still seen as a woman. If a woman joins a military, they're still seen as a woman. The only difference would be that now they're not seen as a "real woman" if the society decides such things determine that. But even the people who think that will not refer to them as a man, but as a woman-just not a "proper" one.
I do not think you can find any instance of someone, not insultingly or out of a mistake, calling a woman a man because the person believs that the person is a man just because she has short hair. That would be extaordinarily rare.
On many views, denotation and reference are the same thing. Denotation and reference are both what a term "points to."
So "run" points to...what?
And if it's every instance of running, it's circular.
IF it's moving at a speed faster than a walk, while never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time, how will you "point" to it?
And the point here is that definitions are usually either inadequate or to strict, and hence do not help us in working out what we are doing with our words.
It's a thing I learned from reading and thinking about the issue of family resemblance and other related problems.
And if it's every instance of running, it's circular.
You'd have to explain (a) how you see it as circular (in your view the instances of running are pointing to something?), and (b) what you'd see as the problem with circularity in this case.
IF it's moving at a speed faster than a walk, while never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time, how will you "point" to it?
Descriptively, as with the words you just used, for example. If you're talking about literal pointing, you take your finger and keep it aimed at them while they run.
And the point here is that definitions are usually either inadequate or to strict, and hence do not help us in working out what we are doing with our words.
All I was commenting on was the fact that referring isn't restricted to nouns. I have no idea why you'd think that. Whether definitions are inadequate etc. would have no bearing on whether we can refer only to nouns.
All I was commenting on was the fact that referring isn't restricted to nouns.
What you did was request definitions as if that would help our discussion. It's a habit of yours. I think it is fraught with philosophical problems. Hence, I'm behaving as a toddler in order to show you the issue.
Terrapin StationNovember 06, 2019 at 20:43#3496710 likes
Well, if you cannot see the circularity in "Run points to running"... let that be an end to the discussion.
Again, phrased this way, how would any reference not be circular? What I'm addressing is the odd claim that words don't have references if they're not nouns. But if you have a problem with "run" pointing to "run(ning)," then you'd have an equal problem with "Joe" pointing to "Joe" or "cat" pointing to "cat" or whatever . . . which would have nothing to do with the odd idea that only nouns pertain to reference.
All of the instances of "run"? You got a lot of fingers.
You can't point to all of the instances of anything by that token, including Joe. So again, what would this have to do with the curious idea that reference only comes into play when we're talking about nouns?
But if you have a problem with "run" pointing to "run(ning)," then you'd have an equal problem with "Joe" pointing to "Joe" or "cat" pointing to "cat" or whatever . . .
It helps to drop the second pair of quote marks in each case, no?
I.e. "run" points to run(ning), "Joe" points to Joe and "cat" points to cat?
bongo furyNovember 06, 2019 at 20:52#3496830 likes
Yeah, I should have left the second quotation marks off. Thanks.
Re "Ain't that the root of all our problems"--I think I'm more inclined to say that seeing it as a problem, or wanting it to be otherwise, is more at the root of many problems.
bongo furyNovember 06, 2019 at 21:54#3497070 likes
Poor Harry Hindu. He's still confused about the difference between what's in your underpants and how people treat you.
Poor Banno is still confused about the difference between how what is in your underpants scientifically/objectively (not culturally/subjectively) identifies them as a particular biological identity, and how subjective cultures form subjective expectations (not objective identities) about those scientific/objective identities.
Harry HinduNovember 07, 2019 at 13:35#3498860 likes
No. You've just conceded that gender is a social construction, so it's not a confusion at all. Social constructions are like the boxes available on a census form, you still get to pick which one to tick.
Yes, some social constructions are sexist (that's my particular beef with some radical trans philosophy that seems to reify such constructions), but..
The important thing is that people are required to choose anyway in order to take part in the culture which has just constructed those options.
So the trans thing is really about support for a choice between options which someone else presented but where 'none of the above' isn't an option.
Note - philosophically, 'none of the above' is what I agree with, but practically it can only go one way, society changes the choices first.
First, I never conceded that "gender" is a social construction. What I'm doing is taking that idea and showing the illogical implications of that idea.
The boxes that are available on a census forum are related to biological characteristics, like sex and race. If gender is a social construction, then the boxes would be labeled:
Women wear dresses
Women wear makeup
Women have long hair
Men wear pants
Men don't wear makeup
Men have short hair.
The list would have to be much longer for any behavior that one takes as their "gender" and you could check more than one. Notice that the list isn't identities - they are behaviors expected of those biological identities. That is what it means to have a shared expectation as opposed to having an identity. If gender is a shared expectation of the behavior of the sexes, as you agreed with, then gender would be statements like, "Men wear pants", not "Man". That confuses the expected behavior that the members of a culture share ("men wear pants") with the biological entity, "man".
The other problem you have is the term "shared" in the definition of a social construction. If a social construction is "shared" then that means that it is an agreement between the members of society. Transgenders aren't conforming which means that their idea of gender isn't shared, it is an individual feeling, so it wouldn't qualify as a social construction.
There is also the problem of transgenderism promoting sexism. If these social constructions are sexist because they put men and women, who are biological entities, into subjective boxes, then a man claiming to be a woman simply by wearing a dress reinforces those stereotypes. Wearing a dress doesn't make one a woman. It is simply the expected behavior of women. This is why people get confused when they see that a man is under the dress. They expected a different identity because of their shared expectation that only women (the identity) wear dresses (the shared expectation of behavior for that identity).
You've not established that the evolution of sex is relevant to gender at all.
I've established that if gender is a social construction then that means it is a shared expectation of biological identities, not identities themselves.
I brought up the evolution of sex to show that our species has diverged enough from our far distant hemaphrodite ancestors that when those hidden genes are activated during conception and our physiology has changed so much since then, that the outcome of ancient DNA expression in a body that it wasn't designed for can have unpredictable consequences.
The entire point of raising hermaphroditism here is to undermine your claim that "we have the sexes we have because of natural selection", because evolution also produces hermaphrodites and species with more than two sexes...
I brought up the evolution of sex to show that our species has diverged enough from our far distant hemaphrodite ancestors that when those hidden genes are activated during conception and our physiology has changed so much since then, that the outcome of ancient DNA expression in a body that it wasn't designed for can have unpredictable consequences.
I brought up hermaphrodites. You didn't say anything about hermaphrodites, and they were not part of your argument. To my understanding, you were suggesting that the equation of gender and sex in humans makes sense in light of natural selection. I brought up hermaphroditism and other forms of sexual reproduction in organisms to show that evolution alone is not even a sufficient explanation for sex in humans - since it produces many forms of sexual reproduction.
You can't just argue "gender is sex because natural selection", the evolutionary story is way more complicated than that. Natural selection isn't a magical device that allows you to equate cultural characteristics with anatomical characteristics.
It's also an incidental part of the discussion; mostly off topic. The central claim is whether gender is reducible to anatomical sex; not how sex came about in humans. An account of gender in terms of the evolution of human sex only argues for your point that gender = sex once the framing is accepted that it's even relevant at all.
I indulged in refuting your irrelevant points because, well, I don't want you to propagate these ludicrous falsehoods, or to have a bulwark of intellectual terrain to retreat to to avoid more relevant challenges. If you want to reduce gender to sex on the basis of natural selection, you have to do more than just frame your central point (gender = sex) as correct.
Gender roles differ over cultures, how many genders there are differ over cultures, yet we share the same evolutionary history - the same sex characteristics. How can you possibly account for the cultural disparities in gender, and the cultural shifts in gender roles over time, when all of this has occurred so quickly that evolution will not have acted much?
If 'we're still the same species with the same sexual characteristics' sufficed for an explanation of gender, if that's all there was to it, then you'd expect little unexplained variation from your model. Your account of things (sex=gender) leaves all cultural shifts, cultural norms, differences in gender expression, differences in social roles, and even the progression of expectations you want to reduce gender to unexplained; there is far too much variation left unaccounted for for your account to be sufficient.
Moreover, the sources of variation - cultural ones, norms of conduct and explanation - vary independently of human sex characteristics. We have the same anatomical structures independent of culture.
This is just bad reasoning upon bad reasoning. I don't think you even know how to keep your story straight, or what you're aiming to account for.
Notice that the list isn't identities - they are behaviors expected of those biological identities. That is what it means to have a shared expectation as opposed to having an identity. If gender is a shared expectation of the behavior of the sexes, as you agreed with, then gender would be statements like, "Men wear pants", not "Man". That confuses the expected behavior that the members of a culture share ("men wear pants") with the biological entity, "man".
The only confusion there is yours. Cultural variation regarding sex and gender is causally independent of anatomical variation of sex characteristic in humans. You need to keep these two things (sex, gender) somewhat separate to tell a coherent story about them. Even their relationship.
Harry HinduNovember 07, 2019 at 14:27#3499050 likes
You can't just argue "gender is sex because natural selection",
That wasn't my argument. You aren't taking time to read and digest what I'm saying. You just have this knee-jerk emotional reaction to what I say and then post this wall of text that doesn't apply to what I said.
Gender is sex because that is how we've use the term and now a particular political entity wants to redefine it for their own political agenda.
The only confusion there is yours. Cultural variation regarding sex and gender is causally independent of anatomical variation of sex characteristic in humans. You need to keep these two things (sex, gender) somewhat separate to tell a coherent story about them. Even their relationship.
This makes no sense. Cultural variation regarding sex IS gender, according to your own arguments that gender is a social construction. Gender cannot be causally independent of sex if gender is a shared expectation of the sexes. You'd have an expectation that is devoid of any object it is associated with and be then gender becomes meaningless.
Gender is sex because that is how we've use the term and now a particular political entity wants to redefine it for their own political agenda.
Right. What's sex? Sexes are summaries of presence/absence of sexual characteristics. The sexes male and female correspond to typical configurations of human bodily anatomy in terms of their sexual characteristics. Women have wombs, vulvas, boobs, a certain hormone chemistry, periods... Men have testicles, dicks, facial hair, a certain hormone chemistry... Typical clusters of these things define the sexes male and female.
Now, let's set up sex as a construct. A construct is a conceptualisation of a phenomenon of interest that facilitates its study and (ideally) captures all relevant variability of the phenomenon in question.
So, for example, a depression index in clinical psychology might measure mood intensity, mood persistence, feelings of worthlessness, thoughts of self harm, concentration issues, anhedonia... All of these are indicators of the presence of depression and its severity. Depression as a construct, then, correlates with each of its indicators; which is what it means for those things to be an indicator of depression. Depression is more likely given an indicator, and more likely given a strong scoring on all indicators.
In our case, sex as a construct would look at human bodies, and look at their sexual characteristics, whether they are male or female or intersex.
Now, let us hypothesise that sex is gender. As Harry instructs us to. Let us agree with Harry and see what the world would look like if he were right!
What does the claim sex is gender entail? This should suggest that there are no unique sources of variation which are not causally reducible to sex as a construct. That is, any variability in gender norms, archetypes, codes of conduct, expectations and practices should be explainable by the presence or absence of sexual characteristics of bodies.
Now, the sexual characteristics of bodies are constant across cultures in terms of their presence or absence. In every population of humans there are the same sexual characteristics in roughly the same proportion. That is there are negligible differences in sex characteristics over human populations. Moreover, sexual characteristics of humans are roughly constant since before we were even H. Sapiens. Let's just say they were constant since 10,000BC to be sure.
But, the norms, archetypes, codes of conduct, expectations and practices regarding male or female bodies differ strongly over cultures and over time.
If sex = gender, we would expect little to no variation in norms, archetypes, codes of conduct, expectations and practices regarding male or female bodies over time or human populations.
But there is strong variation over both.
Huh.
Guess sex isn't equal to gender then.
Edit: just in case the logic is difficult, if two constructs are the same, we would expect variation in one to strongly correlate with variation in the other. Since there are negligible differences in population sex characteristics over populations and time but over the same populations varied configurations of gender norms, we can't say they're the same construct. Differences in one do not explain differences in the other; they don't even correlate, nevermind strongly correlate, nevermind cause (edit: nevermind conceptual or logical identity).
Let's take a moment to reflect on what's gone on the the thread.
There used to be an argument about new pronouns and free speech and stuff.
Now there's an argument about whether trans or non-binary people exist, and about gender. This is the general pattern, arguments about the map mask underlying prejudices in the territory.
Let's take a moment to reflect on what's gone on the the thread.
There used to be an argument about new pronouns and free speech and stuff.
Now there's an argument about whether trans or non-binary people exist, and about gender.
This is the general pattern, arguments about the map mask underlying prejudices in the territory.
It’s also the case that trans talk has escalated in the opposite direction outside of the thread, to the point that biological males can now participate in sport intended for biological females. I’m surprised the pushback hasn’t been far worse.
I no longer use the term gender, personally, but believe anyone can express themselves how they want, using whatever terms they want. I do not think sex and gender are a one-to-one ratio and that criticisms of the gender binary are largely accurate, and even necessary.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 07, 2019 at 19:40#3500400 likes
This is an example of the sort of underlying prejudice fdrake was talking about.
What ever made the bodies in question "male" or "female?" People have different bodies no doubt, but this is no more informative then the fact people have different colour hair.
Sex is.exactly like a gender role here: it supposedly sets an idenity which a given body can be. It is drawing out who.someone is on the notion having certain genitals just cannot be that. In having this account, we are prejudiced in the same way as any other gender role. We are not describing who they are in terms of how they exist, but just applying an our insistence the world is not supposed to work that way.
This is an example of the sort of underlying prejudice fdrake was talking about.
What ever made the bodies in question "male" or "female?" People have different bodies no doubt, but this is no more informative then the fact people have different colour hair.
Sex is.exactly like a gender role here: it supposedly sets an idenity which a given body can be. It is drawing out who.someone is on the notion having certain genitals just cannot be that.
Sex more describes biological facts about mammals and reproduction than setting an identity for human beings. So I think the denial of these distinctions is more an underlying prejudice than my reiteration of these facts.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 07, 2019 at 19:57#3500590 likes
If I describe the body parts any person has which are involved in reproduction, I make no mention of sex or gender. To say, "This person has a penis and testes, etc. and they do..." or " This person has a womb, ovaries, etc., and they do..." involves no distinction of male or female. The description of bodies remains the same if they are female or male or something else entirely.
Sex is not describing biological facts. It's our, in this case, prejudicial account of what someone of certain biological facts can mean or be. We are saying: "Well, this person cannot be a man/woman because it just not what those genitals do", just as we do in accounts of gender roles, where we insist people can only be certain things because they have certain genitals.
It's not reiterating biological facts, it just insisting where a body can only be certain things because it exists with some genitals or chromosomes or organs.
If I describe the body parts any person has which are involved in reproduction, I make no mention of sex or gender. To say, "This person has a penis and testes, etc. and they do..." or " This person has a womb, ovaries, etc., and they do..." involves no distinction of male or female. The description of bodies remains the same if they are female or male or something else entirely.
Sex is not describing biological facts. It's our, in this case, prejudicial account of what someone of certain biological facts can mean or be. We are saying: "Well, this person cannot be a man/woman because it just not what those genitals do", just as we do in accounts of gender roles, where we insist people can only be certain things because they have certain genitals.
The distinction is biological and no amount of verbal hand-waving can alter that. The description of bodies changes but the body remains the same. People go out of their way to alter their bodies through surgical means for this very reason.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 07, 2019 at 20:16#3500700 likes
I just showed that is not the case: describing the present biological states involves no reference to gender or sex.
My point is precisely that bodies don't change. Whether a body is male, female or something else, it will be its bodily self. If we have a male vagina, it works just the same as a female one. Same for a female penis. The body is always unaffected by which sex or gender category a person belongs to.
People alter their bodies when they want a change to their body.
I just showed that is not the case: describing the present biological states involves no reference to gender or sex.
My point is precisely that bodies don't change. Whether a body is male, female or something else, it will be its bodily self. If we have a male vagina, it works just the same as a female one. Same for a female penis. The body is always unaffected by which sex or gender category a person belongs to.
People alter there bodies when they want a change to their body.
You didn’t, actually. Whether describing biological states refers to sex or not does not entail a certain biological state is not of a certain sex. Sex is an accurate descriptor of a biological fact of many species and organisms.
Male vaginas and female penises are constructed, first in the mind, then by the knife of a surgeon. Anything else is little more than wishful thinking.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 07, 2019 at 20:42#3500870 likes
You're almost there: it also the case female vaginas and male penises constructed in the mind, for the biological fact does not care whether it is female, male or something else.
Sex was never the descriptor of bodies. It always a supposition of identity we've added on top of the biological fact.
Whether describing biological states refers to sex or not does not entail a certain biological state is not of a certain sex.
This part is correct. Why? Just because sex is not a biologcal fact, that doesn't mean those with certain biological facts don't have a sex. Many people with a body (i.e. biologcal facts) have an idenity which is sex. People have sex on it's own terms: it is true some people with biological states also have an idenity of sex.
But the point is sex must be given on it's own terms. To exist with a one type if body does not give a fact of.sex identity. People aren't a sex because they have a penis or vagina, they are a sex if that's the truth of their sex idenity. People of bodies have sex identity, rather than one's body determining which sex is identity one has.
Sex doesn’t pertain to just people, but to plants and animals as well. Perhaps they identify as something else but the facts remain nonetheless: two distinct types of organisms are required for sexual reproduction. Human beings, too, fall into this distinction. It’s why a member of the male sex cannot give birth. or why a female cannot produce sperm.
Yes, people are of a certain sex if they are born with a penis or vagina. Their identities are always constructed after the fact of their biology. I am willing to give up gender, but we simply cannot supersede biological facts because someone hates their body.
HereToDisscussNovember 07, 2019 at 21:03#3500940 likes
Reply to TheWillowOfDarkness I have a question: What exactly is a "sex identity"? Can you please elaborate upon that? Right now, it seems like you're just describing gender and claiming it is sex, which would be a weird claim if that's what you are trying to say.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 07, 2019 at 21:10#3500950 likes
Sex is equally a construction put over the biology of plants too. As with people, it is the biological state of the plant which is doing sexual reproduction, not a sex.
To describe reproduction, we need to describe the states of body which do it. It does not matter what "kind" they are. Bodies aren't changed by whether the are understood to be female, male or any thing else.
A male with the appropriate biology can give birth, his body has determined it so. Sex is not a biological fact.
Sex is equally a construction put over the biology of plants too. As with people, it is the biological state of the plant which is doing sexual reproduction, not an identity of sex.
It's the bodies which do reproduction, not the sex. To describe reproduction, need to describe the states of body which.to it. It does not matter what "kind" they are. Bodies aren't changed by whether the are understood to be female, male or any thing else.
A male with the appropriate biology can give birth, his body has determined it so. Sex is not a biological fact.
Sure, the term sex is very general in its application, but it is accurate; it describes the world, the relations and the things within it. In the same manner I could say the term “body” is such a construction, therefor not a biological fact. We can now just go around and speak of humans as “biological facts”. I wouldn’t doubt it if someone has done that already.
Either way it seems to me if the biological fact is the body, then the identity, insofar as it differs from the biological facts, isn’t the biological facts at all, and therefor falsities. So which is it? Further, if one wants to identify as something other than the biological facts, which biological facts is he identifying as?
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 07, 2019 at 21:32#3501010 likes
Sex, in this sense, is not accurate at all. At best, it's a description of a sex identity, at worst it is a lie about sex and biology.
Either way, it is not any sort of description of what biology is present. It does not describe biological relations at all.
So you last paragraph there is true except for the very last part. Identity isn't a biologcal fact at all. But this doesn't mean identity is false itself, just that it is a different sort of fact, not a biological fact but an identity fact.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 07, 2019 at 21:37#3501020 likes
For sure, my point I'm the notion of biological sex is exactly like gender is this respect. It is not a description of bodies, what bodies can do or what bodies might do, but rather a concept of (supposedly) when and where certain identity and traits(e.g. male, female) can occur or not.
Sex is not biology at all. In this sense, it is nothing more than expectation of who can belong as male, female or something else, much like any gender role.
Sex is a lie about sex? I’m not convinced here, and it appears to me the argument against the use of sex to describe things in the world is mere quibbling at best, propaganda at worse, and says little to nothing of states of affairs.
The identity, on the other hand, is not a biological fact in particular nor fact in general but bestowed, chosen, or otherwise taken as a matter of reification by the biological facts themselves.
I suggest that to identity as something other than the biological facts is to misidentify.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 07, 2019 at 21:44#3501050 likes
Biological sex is a lie about sex and it's relation to people, as sex is an identity not a biological fact.
Sex says nothing about the states of affairs of the body (which is why we always find ourselves falling back on bodily description when trying to explain sex. If sex really was a bodily description, we wouldn't have to say " well male/female means... xyz body" ).
Sex is not an identity nor a lie. The body is an identity, his only identity, the living organism itself as it exists in the world. How the body goes about identifying itself as something other than what it is, I suspect, is the greatest tragedy of humankind.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 07, 2019 at 21:52#3501080 likes
But that's just it: no-one does it. The often discussed "wrong body" trans person, for example, does not misidentify biological facts. They know what body they have, which is the problem for them.
If they did misidentify biology, thought they had a vagina when they had a penis, they would have nothing to worry about/desire to change their body. They would already understand themselves to have the body right for them.
But that's just it: no-one does it. The often discussed "wrong body" trans person, for example, does not misidentify biologcal facts. They know what body they have, which is the problem for them.
If they did misidentify biology, thought they had a vagina when they had a penis, they would have nothing to worry about/desire to change their body. They would already understand themselves to have the body right for them.
If one is not his body, what is he? Who or what is this little being that possesses this body? I worry this little being might be parasitic. Perhaps the body should rid itself of this little being before it does anything it can never undo.
HereToDisscussNovember 07, 2019 at 22:06#3501160 likes
For sure, my point I'm the notion of biological sex is exactly like gender is this respect. It is not a description of bodies, what bodies can do or what bodies might do, but rather a concept of (supposedly) when and where certain identity and traits(e.g. male, female) can occur or not.
How? Let us consider these definitions i thought of:
"A person is a female if and only if that person has eggs."
"A person is a male if and only if that person can produce sperm."
I would say that this is what we generally mean by "sex". If my definition is the definition we use or it is close enough, i have to ask: How is this related to an identity in any way?
You shouldn’t call people just anything. They like to be called by a name they like. That’s true, but there’s a big difference between addressing someone and referring to someone. When you address someone, you should certainly be careful what name you choose. A person may not like to be addressed as Peter when he wishes to be called Paul. But when we are referring to people, talking about them and not to them, it’s completely irrelevant what they might think. If Peter has recently changed his name to Paul, we may still think of him by his former name and it’s therefore more convenient for us to continue to refer to him as Peter.
The only requirement when choosing a word is that it is understood in the same way by speaker and listener. If the person Peter/Paul comes more readily to mind when we refer to him as Peter, then Peter is the name we should use.
Inventing new pronouns only makes communication more difficult. We already have a common reference, we know who the pronoun is pointing to, and that’s all we need.
Referring to people is no different than referring to chairs and rocks. Only the people conversing should have a say in what is said.
Harry HinduNovember 08, 2019 at 15:11#3503320 likes
In our case, sex as a construct would look at human bodies, and look at their sexual characteristics, whether they are male or female or intersex.
There you go again with the straw-men. That isn't my case that sex is a mental construction. Willies aren't mental constructions. They are biological ones, constructed by millions of years of natural selection.
So, you've gone so far as to argue that sex is now a mental construction. What about species? How do you stop yourself from slipping on the slippery slope?
Biological sex is based on an amalgam of five characteristics:
- chromosomes (XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)
More than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes using just the characteristics of genitals and gonads. The the other traits almost always occur within these classes. You can do a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits and you would find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, not mental constructions. Horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.
Sexual selection is a mode of natural selection where one biological sex exhibits preferences in the characteristics of the opposite sex, and those characteristics (and the preferences for them) are made more prominent in subsequent generations.
If sex were a mental construct, sexual selection wouldn’t work: males would look identical to females. That difference itself suggests that there’s a biological reality to sex, and that this biological reality is what has caused both behavioral and morphological differences between the sexes.
Say we take a census on what it means for someone to be a woman or a man. If we get differing opinions on what it means to be a woman or a man, then those can’t be social constructions, because social constructions are shared assumptions – shared by those in the same society. It would be more of an individual feeling, or inclination.
If there is a consensus on what it means to be a man or woman is that consensus a social construction?
How can you tell the difference between a consensus that is socially constructed vs one that is acquired by simple observation and categorization based on similarities as members of the same species as opposed being members to just a culture?
How do we know that some categorization in the mind is the product of society or natural selection?
Different cultures have different shared assumptions about the behavior of the sexes, but there is a general agreement among different cultures that there are only two sexes that these varying shared assumptions are about, and this is related to how we seek out mates and tell the difference between males and females in a society with the legal requirement to cover up your body with clothes.
The shared assumption that we have is that a person wearing a dress is a female under the clothes. If there wasn’t a legal requirement to wear clothes, or there weren't these biological realities of male and female, we wouldn’t have shared assumptions about what clothes a female should wear. There would be no gender, or gender would be the same as sex.
There you go again with the straw-men. That isn't my case that sex is a mental construction. Willies aren't mental constructions. They are biological ones, constructed by millions of years of natural selection.
So, you've gone so far as to argue that sex is now a mental construction. What about species? How do you stop yourself from slipping on the slippery slope?
Dude. a construct in that sense isn't just a mental thing. It's a way of splitting up a phenomenon into components that have measurable aspects. I linked to what I meant by construct. Here it is again. Then I gave you the definition I was using in my own words, they were:
A construct is a conceptualisation of a phenomenon of interest that facilitates its study and (ideally) captures all relevant variability of the phenomenon in question.
Then I gave you a worked example unrelated to the topic, that should hopefully ease a charitable reader in:
So, for example, a depression index in clinical psychology might measure mood intensity, mood persistence, feelings of worthlessness, thoughts of self harm, concentration issues, anhedonia... All of these are indicators of the presence of depression and its severity. Depression as a construct, then, correlates with each of its indicators; which is what it means for those things to be an indicator of depression. Depression is more likely given an indicator, and more likely given a strong scoring on all indicators.
Perhaps I should also have included motor symptoms in the index. Maybe you got the wrong idea that the sense of construct was purely mental because I didn't put in a bodily component.
Here's another example; chronic fatigue syndrome, as a construct, (in terms of symptoms) is indicated by persistent fatigue, chronic bodily pain, reduction in energy... If you gave gave someone a checklist of things in this construct (symptoms) and they ticked all the boxes, they'd be more likely to have chronic fatigue syndrome.
The crucial thing about a construct is that it should indicate patterns in the studied phenomenon. That is to say, it should change when the phenomenon in question changes. Differences in the phenomenon should be observable in the construct. One should track the other.
How can you tell the difference between a consensus that is socially constructed vs one that is acquired by simple observation and categorization based on similarities as members of the same species as opposed being members to just a culture?
So with sex, let's take your checklist of what sex is, define it as a construct, and see what happens; what would the world look like if gender = your idea of sex? That is to say, "what if gender and sex were one construct characterised by sex characteristics?"
- chromosomes (XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)
All the sex characteristics are roughly constant over human populations and time. This means that there is little to no variability in your sex construct over time and population. Moreover, in areas and times where the same sex characteristics hold within a population (same human anatomy), there are marked differences in norms of conduct, expectations regarding typically sexed bodies... cultural differences. Social differences.
None of the things on your list vary with any observed social pattern. This means they do not explain any of the variation in social patterns regarding gender.
As a construct then, your "sex = gender" idea does little to explain anything about cultural norms, expectations, archetypes... Or how they can shift over time.
In fact, this is good evidence that we need (at least) two constructs; sex and gender; to explain all this variation. One that tracks anatomical properties of bodies in populations. One (or more) that tracks social stuff in populations.
(edit: @'Isaac' would easily pick this apart in terms of the sociometrics, but I don't think it makes any huge errors; one glaring one I can see in re-reading is that stuff like depression has multiple constructs which are measured and then summed to produce severity scores, rather than being one thing. Anyway. This is probably fine. Sexual characteristics of populations are a multidimensional construct that still don't vary too much over time. Social aspects of gender do. Doing it with one construct (sex) is like trying to measure an area when you can only measure length and do no calculations..)
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 08, 2019 at 21:08#3504130 likes
Both of those definitions comment on identity. They don't describe bodies at all.
The account is of which people can belong an idenity (male or female), supposedly, by which body they have. It's all about idenity.
If we look at the bodies, we find they don't care about these identities. A body which produces sperm does so whether it has an identity of male, female or something else. A body which has eggs does so whether it has an idenity of male, female or something else. The body does not define only those with sperm are male or only those with eggs are female.
HereToDisscussNovember 08, 2019 at 21:28#3504270 likes
Both of those definitions comment on identity. They don't describe bodies at all.
The account is of which people can belong an idenity (male or female), supposedly, by which body they have. It's all about idenity.
If we look at the bodies, we find they don't care about these identities. A body which produces sperm does so whether it has an identity of male, female or something else. A body which has eggs does so whether it has an idenity of male, female or something else. The body does not define only those with sperm are male or only those with eggs are female.
Well, it having eggs or sperm makes it female or male as per the definition. If you wany to say that it is "identity", then so be it. (Well, then, any definition would be ascribing "identity".)
And, yes, bodies do not care about definitions. And..? Autistic brains do not care about their identities, psychopathic brains do not care about theor identities and disabled bodies do not care about their identities either. The list goes on and on. Your point seem to be just pointing the obvious. Howewer, what does that have to do with sex and it's relation to gender apart from both of them being about identities?
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 08, 2019 at 21:50#3504380 likes
Supposedly, the body is meant to make the identity, but this is not the case. We find the presence of the body is not granting the identity at all. The body is silent upon identity. The body is not making or stopping anyone being male, female or anything else.
This is a huge point: it means having a sperm or eggs does not make one male, female or anything else. If one has an identity, it must be given by a truth of identity.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 09, 2019 at 02:26#3505090 likes
NOS4A2:If one is not his body, what is he? Who or what is this little being that possesses this body? I worry this little being might be parasitic. Perhaps the body should rid itself of this little being before it does anything it can never undo.
You're missing the point. She is her body. She (the woman in question) recognises it.
She moves to alter her body (a penis, we'll be reductive for simplicity) because she recognises it is a part of her.
If she was delusional about her body, she would have no motivation to alter her body. She would believe she had a vagina and no penis (again, I'll be reductive for simplicity's sake), so she would not hold her body (with a penis) needs changing.
Supposedly, the body is meant to make the identity, but this is not the case. We find the presence of the body is not granting the identity at all. The body is silent upon identity. The body is not making or stopping anyone being male, female or anything else.
This is a huge point: it means having a sperm or eggs does not make one male, female or anything else. If one has an identity, it must be given by a truth of identity.
This is nonsense. You're redefining the term 'identity' to mean something it never meant in this context. I completely agree with you that sex is a social construct, we decide arbitrarily that these bodily characteristics are going in the 'male' construct and those are going in the 'female' construct. It could have been any other way, it could be some other way tomorrow. Nothing about reality is determining that these particular criteria apply to these constructs, nor that these constructs need even exist at all.
But - there's no justification at all for introducing some new force which somehow assigns identity to arbitrary social constructs. How would it even know such constructs exist? 'Truth of identity' doesn't mean anything. One is not 'truthfully' male or female because male and female are words labelling artificial social constructs, nothing about your intrinsic being even knows these words, let alone 'truthfully' assigns you to one.
If people want to be grouped by different criteria from the ones currently used to group people, then that's fine, maybe their community of language users will change the criteria. If people feel actually harmed by being grouped that way, then maybe we should enforce change in the criteria, to help them out (depending, of course on the consequences on others). If people want to be in one of the social constructs that their community wouldn't normally assign them, then that seems fine to me too, just label them the way they prefer. But there's absolutely no need to introduce some flaky notion of 'truth' into the matter, it just feeds the worst stereotypes of post-modernism, and it's utterly unsupported.
HereToDisscussNovember 09, 2019 at 09:09#3505770 likes
Supposedly, the body is meant to make the identity, but this is not the case. We find the presence of the body is not granting the identity at all. The body is silent upon identity. The body is not making or stopping anyone being male, female or anything else.
Yes. That is true for any definition that is about a body. And..? All that means is that it is somewhat arbitrary and nobody would dispute that. The question is "Should we use this definition? If so, to what extent?" We use this type of categorization in, for example, pedigrees and sexual reproduction as the chromosomes really matter in the first one and women and men (by this definition) have different bodily reactions and the entire proccess is different for women and men.
Also, how does that mean the definition is a lie? How could a definition even be a lie? The only way seems to be the definition contradicting the actual definition we use and we do use this in spesific contexts. Sexes, i would contend, are very useful.
If one has an identity, it must be given by a truth of identity.
But we use definitions for identities and "the truth of an identity" does not give the definition in the sense you are using. So, no definitions fit your criteria. Or all definitions fit your criteria but you just take it to be the case that the biological definition is not correct (not the one we should use) and thus end up being circular in your judgement, which is worse.
Of course, if you just want to say that we should not use this outside where it matters, then i'm more than okay to just concede you the point since that is the position i hold. A transwoman is a woman in an everyday context and i would not say that a transwoman is a man unless we are speisifically talking about biology (or genetics).
Harry HinduNovember 09, 2019 at 16:09#3506650 likes
Dude. a construct in that sense isn't just a mental thing. It's a way of splitting up a phenomenon into components that have measurable aspects. I linked to what I meant by construct. Here it is again. Then I gave you the definition I was using in my own words, they were:
Dude, you're entire post is a red herring.
From your own link:
A construct is a hypothesized cause for a certain behavior.
It is a mental category that is causally connected with the observation of biological realities. The biological realities exist before the construct, and the construct is based on the observations of those realities.
Therefore, when you made the following statement: Quoting fdrake
The entire point of that argument strategy is to get us talking about biological sex, as if it's relevant to gender at all...
I showed, and it appears that you now agree with me, that your social construction of gender IS about sex, because you admitted that: Quoting fdrake
The crucial thing about a construct is that it should indicate patterns in the studied phenomenon. That is to say, it should change when the phenomenon in question changes. Differences in the phenomenon should be observable in the construct. One should track the other.
Can you have a shared expectation about what a willy necessitates and what it doesn't if there weren't willies and non-willies?
Answer the question.
The differences in the biological sexes should be observable in the construct - meaning that any change in the assortment of willies and non-willies would change our construct of sex, or our shared assumptions of what entails gender. If we're not agreeing on what gender is, how is it a shared assumption (a social construction)?
If transgenders are non-binary, then why do they keep using those binary terms of "woman" and "man" to refer to themselves. If gender is non-binary then shouldn't they be using different terms to refer to themselves, and why would they be changing their sex if gender has nothing to do with sex?
Harry HinduNovember 09, 2019 at 16:15#3506670 likes
You're missing the point. She is her body. She (the woman in question) recognises it.
She moves to alter her body (a penis, we'll be reductive for simplicity) because she recognises it is a part of her.
If she was delusional about her body, she would have no motivation to alter her body. She would believe she had a vagina and no penis (again, I'll be reductive for simplicity's sake), so she would not hold her body (with a penis) needs changing.
If "she" (so much for steering away from gender-binary terms) recognized that the penis is part of "her" then why would she want to remove it? Why would someone want to remove something that is part of them. It seems to me that people would only remove things that they think aren't part of them. Both can recognize the existence of the part, but one thinks it doesn't belong, or isn't what defines them, yet they go about transforming themselves into the opposite binary entity, even though they claim it's non-binary.
TheWillowOfDarknessNovember 09, 2019 at 23:32#3508200 likes
I'm not quite sure what you think was going on. My point was she recognised she existed with penis, but understood it doesn't belong or ought not be there.
All along my point has been these are both true. Transformation is sought because she recognises how she exists but understands this ought to be different.
My point is a falsehood to say she is delusional about what body she has. If she already believed she existed with the body she ought it have, she would understand there is nothing which needs to change. One has to realise something is part of them to be have the goal of removing it from themsleves. My point is someone has to recognise how they exist, if they are to think something about their existence doesn't belong.
Ergo, it is impossible for this person to be delusional about how their body exists. They need to know how they exist (with a penis) for them to want to change it.
It's not really question of binary either because it's about the body. If the issue is you exist with a penis, then whether one is male, female or anything else doesn't define the problem.
If one ought not have a penis, then there is motivation to remove it whether you are male,.female or something else entirely. Whether having a penis is binary or non-binary does nothing eliminate the issue. Either might be true, the person question would still want it removed, it's the state of body which they hold to be a problem.
HereToDisscussNovember 10, 2019 at 00:22#3508410 likes
It's not really question of binary either because it's about the body. If the issue is you exist with a penis, then whether one is male, female or anything else doesn't define the problem.
If one ought not have a penis, then there is motivation to remove it whether you are male,.female or something else entirely. Whether having a penis is binary or non-binary does nothing eliminate the issue. Either might be true, the person question would still want it removed, it's the state of body which they hold to be a problem.
While the first part is true (albeit both of you are strawmanning each other, you are doing it by taking "delusional" to be something different while he does it by taking "being a part of something" to be something different), there is a problem with this: Some transwomen are fine with their penises and do not have genital dysphoria. So, it is not merely them having a penis existing that is the problem.
That is the same for a lot of things that you would think transwomen would have a problem with: manly voice, beard (i have even heard someone say she only cut her beard because it was weird, but she liked it), being called a "he" or a "lad"...
It is because some of them can't see someone with a penis/manly voice/beard as a woman, especially themselves, that they want to change it. *The misidentity is the reason, not the mere fact that they have a penis or whatever.
*That is not to say that they do not recognize such people as women (if they do identify as such, the the vast majority of them do), but rather that they would not be able to convince themselves that they are a woman because of these features. It would constantly bug them (for simplicity's sake).
It is "I ought to not have a penis because i do not want a penis since it makes me feel manly which i do not want.", not "I ought to not have a penis simply because i just do not want a penis for an unknown reason."
Harry HinduNovember 10, 2019 at 03:46#3508760 likes
Reply to TheWillowOfDarkness
How is that any different than someone cutting off their legs because felt they didnt belong to their body? Is someone that cuts off their legs delusional?
Check this out:
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/health/psychology/at-war-with-their-bodies-they-seek-to-sever-limbs.html
Dr. John Money is even mentioned and the whole gist of the article is that this is a sexual deviation - an abnormality.
What makes it okay to cut off your penis, but not your legs? If one is a psychological disorder, why isn't the other?
Harry HinduNovember 10, 2019 at 04:24#3508800 likes
My point is a falsehood to say she is delusional about what body she has. If she already believed she existed with the body she ought it have, she would understand there is nothing which needs to change. One has to realise something is part of them to be have the goal of removing it from themsleves. My point is someone has to recognise how they exist, if they are to think something about their existence doesn't belong.
What does it mean for someone to think that they should have been born in a different body? It doesn't make sense to say that they recognize the part as being part of them and then removing it makes them more like how they are suppose to be. If they already recognize the part as part of them, then removing it would remove part of them.
A delusion is defined as:
characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
The idiosyncratic belief is that they were born in the wrong body. What does that even mean? Are they saying that they have a soul that is female that was put in the body of a male? What exactly are they implying when they claim to be the opposite sex, or that their body parts are wrong, and how is that consistent with how we treat others who follow the same pattern - just with different body parts?
You're missing the point. She is her body. She (the woman in question) recognises it.
She moves to alter her body (a penis, we'll be reductive for simplicity) because she recognises it is a part of her.
If she was delusional about her body, she would have no motivation to alter her body. She would believe she had a vagina and no penis (again, I'll be reductive for simplicity's sake), so she would not hold her body (with a penis) needs changing.
But he does not identify with the sex he was born as and often seeks to alter it through surgical means, or less dramatically, by adopting the garb and mannerisms of the opposite sex. If he was his body, and identified as himself, he wouldn’t seek to alter himself and portray himself as something he wasn’t.
Roxanne KellyNovember 14, 2019 at 14:55#3524130 likes
If gender is a social construct, shouldn't there be examples of societies in which there are no genders at all?
A gender-less society should have zero concept of gender, humans should just be viewed as humans with no categorizing of people based on the concept of gender.
I've heard the argument that money is a social construct and this is used as an example of how gender might also be a social construct. Indeed, there are examples of societies that do not use money and have no concept of money (Awa people of the Amazon, for instance). Therefore, we should be able to identify a society that has no concept of gender.
Examples have been given of societies that acknowledge more than 2 genders, but these societies still have the concept of gender. This is simply an example of a wider view of gender, not an example of a society that has not conceived of gender.
Differences in language such as the non-existence of gender pronouns is not evidence of a gender-less society. If a society doesn't have gendered language but still acknowledges gender through societal customs, beliefs, and rituals, then this is not a true gender-less society. I could be wrong, but I don't think that such a society exists or has existed. If anyone knows of an example of a society with no concept of gender, I'd be curious to learn about it.
ZhouBoTongNovember 15, 2019 at 02:57#3525850 likes
I've heard the argument that money is a social construct and this is used as an example of how gender might also be a social construct. Indeed, there are examples of societies that do not use money and have no concept of money (Awa people of the Amazon, for instance). Therefore, we should be able to identify a society that has no concept of gender.
I still do not have a strong opinion on this topic. I have just been reading the back and forth to see if I would be persuaded in any direction. Still not there, but I think what you are getting at here is logical and potentially significant to the discussion. I look forward to any responses. good stuff.
As it was your first post, I will point out that since you did not tag anyone in your response, it may take a while before everyone sees it. (usually try to hit the @ button and type the name of the poster(s) you are responding to, and then they will get a notice - some people here are VERY active and may forget about the 8 different threads they commented on. Another option is to highlight lines of text - of other posters - and then a "quote" button will pop up - hit that and the lines will be added to your post AND the person is tagged)
Deleted UserNovember 15, 2019 at 03:16#3525990 likes
If gender is a social construct, shouldn't there be examples of societies in which there are no genders at all?
If convention X is in play in every society, convention X cannot be a social construct?
The logic is problematic as it's possible, logically, that convention X is both a social construct and in play in every society.
Welcome to the forums!
Roxanne KellyNovember 15, 2019 at 12:38#3527270 likes
Reply to ZzzoneiroCosm Do you have examples of things that are purely social constructs and present in every society? I guess that's possible, but I can't think of any that can't ALSO be explained by biology. The issue that I have with the argument that "gender is a social construct" is that it is usually being presented as completely independent of biology.
I think that gender is derived from both biology and society. In genetics we have the concept of a genotype and a phenotype. The genotype is the DNA sequence and the phenotype is the expression of that DNA. I might have a DNA sequence that codes for blue eyes. The blueness of my eyes is the phenotype. I think sex and gender work the same way. My sex is female, my gender is female. There can be variations and anomalies, but female sex is generally predictive of female gender. If your sex is female, it is most likely that your gender will also be expressed as female. This doesn't negate the validity of transgender, non-binary, intersex, etc. Biology is complex. Most biological systems are not an on/off switch or a yes/no.
The reason that we don't see any example of a genderless society is because if we could remove all social rules about gender, there would still be the concept of gender, because of biology.
Much more interesting questions arise if gender is viewed as a product of both biology and society. How much of gender is due to societal influence and how much is driven by biology? What would gender be like if we could somehow strip away all gender roles and rules implemented by society? What would it feel like to be my gender under these circumstances?
All societies of humans have humans with sex characteristics in them. This is because humans obviously have human sex characteristics.
This makes sex characteristics useless in explaining all the variety in gender over populations, geography and time; even if it is granted that gender is a social construct whose existence requires the existence of human sex characteristics; or that some gender norms occur commonly enough over populations and time that they may be promoted or influenced by differences in sex characteristics over male and females (in terms of their natal sex). This "promotes" and this "influenced by" are still much weaker statements than "is explained by" or "is causally reducible to".
What remains after that small caveat is still most of the variation; and for that we have to look to culture and social life.
The issue that I have with the argument that "gender is a social construct" is that it is usually being presented as completely independent of biology.
Who presents it that way? The social construct gender is no more independent of biology than the social construct of "President" is. In the sense that both need bodies to function. In neither case though is the required biology determinative of the construct (though obviously gender is more likely to map).
I think that gender is derived from both biology and society. In genetics we have the concept of a genotype and a phenotype. The genotype is the DNA sequence and the phenotype is the expression of that DNA. I might have a DNA sequence that codes for blue eyes. The blueness of my eyes is the phenotype. I think sex and gender work the same way. My sex is female, my gender is female.
This is based on a confusion. Presidents are also derived from both biology and society. But there is no phenotype "President" nor is there a phenotype "gender". The phenotype of sex chromosomes is their physical expression, i.e. our respective junk.
(Another way this cashes out is simply that there is no physical experiment you can carry out to determine gender but there is to determine sex.)
Roxanne KellyNovember 15, 2019 at 13:15#3527310 likes
If biology is acknowledged as a factor in gender expression, then the existence of transgender people makes so much more sense. Their gender expresses differently from their sex. Some people feel this difference at a young age, before they have been fully indoctrinated into all of the cultural norms of their society. Why? What is driving this?
You assert that most gender differences are due to society and culture. I'm not arguing that point. No one knows how much of gender is due to biology vs society. I guess a good place to look would be at our closest ancestors. How do chimps express gender, do they have gender roles? I will look into it, I'm curious. :)
Roxanne KellyNovember 15, 2019 at 13:26#3527330 likes
Reply to Baden I was using genotype/phenotype as an example of how the interplay between biology and gender might work. When I say biology, I don't mean the existence of a physical body. I mean biological systems. What is gender according to you?
As I said above, it's a social construct. I mean you can use it interchangeably with biological sex in a loose way. But if you're talking about anything of importance, it's best to keep the terms separate for clarity. That's another way of saying I go along with the standard dictionary definition:
"Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
If biology is acknowledged as a factor in gender expression, then the existence of transgender people makes so much more sense.
Broadly "biology" would have something to do with it, probably. Gender nonconformity in children is a thing. It spans cultures and epochs. There are people that don't fit "penis = who I am" or "vagina = who I am" as social archetypes. This isn't surprising, at least it shouldn't be. Questions about what biological factors influence gender nonconformity are useful.
But (and this is a big but), this influence should not be treated as a causally reductive. We're not dealing with something like "the ebola virus causes the ebola disease" or "having no legs makes you unable to walk unaided" or "daddy didn't beat sonny enough so the kid became a sissy", we're dealing with observations of humans as a result of natal hormonal environments interacting with humans interacting with social groups interacting with family units interacting with societal tropes interacting with systems of punishment and praise... It's complex in the sense that it would be a miracle if there was just one thing going on; if there was one type of cause, and that this cause could be called "biology" when we already know it's not just that.
We don't think things like economies are reducible to anatomical characteristics, why should we think that other systems of social relation are? We just don't think like "The reason that the price of tuna just increased is because people have stomachs", and we shouldn't, it's stupid,
Roxanne KellyNovember 15, 2019 at 16:26#3527670 likes
Yes, it is complicated, I agree. I never said that biology is the only factor, it isn't.
Reply to thewonder "But what if I believe there are only two genders?" I think this question is on the minds of a lot of Americans and must be taken care of early in this process. How do you address this issue?
As I said above, it's a social construct. I mean you can use it interchangeably with biological sex in a loose way. But if you're talking about anything of importance, it's best to keep the terms separate for clarity. That's another way of saying I go along with the standard dictionary definition:
"Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Seems to me that this definition is saying that gender is a property of a culture, not a body. So to change your gender would require you to change your culture, not your clothes or your body.
A social construction is a shared assumption - meaning that it is something that people of the same culture would agree on. If someone comes along and doesn't share that assumption, then what they are talking about isn't a social construction, but an individual feeling or notion.
The assumption isn't that wearing a dress makes you a woman. The assumption is that females are females no matter what they wear, but in order for us to distinguish males from females, females should wear different clothes than a man. When we have a social construction about wearing clothes in public, where we can't observe each other's junk, then we need another social construction where men and women need to wear different types of clothes to be able to distinguish them apart for mating purposes.
god must be atheistDecember 31, 2019 at 10:33#3673060 likes
I don't know if someone has said this yet, but my opinion can be expressed in one short sentence:
"What's good for the gander, is good for the gender."
I walked into an institute where I am a frequently seen guest, and wanted to use the washroom. But I was barred. It had a sign on it, "All Gender Washroom". I am only one gender. How could I with clear conscience pee in the toilet when I am not all genders?
"And verily I say unto you, collect manna on the Mount of Hober, and pay sacrifice by letting the blood of a black gander. Lo, I say unto you, thou shalt gather all the genders, and conjugate them during the congregation of the feast of Passover, praise be to the Lord of the highest, Amen."
Jokes over. Take it, Benny.
god must be atheistDecember 31, 2019 at 10:42#3673080 likes
"Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Right. We often speak of "ships" as "her" or "she", although they definitely have no tits.
It is a socially assigned role, he-she is. In jails oftentimes a male is referred to as somebody's bitch, and the guards call male inmates "ladies".
A butch is a Dutch dyke. These two are apparently very, very derogatory terms, and I would never use them beyond the value of a pun.
In England, many men are referred to as Kant, imagine the proper spelling. Other males are assigned the term "asshole", which is a common entry point in copulation, while agricultural terms are given to prostitutes, who can be male, female, or both, sich as "back hoe", when they specialize in one, and only one position.
god must be atheistDecember 31, 2019 at 18:18#3673900 likes
The assumption isn't that wearing a dress makes you a woman. T
I'm old enough to remember, when people took exception to women wearing pants. "Who wears the pants around the house in your house?" Then came the men with long hair, and then later with earrings, and women started to wear cucumbers in their pants.
By this time, nobody gave a hoot that the majority of the people in a certain well-known country carried weapons, and were drunk or high on drugs at the same time.
Eventually we will all wear diapers, and defacate in each others' lattes and plates of soup, all due to gender identity boundary desruction issues, and then, in addition, because of PC, we will be forced to drink the blood of living creatures. The whore of Babylon shalt then in those times rise from the east, and throughout the land there shalten be a great rubbing of parts.
Comments (498)
I actually don't care what she prefers unless I'm given something I consider a good reason to care. ;-)
Au contraire, mon ami! Judith Butler is the author of Gender Trobule, and I would bet that ey would want for you to refer to em by eir chosen pronouns.
I don't care either. I don't just adopt silly linguistic inventions on demand.
Sure, but that doesn't impact whether I care. I might call her Lurch, even.
You can't always get what you want.
Well, if you want to be really lazy, you can just substitute "they" or "them" for nearly everything. That's what the queer community around here does.
I'm just saying that I think that you should care because Gender Trouble is like the seminal work on contemporary Queer Theory.
I agree with you. If Terrapin is a man by gender than I will call him “he”. If Judith is gender fluid then I will call them “they” if that’s what they prefer.
Thanks Noah Te Stroete. My guess would be that Judith Butler identifies as she/gender-neutral pronoun, and, so, @Terrapin Station might get away with it, but were they present, I feel like ey might correct him.
I have no problem with however anyone wants to be, whatever consensual choices they want to make etc.--I'm very much a minarchist, laissez-faire libertarian in that sense, but I don't agree with a lot of the sort of LitCritty humanities theorizing that goes on. I think a lot of it is garbage philosophically. Of course, I feel that way about a lot of philosophy in general, especially LitCritty, continental, PoMo, etc. stuff. (But not just that--I think there's a lot of garbage analytic philosophy, too).
Not for long, because they'd not enjoy the debate they'd get into about it.
If no one practices getting the pronouns correct then they will never become easy to use colloquially. Judith Butler may be a lesbian, but ey is not a lesbian who identifies as having a binary gender. You are correct that this is not terribly relevent, and, so, Professor Butler is probably fine.
It's a little bit nitpicky and a little too difficult to get a decent handle on, but you really should use the chosen pronouns. It's sort of like how in the 50s, when you didn't know the gender of the subject of a sentence you would just have to assume that he or she was male. It took kind of a while to alter the language so that people would say "he or she" etc. The gender-neutral pronouns are kind of the same way. If the person does not identify as being male or female, then you should refer to em by eir chosen pronouns.
Alas, though, this is off-topic.
You should do this because?
No thanks. I find that ridiculous. I'll just talk normally.
Because ey don't identify as being male or female, and, so, it is not correct to subjectify them as either. By doing so, you have referred to another subject who is not present.
I will also begin demanding that you refer to me by the pronoun "xe" if you don't just decide to agree with me.
Wait, are you serious? Because it sounds almost trollish, but then I remind myself that some people out there genuinely would say such things. That's very much part of the Looney Left, and I would disassociate myself with that group.
But, it's not normal, though.
It used to be that when you were discussing something, let's say a person driving a car, that you would assume that the gender of the person, if you didn't know it, was male.
So, "A person was driving a car. He turned left."
This was considered to be grammatically correct, but it's totally absurd. You don't know that the gender of the person driving the car is male. After a long debate with a lot of Feminists, grammarians changed this.
It became: "A person was driving a car. He or she turned left."
This is better, but it still assumes that the person driving the car identifies as being either male or female. It doesn't take too much of a stretch of the imagination to suggest that there is a real need for a gender neutral pronoun.
It should be: "A person was driving a car. Ey(or some other gender neutral pronoun) turned left."
You don't know the gender of the person driving the car, and, so, can not assume that ey are either male or female.
It all sounds a bit funny, but through common usage it will cease to be so strange.
Saying such a thing makes me think that you're delusional or possibly a lawyer. What you demand is obviously not normal, generally speaking. It's a peculiar and recent phenomenon which most people not only reject, but find ridiculous. But I can't be bothered to read whatever small print follows the above where you presumably try to qualify that statement.
I am not a lawyer, but I do see how someone could get that impression. I've thought about studying Law.
Just read it. It's only like 8 sentences.
Yes, if that happens, then it will cease to be an issue for me. But I don't expect that that'll happen any time soon, and if you believe otherwise, then I think that you're just thinking wishfully. Obviously, before that can happen, a vast number of people would have to go along with the silliness, and not enough people are going to do that.
Quoting thewonder
Holy moley--"correct" again.
There is no "correct" when it comes to this stuff.
I demand that you let me use language however I want to. I don't identify as a conformist to what others want.
But you do conform more than you don’t. However, you do conform less than most around here, so I guess that’s the problem with communicating with you.
Eh, I'm hopeful. It's become quite common to use the colloquial "they". That's fine by me in spite of that it actually is grammatically incorrect. I don't mind conceptualizing gender as a multiplicity, though.
It is kind of a particular issue that only ever gets brought up in left-wing academic circles. In so far that such a community is capable of effecting any real change, things will change. You can almost be a Communist without nearly everyone assuming that you're either a Stalinist totalitarian or a backstabbing traitor now. So, they effect some sort of change. Who's to say whether or not it's really for the greater good?
Your demands disregard the demands of others. Just use "they" or "them". That's what mostly everyone who cares about these things does from what I can tell.
Why would it be a problem that such people are rare, or that things are the way that they are? Things are the way that they are because it's convenient, makes sense, and because we value freedom of speech. I don't think that it would solve any problem, generally speaking, if a vast number of people suddenly popped up and demanded the rest of us adopt their weird ways of speaking. It would of course suit those with that agenda, but I don't recognise it as a real problem to begin with. It might well be a problem for them, but it's not my problem. But it's a problem if some arrogant and self-obsessed individual starts demanding I call them this or that in some peculiar language. To that, I would probably tell them to do one.
I use whatever feels right. I wouldn't use "one", as that would be silly. But I wouldn't deliberately refer to a transgender female as a he, for example. I just ain't saying all of the dumb shit, like "xe" or "ey" or whatever.
No problem. It’s not my axe to grind.
Their demands disregard mine.
Who gets preference and why?
When gender is unknown,
Some pronouns can’t be said,
So, for he or she, use “e”,
As for him or her, it’s “erm”,
And for his or hers, use “eir”.
As for a singular you, that is it;
For the plural, use “you-all”.
Shame. :eyes:
I always forget not to say, "you guys". There have been a number of occasions when I've said something like "see you guys" to a group of either all women or people who don't identify in a binary sense. It's a strange colloquial habit that I should probably drop.
They get the preference because they have the stake in the argument. Your stubborn insistence upon maintaining the rules of English grammar does not place you in a position where you are falsely identified.
In the New Grammar School:
Genderless Pronouns
Since there are no gender neutral pronouns in the English Language, how do we refer to antecedents whose gender is irrelevant, without resorting to clumsy constructions such as “he or she” (or should it be “she” or “he”), or by using the generic “he” and thereby maligning women, or by tiresomely repeating the original noun over and over.
We’ll have to invent the gender neutral pronouns.
But they won’t have a chance of getting used if they don’t sound right.
Right, they would have to be different enough from what they’re replacing to be distinct, but similar enough to suggest a ready parallel which could easily catch on. So, they’d still have to be a single syllable, for example, but without suggesting sounds already used for other common simple words, like the long vowel sound of “a” (the article “a”), “i” (the pronoun “I”), “o” (the exclamation “oh”), “u” (the pronoun “you”), and “y” (the adverb “why”), all of which, of course, are already taken.
Sounds tough.
It’s so tough that no such common gender pronouns have ever caught on, although many have been suggested, such as, for the third person subjective singular, “it”, singular “they”, “heesh”, and “thon” (the one). Yet, the problem of the third person subjective singular has been solved in the written word.
What is the solution?
“S(he)” or “s/he”.
Yes, I’ve seen it used; but of course orally it would still sound like “she” or “he or she”. What do you suggest?
Perhaps we can use the fact that “he” and “she” share the long “e” sound. “He or she” can simply be replaced by “e”; luckily, it’s the only unused long vowel sound left for use as a word of its own.
Let’s try it.
“The writer must carefully proofread what e writes.”
“After God created the Earth in six days, E rested on the seventh.”
“Everyone likes pizza, doesn’t e? (They sure do.)”
“E who hesitates is lost.”
“Every one of us knows e is fallible.”
“Everyone is invited, whether e is a member or not.”
“The quick-walker down the morning path gazes, to where e will be when the next trail blazes.”
Sounds good. Now, what about the third person objective singular. I don’t want to have to say “him or her”.
Since “him” and “her” have dissimilar sounds, we’ll have to somehow combine them, and perhaps utilize the fact that they each start with the same letter “h”, by either retaining it or dropping it, although we certainly don’t want to replace it.
How about “himer” or “herim” or “her-him”?
Too long. But that gives me an idea. How about “erm”, using this line of reasoning: “her-him” -> “herim” -> “erim” -> “erm”? I would have preferred “herm” but that’s a man’s name.
“The new class president gets elected tomorrow, so I’ll leave it up to erm.”
“Everyone came and I was glad to see erm.”
“Let everyone ask ermself to consider the implications of the lack of the epicene pronoun.”
“Either John or Mary should bring a schedule with erm.”
Maybe we could even shorten it to “em”, like “everyone came and I was glad to see em.”
I wish we could use it but “em” is also a contraction of “them”. Too bad, but maybe “erm” will catch on.
OK, maybe, but what about the third person possessive singular; I don’t want to have to say “his or hers”. I know we can’t use “hiser” or “their”, which is plural, although lots of people say wrong things like “One must watch their language” or “Does anyone want to read their best poem to us?”
The wrong usage of “their” gives me an idea. Perhaps we can yet use its wrongness to our advantage, since it has come to sound almost right. Since we can’t use the combination “ern” from “his” and “her” because “ern” conflicts with “earn”, how about another approach: let’s use “eir” and play off of the groundwork laid by good sound of the misuse of the plural “their”.
Let’s try it.
“Who dropped eir ticket?”
“Would each student please hang up eir coat upon entering the classroom.”
“One must watch eir language.”
“Does anyone want to read eir best poem to us?” And you know what the best thing about “e”, “erm”, and “eir”; something great that we didn’t even notice?
What is it?
They all start with the letter “e”. That will unify the set and make it easier to remember.
Hey, you’re right. Thanks, I’ll use that as a selling point.
Manglish
English, for all its large vocabulary, has some missing words. For one, there is no personal pronoun which means “he or she” in the epicene case (gender-neutral or non-gender-specific case). If there were, then we could use it when the gender was irrelevant or unknown. Worse yet, the present solution, he, is of the masculine case, although ‘he’ is used generically. Still, this causes males to be more often imaged in the reader’s or listener’s mind, thus rendering females less visible. A similar problem exists for “him or her” and “his or hers”. Substituting brand new words is not an easy task, or such words would have presented themselves through common usage, for example, youse, all of you, and you-all (y’all) have filled in for the non distinct plural form of you (used as both singular and plural).
Another problem is the gap left by corrupted feminine nouns. For example, ‘bachelor’ is a respectable term for an unmarried male, but the feminine counterparts of bachelor all had connotations (spinster, divorcee, maiden, old maid, widow), so much so that females had to adopt ‘bachelorette’, but this is still a male derived word and is also diminutive. Fortunately, this problem has been solved with the introduction of female single, or ‘femgle’. Not really. The word ‘female’ even contains ‘male’, which I suppose is the biblical ‘of the male’, or else is was meant to be ‘fee-male’, as taking a woman out usually means there is a fee (just a joke), and ‘woman’ embraces ‘man’ in it. So, let us try to turn Manglish back into English, but then we’d have to reprint all the books!
Examples of the Problems:
Each one of us loves his mother.
The writer must carefully proofread what he writes.
All men are created equal.
Let’s ask each of the poets what he thinks is his best work.
Let everyone ask himself to consider the problem of the lack of the epicene pronoun.
Man, being a mortal, breast feeds his young.
Well, Jane, you’re a real handyman.
After God created the Earth in six days, He rested on the seventh.
Mrs. Robert Jones is our new chairman.
Everyone likes pizza, doesn’t he? (They sure do.)
This is the house whose roof leaks.
She gave her jewels.
It’s time you (you-all) came to visit us.
Would everyone please hang up their coat.
Summary
E, eir, erm; ermself are certainly the mainstays of the new personal pronoun set, as they are the ones used most often, being in the third person. It is a fortunate coincidence that e, eir, erm; ermself all start with “e”. This unifies the set and makes them easier to remember. E is also the only vowel sound yet unused for an important word. ‘Eir’ suggests a parallel to “their”. ‘Erm’ combines ‘him’ and ‘her’.
The Final Words
Each person must watch eir words when e writes or speaks. Everyone(now plural) must try their best to be fair to both men and wym. The writer is urged to remind ermself to rewrite eir books and substitute the new pronouns so that fems can be imaged as well as males. Wimyn should then see sheir status improve. Shey can then truly say that all gen are created equal and that every hume is fairly represented in language. All genkind will benefit. Thank yous for yur interest in this subject. However, the pronoun ‘which’ is still without a possessive case, and therefore English is still a language whose missing words need attention.
(I have a full chart somewhere, if I can find it.)
Also:
Verbs has to agree with their subjects.
Be more or less specific.
It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
Avoid clichés like the plague—they’re old hat.
Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
Like, don’t use the word ‘like’, a lot, like in this sentence.
Foreign words are not apropos.
Contractions aren’t necessary and shouldn’t be used.
And don’t start a sentence with a conjunction.
No sentence fragments.
Also, too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it’s highly superfluous.
Its important to be careful about it—about it’s meaning.
Oh my goodness. This is a problem of people caring too much. I often include female friends when I say "guys", as that has clearly at some point taken on a gender neutral meaning, and those taking offence are taking it too literally and being too easily offended.
Except they don't get the preference, at least where I'm from, because thankfully I'm not from an authoritarian society with people who think like you in charge. This isn't 1984.
Lately, I hear that there are 57 genders. Where does it ever end?
Thanks, I got a good laugh out of that. :lol:
Hahahaha! Yeah, and then we can all sound like we're cockneys.
"Oi gov, I ain't dun nufin. E did it, I swears".
A few years ago, I read a book by psychiatrist Stephen Mitchell. I'd heard that it was really a good book. In the preface, he indicated that he would vary the use of the third person singular when referring to people - sometimes he would use "he" and sometimes "she." I remember being annoyed and I almost didn't read the book. When I did, though, I found that the varied use of he and she made a big difference in how I thought about what he wrote. It felt like his ideas had opened up and become more three dimensional, inclusive. I started picturing women in the situations he described as well as men. It was eye-opening.
Since then, I've tried to use the same approach, although I have not been consistent. I won't use "he or she" or "he/she." It breaks the flow of the words and sounds stupid. Sometimes I'll use "it," e.g. when I'm referring to a construction contractor.
My sister's eldest child is a male who identifies himself as non-gendered. If he identified himself as a woman, I would have no problem saying "she." General principle - call people what they want to be called. But I have a hard time calling a person "they." It bothers me a lot. Makes talking about them difficult. I find myself using his name rather than using a pronoun, although that can sound goofy after a while. I call him "my sister's eldest child" rather than my nephew. I avoid the issue to the extent I can. when I'm around them because I love them both and have no desire to show disrespect. I would never say this to my former nephew, but I think it to myself - transgender people make up 0.3% of the US population. That comes to about a million people. I don't know what proportion of those consider themselves male, female, or ungendered. My point - I bothers me that we should change a major part of our language for such a small group.
There's a wonderful set of books by Anne Leckie - Ancillary Sword, Ancillary Justice, and Ancillary Mercy. It takes place in the far future in a culture where there are no distinctions based on gender. Leckie handles that by using all female pronouns - everyone is she. Grown up people are women. When they need to refer to men, they are called women with penises.
This was a lengthy and informative reply. Thanks, PoeticUniverse. I don't mean to assume that you're unaware of them, but I think that you have just rediscovered the Spivak pronouns.
Submit to the newspeak and let the queer community destroy the English language, S!
I think that I've heard of those. It sounds pretty fascinating, T Clark.
Living here in the northeast US, referring to mixed groups of men and women is common. I've never seen a woman being offended by that, although I tend to hang around with a rough and tumble group of people. I have known women who are creeped out when someone will say "guys and gals."
In the south, they say "you'all" which is good, but I never feel right saying it.
This brings to mind something from the old "National Lampoon" back in the 1970s - the term they used was "vagino-Americans." I still laugh whenever I hear that.
What in the world does that refer to, to "have the stake in the argument"?
Quoting thewonder
??? I'm not saying anything even remotely in the vein of endorsing "the rules of English grammar."
Yes, I was unaware; so, the rediscoveries might indicate that they would be useful.
Shey might not go for that, plus the 'o' is kind of a male ending, such as with 'filipino' (vs filipina) which still would be good for males who have converted, leaving 'vaginas' for true females. Yes, men are 'dicks'.
Ey are asking that you respect who ey attest that ey are. You have no existential stake in the argument.
They are there, but some people have qualms with them. I think that they're pretty good.
There are not 57 genders. Gender is performative and sexuality is fluid. You perform an infinite array of gender roles whilst generally carrying on however. Someone may have counted that there are 57 different ways that people identify, but they have bound to have missed someone. There are an infinite number of genders as each one is particular to each situation.
You know, the "queer" community doesn't have a hive mind. There are plenty of people, including myself and a number of my close friends, who are not heterosexual, yet do not make the silly demands of some of the more outspoken members who associate themselves with the LGBT+ group, and are in fact in agreement with me, and with with the majority who have yet to lose grasp of their good sense.
I find that last sentence hilarious. Absolutely bonkers.
Are we speaking of the queer community, the LGBT community, the LGBTQ community, or, the LGBT+ community, or the LBGTQ+ community? From my experience, the queer community does care about gender pronouns.
How is it bonkers? In so far that gender is performative (That is a claim that is not necessarily accepted by the queer community as a whole, although, from what I glean, it seems to be a consensus.), the gender that you perform is particular to the situation that you are in. There are as many genders as there are particular situations. We can, therefore, say that there are something like an infinite number of genders.
You can't be serious.
Quoting thewonder
Well then your experience must be very limited. And regardless, you're simply not qualified to speak for the community as a whole, as though you are it's mouthpiece. It comes across as very arrogant.
If it was all trolling, then kudos. You got me.
I have included qualifying terms in all of my arguments and have not claimed to speak for the community as a whole. I do indentify as being queer as I do accept that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid, but, as I, for all intensive purposes, am functionally straight, I just let people refer to me as being male.
What I mean is that there are a lot of internal divisions within the LGBTQ+ community, many of which revolve around the queer community. Not everyone in the LBGTQ+ community accepts Queer Theory as being valid.
I am having fun with it, but do contend that I have not maintained either an absurd or an extreme position.
It isn't. I treat that word as basically synonymous with "gay" and "homosexual" and the rest of it is just elaborate nonsense. It's as much nonsense as the following:
Quoting thewonder
Identify as being queer, but functionally straight? Lol.
"humba wumba shlumba dumbha, these sounds even in the haze"
"Twas brillig and the slithy toves..."
"embiggen"
are fine. Do people see no difference between sex and gender? As it applies arbitrarily; at one point does a river in France stop having a penis and become a giant vagina? Well no of course it only applies to bodies. But that's sex, right? Gender's a social construct linked to sexed and sexualised bodies.
But then there's intersex people, demipenises and stuff (I could eat a whole box of those). And chromosomes? Intersex can change that too.
If someone wants to be a fucking genderqueer blue wolf who uses "zem" pronouns why the hell do you care.
Being queer is not at all equivalent with being "gay" or "homosexual", though. My interpretation of Queer Theory is that it posits that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid. This is what I understand from my reading of Gender Trouble. I accept this hypothesis, and, therefore, identify as being "queer". Not all of the queer community accepts this, and not all of the queer community considers for Gender Trouble to be the seminal text on Queer Theory. Some people interpret eir postulation as having quite negative results. See Gender Nihilism. My speculation (I haven't read it, but should.) upon Gender Nihilism is that, while it may be a legitimate critique of Queer Theory, it is too deterministic.
@thewonder is a good person here and keeps the discussions going, plus he is being forthright.
There can be degrees of 'problems' with the masculinization of the brain. All embryos begin as female.
Thanks @PoeticUniverse.
You're basically restating this. What does it amount to to have an existential stake in an argument?
This is coming across to me like empty rhetoric where one isn't expecting it to be challenged.
I never said that thewonder isn't a good person, or anything of the sort. I just literally find some of what he is saying laughable.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
I know all about problems with masculinity first hand, having grown up male, and never quite fitting in with the typical male stereotype.
They aren't fringe beliefs in this regard, though. Being "queer" is not synonymous with being "homosexual". "Homosexuals" are just often called "queers" in a pejorative sense. Queer Theory can be summarized as being a radical reconceptualization of sexuality and gender. It is related to Gay and Lesbian Studies, but is not synonymous with it,
And that's why discussion with you is pointless. I think you're in denial. I feel as though if I were to say that the sky is blue, you would deny it and say that it is red, because you've attended Sky Colouration Studies or some shit, and the modern trend in such groups is the indoctrination that the colour of the sky is a matter of personal identification. Perhaps in your world you can even make up funny-sounding colours which don't really exist, like cerphleem. Yes, the sky is cerphleem.
Sorry, you can't be queer if you're not a homosexual. And you can't be a feminist if you are a man. And you can't be a black power advocate if you're white. You can be a white, straight, man who tries to be sympathetic and respectful of black, gay, and female people, but it's disrespectful and creepy to claim more than that.
If I experience the sky as being red, then it is red to me. A person who is colorblind may experience the sky as being red.
I'm just explaining that the equation of homosexuality with queerness is as a result of the slur, "queer". Identifying as being "queer" does, whether or not someone accepts Queer Theory, refer to something other than being "homosexual".
Oh god. You are very predictable. Sure, whatever, the sky is red, I'm a unicorn, and up is down.
Au contraire! I have posited that what being "queer" means is that you generally accept something along the lines of that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid as per Queer Theory. This does not necessarily imply that a person has to be a homosexual in order to be queer.
If you want to identify as being a unicorn, then that is something that I am willing to accept.
No, I'm saying a person has to be a homosexual to be queer. Using that word differently based on your own political preferences or desire to be included with the cool guys is, as I said, disrespectful and creepy.
I'm fully with you on that first sentence, but the next two sentences are false, even if it might strike some as peculiar. Being queer - outside of the bizarre make-believe world that people like thewonder comes from - just means being gay, albeit with nonidentical connotations. However, there is nothing in the meaning of feminism or black power advocation which precludes males or whites, nor should there be in the case of feminism especially, which is all about gender equality.
That you've posited something does not make it so. You do understand that, right? You are of course free to go by your own meanings, but no one is obliged to do likewise. When I was talking about the meaning of the word "queer", I was speaking generally. It might help if you thought outside of your own belief system instead of forgetting its status as a fringe view which many people outright reject. "Queer Theory" is not the norm. It is not widely accepted, nor even seen as a credible academic subject by lot of people.
Don't agree. You don't have to be a feminist to believe in gender equality. For a man to call himself a feminist is to try to coopt for himself whatever power and authority comes with that word. A lot of times it's also a way of avoiding personal guilt for gender conditions. Just the same for race.
I certainly don't care. It's just that I'm not going to be restricted to how other people want me to use language, unless I think there's a good reason to cater to the person's requests.
That's kind of in line with me not caring for conventions of etiquette in general. If you're going to have a problem with me not using the "right" silverware, not eating in the "right" order, not following some arbitrary set of ritualistic behavior, etc., then you'd probably better not hang out with me. You can do whatever you want and I won't give you a hard time about it. But I'm going to do the same thing, and I expect you to not give me a hard time about it, too.
Examples of available solutions:
People love their mothers.
Writers must carefully proofread their writing.
All people are created equal.
Let's ask the poets to name each of their best works.
Let's all ask ourselves to consider...
Being mortal, we breastfeed our young / Humans breastfeed their young.
And so on.
All of which pay heed to grammar and gender neutrality. Where the two must conflict for stylistic reasons, it's generally acceptable (and often desirable) to bend the grammar rules, especially concerning verb-subject agreement.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
They probably won't have a chance, period. The difficulty with messing with the pronouns is that they're a closed word class and very resistant to change. So, it's not something that can really be subject to decree. Having said that, I don't get the self-righteous refusal not to respect—within reason—others choices about how they want to be addressed. Seems like an unnecessary way to make enemies.
But that's not implied by what I said. That's actually a fallacious inference. Feminism, as I characterised it, is all about gender equality, but that is not at all to suggest that one must be a feminist to believe in gender equality. Feminism is just a form of gender equality advocation with a focus on females.
Quoting T Clark
That's a load of rubbish. I don't identify as a feminist, as it happens, but if I did I would be doing nothing of the sort. I would be expressing my support and identification with female focused equal rights.
Any ideology which claims to be feminism but is not about and in favour of gender equality is just another form of sexism.
If you don't care about etiquette in general this is a deeper problem than just apparently bollocks pronouns, sis.
That is just my summary of what Queer Theory is. I think that it suffices, but other people can disagree with it. It doesn't really seem like anyone knows quite enough about Queer Theory to really discount it. I fail to see how a theory which challanges traditional gender roles necessitates that a person has to be a homosexual in order to believe in it.
I actually think that that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid is just simply a statement of affairs. Being queer is not a choice in lifestyle, it's just simply describes the relationship that everyone has to sexuality and gender. I identify as being queer because I think that the traditional roles that we are assigned to at birth ought to be challanged. I don't always perform my gender as a male. I don't think that anyone does. I usually do, however. as I'm not usually in a situation where it is advantageous to behave otherwise. I actually think that everyone is queer. Identifying as such is also a partial means to promote the theory which I see as being mostly positive.
For the simple and fairly obvious reason that people ambiguous in appearance are not speaking out in significant numbers and demanding that I adopt [i]that particular[/I] terminology in reference to them. So it's a non-issue. That's just a segment of deliberately nonsensical poetry. It's not the same.
But if they were, then my position would essentially be no different. I simply won't be browbeaten into adopting nonsense terminology or be made to feel bad every time the situation calls for the use of personal pronouns, and it's as simple as that. It's only an issue because people have made it into one. I would rather the whole thing were not an issue, as it is an embarrassing distraction from more serious and worthy causes, but this is what certain contemporary groups have been making noise about, and yes, it has pretty much become a parody of itself.
It's only a problem for people who care about etiquette and want me to follow it. :yum:
There is a good reason, though. You ought to respect their chosen identity.
Imagine if I exclusively decided to refer to you as "she" or "her" in a demeaning sexist sense. Terrapin Station made a comment. She is totally off of her rocker. You would, at first, probably ignore this as you would consider yourself to be someone who is above engaging in such a discourse, but would probably eventually be bothered by it enough to address me with why it is that you don't think that I should do that.
I think that respecting chosen pronouns is kind of similar.
Yes, probably, as not 100% all one way, just as many might have some amount of any condition, such as depression, but not really notice, since it doesn't exceed some threshold.
Within reason.
Actually I couldn't care less how you address me, what you call me. The only "requirement" if you want a response is that I have to be able to figure out that you're addressing me somehow. But you don't have to care about that, of course.
There is no claim that you attest by making an argument. You aren't of a marginalized position and don't need to stake your existence when engaging in debate. I'm not quite sure how to put this effectively. A person who is queer has to contend the validity of their being while making an argument for that you should use their chosen pronouns. Because you are, I assume, heteronormative, you don't risk anything by engaging in the debate.
How is that there are an arbitrary set of behaviors that are considered to be masculine and feminine more reasonable than what Queer Theory posits?
That's obviously false, though. You must have something in mind other than what you're literally saying.
Quoting thewonder
What determines this, exactly, and why does it matter, exactly?
Quoting thewonder
What the heck is "staking one's existence"?
Quoting thewonder
That's just nonsense, though. First off, "validity" doesn't apply to "being."
As in:
A: "I really must apologize about X" (Obligation presumed)
B: "Oh, there's no need to apologize" (Obligation negated)(But with the unspoken necessary condition of negation here being the original assumption of obligation in the apology itself)
So, the converse is that someone asks you as a favour to refer to them by their preferred pronoun presuming no obligation. Then, on the basis of that lack of presumption, you accept it as an obligation. In other words the obligatory etiquette arises out of its voluntary negation by its beneficiary.
As in:
A: "I'd really appreciate it if you would refer to me as "they" rather than "he or she". You don't have, to of course, but I do prefer it." (Obligation negated)
B: "Sure, of course." (Obligation presumed)(On the unspoken necessary condition of the original negation of obligation).
This is how etiquette works. Give and take in a space created by charity and good-will. There is nothing to be proud of in a vulgar rejection of this aspect of human relations.
(In other words, a normatively phrased demand (You should refer to me as.../ You should not expect me to refer to you as... ) by either party short-circuits the solution from both ends.)
Perhaps I'm not being terribly clear.
If you were to engage in a debate with an Arab Muslim over Islam, then they would have more of an existential stake in the debate. The hegemony of Western culture does not deny your right to exist. You don't really have anything to lose by engaging in the debate. The other perspective has more 'weight' to it or something. It doesn't mean that they're right. It just means that they have more of an existential stake in the debate.
Should that be taken into consideration? I think so. A person who has an existential stake in a debate is somewhat unfairly subject to it. There shouldn't really be a reason for it to matter whether or not a person is proven right or wrong.
There's probably some other philosophical term for this which better describes what I have just cooked up, but I don't know what it is.
Quoting Terrapin Station
A person who identifies as being queer does have to contend that Queer Theory is valid.
What are we talking about re "denying your 'right' to exist" though? What's an example of that?
I'm just trying to explain what I mean by "existential stake". I didn't mean to imply that you were denying anyone's right to exist, although, refusing to use a person's chosen pronouns does slightly deny their right to exist as such.
That's oddly one-sided. Why wouldn't the person demanding that I adopt a terminology which I find silly, at the cost of seeing me as personally affronting them, be the one who is being difficult? I'm not doing anything wrong. If a transgender woman, who has quite clearly changed their appearance to reflect the appearance roughly associated with their gender, wants to be referred to with feminine personal pronouns, then that's absolutely fine with me, but I'm simply refusing to adopt awkward, unaccustomed, and frankly ridiculous-sounding terminology which has only recently been made up - and I don't think that there's anything wrong with that, irrespective of whether that's considered offensive. The offended party is not in the right by default simply by virtue of being offended.
Either party can be the one being difficult. Have a look at my next post and see what you think
Quoting Baden
Hypocrites.
How does that supposedly relate to my reply, qualifying that one ought to respect a person's chosen identity [i]within reason[/I]?
You seem to be ignoring what I said and putting words into my mouth. It's evident that there are indeed a whole range of things, including behaviours, which are typically considered masculine or feminine. Much of it makes little sense when properly analysed, and some of it I find harmful and offensive. But it's just the way that things are, like it or not, and I don't think that that's something that'll ever change entirely, nor should it. An entirely gender neutral world seems bland as fuck. Sure, so-called "girls toys" and "boys toys" is a good example of the kind of thing that really gets my goat, but let's not go overboard.
And as for what you've said of "Queer Theory", you know what I think about that already. I simply don't agree with you. You're wrong, except in the isolated context you've created for yourself, where apparently you can be whatever you want to be, no matter how ridiculous, like a queer unicorn under a red sky, even though you're actually just a straight man under the blue sky with the rest of us. What more is there to be said? You clearly let your imagination and wishful beliefs get the better of you. I'm just not like that. If I want to escape reality, I'll do some hard drugs or something.
You can at least be an ally.
That is subjective. If she expects others to respect her views, then should respect others that may not share her view that being female is ultimately negative.
Gender can only be abolished by abolishing sex.
I'm simply not going to refer to the other person using language I'm not comfortable with. So it would depend entirely on how I felt at the time. They don't have to cause a scene and make it a big issue if I don't do exactly as they want, but my preference is that they get over themselves. It's rude to pressure someone into doing something they're not comfortable doing, and to use etiquette as an excuse.
Boring.
I was countering that you think that Queer Theory is absurd with that what already stands is absurd. The search for a gender neutral pronoun is an emergent phenomenon and so it does seem a bit odd. I don't think that it is absurd to suggest that there ought to be one. I would argue that Queer Theory necessarily is of a radical position in so far that it seeks to totally reconceptualize gender and sexuality, but that the position is not necessarily extreme or outlandish. I do think that if a person asks that you use certain pronouns that it is not unreasonable to expect for the other person to consent to their request.
Bothered.
Not really. I just value folks gettin' along.
And I don't think that it's as clear cut as that. There are multiple layers to this, and your take is too one sided. See my replies to Baden above for a different interpretation.
That's ridiculous. The only thing it "denies" is you calling them the term in question.
Being transgender is complex, but I don't think that all transgendered people fall prey to the trappings of traditional gender roles. In Gender Nihilism she (ey?) sort of implies that experience of being female is ultimately negative and that gender needs to be abolished altogether. I don't wholly agree, but thought that that was an interesting argument. I think that it sees too much in the way of deterministic interpellation. I could see that transgendered people could end up sort of accidentally parodizing the roles which they have switched to, and that this could be somewhat dissociative. I don't think that that's too common, though. People figure things out however.
Yeah, well, you can't get along with everyone. I'm probably not going to get along with someone who oversteps the line by pressuring me to do something I'm not comfortable with doing. You can pretend that it's just a simple matter of etiquette, but the truth is that there's more to it underneath the surface.
As is much of what he has been saying: "infinite genders, queer yet functionally straight, the sky is red to me if that's what I believe, if you identify as a unicorn I would respect that..." Surely he's trolling?
I have no idea what that really means or why you think it.
1) New pronouns won't take off, so even if I had any political or aesthetic objections to them, it wouldn't matter in the bigger picture.
2) I generally accede to polite requests that cost me nothing. And would regardless of my propensity to be altruistic because of the good will fostered. It's trading a negligible cost for a non-negligible benefit.
So, I don't feel any pressure in the above case. I feel like I'm winning. And even where a demand is made then I'd consider the presenting of the obligation to negate itself by its presentation as such and so again feel no pressure.
I may have made the original post a bit concise. And it's based on an idea that could probably do with more explication. But it is essentially all in there.
But they're not simply human behaviours. They [i]are[/I] predominantly more masculine or more feminine. Of course, there's nothing inherent about length of hair, for example, that makes it masculine or feminine, but it's nonsense to think that there would be nothing feminine about wearing your hair in lengthy pigtails, large hoop earrings, and a pink dress. If you don't believe me, then just give it a try and see how people react. That it exists on a cultural level, rather than physical reality, is not that there's no such thing or that it doesn't exist at all. It is very evident that it does exist, and that there's something to it, which is also why transgendered men and women exist and can be visibly noticed as such.
Okay, fine, I get that, although we're on a philosophy forum after all. How much of what we talk about here really matters in the bigger picture? How much of it is hypothetical? The fact is, we're discussing it regardless, and not for the first time.
Quoting Baden
It wouldn't cost me nothing, so your second point wouldn't apply to me. It would mean caving in on a principle, and I don't do that lightly.
Quoting Baden
Well if there's no pressure, then there should be no problem with my lack of conformity, should there? Easygoing people aren't the kind of people that kick up a fuss if you don't do as they want. No pressure to conform, no problem. But I think we both know that there [i]is[/I] pressure, whether cloaked in polite language or otherwise.
Exactly. There's nothing inherently more masculine ir feminine about how someone wears their hair or what jewelry they wear or what kind of clothes they wear. Those are human behaviors that are not inhibited by one's sexual physiology.
Quoting S
But that is what I'm getting at - the incorrect cultural notions that they are governed by ones sexual physiology, thereby labeling them as masuline and feminine. Im not saying that peoples reactions don't exist. Im saying that their reactions are wrong - a category error.
But it's not about inherent qualities or sexual physiology. It's not on that basis that we talk about feminine hair, jewellery, and clothes. Of course it doesn't make sense in that respect, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense in other respects.
Quoting Harry Hindu
It's not a category error. You're just thinking about it in a way that leads to that conclusion, but you don't have to think about it that way. You're choosing to do so. It's like if I were to deny that there are no punks or hippies, just people. It's not a category error on a cultural level. On a cultural level, there are indeed punks, hippies, masculine and feminine, and many other identifiable categories of that sort.
That isnt how "masculine" and "feminine" are defined. They are defined as relating to one's sex.
It's not absurd. The reason underlying the grammatical correctness of using "he" is because in English, "man" is the default general term for "human, mankind, people". If you know that the person in question is female, then it would be incorrect to use "he" rather than "she".
If you want to be grammatical, forget about making up new pronouns:
These are your choices. Get used to it.
Generic 'he' was and is grammatically correct. The issue is one of style and appropriacy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun#Generic_he
Yes, relating to one's sex, but you're stretching that to absurdity when there's no need. They relate to cultural conceptions of sex in terms of image, behaviour, desires, and so on. Without overthinking it, if you were asked to think of a woman, it's more likely than not that you'll think of something pretty close to the stereotype. That's just how our brains work. It's like how a lot of people would think of the red heart symbol with two curves at the top if they were asked to think of a heart, instead of thinking of any actual heart which looks very different. It's not a category error, just two different ways of thinking.
You keep referring to our cultural inclination to think of the sexes in a certain way which is no different than how one thinks about the existence of gods. Just because we've been culturally conditioned to think a certain way doesn't mean that thinking is correct. What is being stretched is the idea of sex beyond what it is. Sex is not how you wear your clothes or your hair. Sex is physiology.
We weren't talking about sex, we were talking about the concepts of masculine and feminine, and it would be utterly wrongheaded to think about that exclusively in terms of the physiology of sex, whilst willfully ignoring what an explanation in terms of culture adds. The two go hand in hand, and don't make sense otherwise. These aren't empty concepts. That would be absurd. There's clearly something to them. Masculine and feminine are concepts relating to the two sexes, male and female, in terms of cultural associations in the form of image, fashion, mannerisms, behaviour, characteristics, personality traits, etc., and there's no rational reason I can think of for you to arbitrarily scrap any reference to culture here.
Look, if you want to think about it like that, then so be it, but you can count me out.
This is way outside my experience, but it seems to me that biological men who feel as if they're women and who want to live as women in their societies would see living in accordance with society's gender roles as a benchmark to show that they are truly women. I can't imagine that many would see the world through the eyes of Gender Nihilism. Living in accordance with gender roles would be one of their primary goals, wishes, dreams. Am I wrong about that?
No, you're not.
That one's actually pretty easy to figure out, even without the aid of Google. It means something along the lines that you don't identify as a single, set gender over time, but are flexible or "fluid" enough to identify with whatever seems right in the moment or to not identify at all.
That was my intuition as well. It’s weird, I think, but who am I to judge? I suppose one could live one’s life this way, but I think it just invites bullying, and who would want that? Not that they deserve bullying but that’s not something that one would expect a Cro-Magnon type to understand and accept. Why go through the trouble?
I have yet to hear or read an explanation by anyone that maps out the metaphysics of transgenderism.
What is a "true woman"?
What does it mean to "feel" like one?
What about you can be "in the wrong body"?
Simple - if a man were to tell me he feels like a woman, considers himself one, and would like to be treated like one, I would respond "ok." What more do we need to know.
Depends how important it is to the person. If it was that important to me, why would I let the fear of being bullied repress me? For comparison, I didn't come out publicly with my true sexual identity whilst in school for that very reason, but I haven't let homophobes or other judgemental types silence me or keep me in pretence for quite some time now - although I am typically quite private about my sexuality and rarely bring it up. There are still plenty of homophobes and judgemental types around.
Good on you. I don’t let a fear of bullying about my mental disorder stop me from being open about it, so I can relate on some level.
It relates to what we were just talking about in terms of masculine and feminine. I don't literally believe the part about being in the wrong body, but other than that, I don't see why the rest of it should be so hard for you to understand. Just go watch a few videos about transgender females by transgender females themselves on YouTube, or better yet, meet some in person. I've done both. And I think it has little to do with metaphysics. It has more to do with psychology and social science.
I will use they in colloquial speech and "he or she" or "ey" before I simply use "he" and you are who will have to get used to that (In so far that I am posting here, I guess.).
I had thought that "he or she" had caught on more by now.
There are effective means available to thwart your peculiar pronoun proclivities.
"Computer: commence thwarting @thewonder until further notice."
"Greetings, master. I will comply."
Well, her (eir?), declaration seems to be against that there are roles at all. I assume that most queer people want to create new gender roles. I'm sure that relationship that transgendered people have to their chosen sex is somewhat tenuous. I wouldn't think that the experience should just be negative, though. You get to sort of reinvent the wheel. Gender Nihilism seems to be like other Nihilist texts in that it seems to adopt a somewhat fatalistic pessimism. I think that such Nihilist notions are somewhat pathological. The critique is there, and they glean a lot of things about the world, but the worldview is just too bleak for my tastes. I feel like things don't go well for Nihilists because they have such a gloomy outlook. But yeah, from her perspective, it seems like she is kind of bothered by that by becoming a woman she has picked all of the baggage of being female. I would suggest that she should try to see what was originally liberating in her general way of going about and doing things, but I doubt that she would care for my psychologisms.
I'm not a transgendered person, and, so, I can't really tell you too much about it. I don't know that they could tell you too much about it either to be honest. I bet that they're all a bit torn as to how it is that they want to go about living as the other sex.
How does your imaginary computer at all thwart me, Bitter Crank?
Well, no matter what she declares, there are and likely always be gender roles. Men have penises that they put in women's vaginas. The man ejaculates into the woman's vagina and the sperm enters the woman's uterus where it ....Well, let's leave it at that. If you need more detail, I'm sure @Bitter Crank or @s can do a better job explaining it than I can.
Quoting thewonder
If by "queer" you mean "homosexual," this is not true at all in my experience. Perhaps others with more can shed light on this.
Quoting thewonder
That also seems very unlikely to me. I have little specific knowledge and I'm interested in what more informed people will tell us.
Quoting thewonder
That, along with all the other baggage women carry and all the baggage men carry, is known as "life." That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't try to make it more humane, but in the mean time, the solution is to suck it up. Which is kind of a masculine thing to say.
I'm not going to explain that being queer is not the same thing as being a homosexual again.
Here are the begining paragraphs to the Wikipedia article:
Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender. Originally meaning "strange" or "peculiar", queer came to be used pejoratively against those with same-sex desires or relationships in the late 19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, queer activists, such as the members of Queer Nation, began to reclaim the word as a deliberately provocative and politically radical alternative to the more assimilationist branches of the LGBT community.[1][2]
In the 2000s and on, queer became increasingly used to describe a broad spectrum of non-normative[note 1] (i.e. anti-heteronormative and anti-homonormative) sexual and gender identities and politics.[3] Academic disciplines such as queer theory and queer studies share a general opposition to binarism, normativity, and a perceived lack of intersectionality, some of them only tangentially connected to the LGBT movement. Queer arts, queer cultural groups, and queer political groups are examples of modern expressions of queer identities.
Critics of the use of the term include members of the LGBT community who associate the term more with its colloquial, derogatory usage,[4] those who wish to dissociate themselves from queer radicalism,[5] and those who see it as amorphous and trendy.[6] The expansion of queer to include queer heterosexuality has been criticized by those who argue that the term can only be reclaimed by those it has been used to oppress.[7]
So, given that definition, I'll restate the comment I was referring to:
People who reject current gender roles want to create new gender roles.
Seems more like they want there to be no gender roles which, as I said, ain't going to happen until eggs are fertilized in vitro and placed in artificial uteruses and then raised by non-gendered robots. It might be easiest if we get rid of all the men and fertilize the women's eggs using modified cells from other women.
Isn't that the real beef - it's heterosexual men who are the problem. Let's bad mouth them until we can come up with a final technological solution.
In a nutshell, I suppose. It's not a terribly homogeneous field, and, so, whatever anyone says Queer Theory is just sort of true. They don't want for there to be roles. It's late and I'm not sure as to what it was that I was trying to get at there. It's like a reinvention of a way of life. You would identify as a woman and want to be regarded as such, but not necessarily to live out the role of a woman in a negative sense. You would want to create a new way of life as a woman.
Stop lying. It's getting on my nerves. It still has that meaning, with a derogatory use, as can be verified by online dictionaries. From my own experience, I can tell you that it has had that meaning at least since my childhood in the early 90's, when I first heard it being used in that way, and also much earlier than that according to the Wikipedia article which you yourself quoted. I only found out about the more recent usage you refer to much later in life. Just because you clearly favour the later interpretation, that doesn't mean that other interpretations cease to count. That is just your own personal belief. Once again, I feel it necessary to point out that you are not the sole arbiter of what a word does or doesn't mean.
I would agree with treating anyone how they like to be treated. I'm not sure why that entails believing them about their self-id. There are countless examples of self-id that we do not and should not take at face value, so there have to be other criteria to believe it.
Quoting S
I agree it's boils down to psychology and social science in essence. But then you still have many (not all, it's not a uniform group in their thinking) transgenders insisting that they "really are" a woman/man. And that is a metaphysical claim, which they have (to my knowledge) never fully explained.
If you have an resources that do explain it, I'd appreciate it if you provided them here instead of just waving nebulously into the wilds of the interwebs. :wink:
Oh, and I have met many transgender and gender fluid people. The latter tend to make more sensible claims, in my opinion. But apparently it's not good form to ask them to explain transgenderism. It's considered "questioning their existence." Which is unphilosophical, but, hey, that's what fora like this one are for.
Those claims can be categorised along with many religious, supernatural, and conspiracy theory claims. They can be filed away in the "special cabinet", i.e. the dustbin.
Quoting Artemis
Nope, no resources which explain what can't be truly explained in that way. That wouldn't be an explanation, it would be a story.
Interesting experience. I've experienced the opposite. I've been told that they'd rather people just ask them directly instead of staring and being awkward around them, although I think I can also recall one of my transgender friends saying that it can get annoying, which is understandable. I've met both male to female, and female to male. I also know someone who might now identify as gender neutral after the transformation didn't exactly work out so well, and I know someone who doesn't identify as transgender, but rather as an occasional cross dresser.
That's my intuition as well.
Quoting S
I can imagine that would be weird :snicker:
I don't think philosophical differences should be a reason to stare or be awkward. Anything beyond the theoretical aspects is just none of my business.
That seems very unlikely to me. Intuitively I would think that a transgender woman would want very much to fit in with societal gender roles. That would sort of be the whole point. Again, I'm talking about something where I don't have much experience.
I agree with you at least to this extent - I think the whole transgender thing can be really dangerous to vulnerable young people. I met a girl - she was 16 at the time - who wanted to be treated as a boy. She was obsessed with manga and a specific male character. She also was extremely depressed - lost. She had serious psychological problems which her mother treated using Reiki and aromatherapy.
Well, okay, but I think that the Wikipedia article is fine.
It sems like we both would be. I'm not sure that there is much to be gained through speculation. I would assume that most transgendered people wouldn't accept the traditional role of women, though.
Quoting Artemis
Back in the early '80s I lived in a building with a guy who believed he was Jesus returned to usher in the Kingdom of Heaven. He was a well-educated, urbane, gay, New Englander in his 30s and was a productive individual. "Jesus" was a great conversational partner. Really interesting on many levels.
Did I think he was Jesus of Nazareth? No. I thought he was either very deluded or enjoyed faking a delusion. I lost track of him back then when I moved, but lo these many years later, it doesn't seem like the Kingdom of Heaven has been inaugurated.
I've known transsexuals, some of them fairly well. Did I think that they were actually a man/woman in the wrong body? No. Did they seem to benefit from taking testosterone or estrogen, and undergoing plastic surgery? Yes. Does that convince me that they were not deluded? No.
Would I be polite to these delusional people? Of course.
But what is the root of this delusion? Not quite sure, but probably deep dissatisfactions. "The times they live in" have made it possible to reach farther out for what they imagine will be more satisfying ways of being in the world. in 1300 a.d. France or in 1845 Virginia, the solution to profound and deep dissatisfactions were structured along different lines than in 1930, 1960, or 1990...
Take Bitter Crank. Here is a guy who has nursed certain delusions about possible better worlds that are possible because of the times he lives in. Imagining that he is living out these delusions has at times been quite comforting. At other times it has generated a lot of internal and external static. He persists in these delusions, nonetheless, even those there is little evidence that his delusional aspirations are possible/probable/feasible etc. I blame the original Jesus for inspiring these delusions in the first place.
I don't think anything you're saying is in conflict with the things I wrote. It's not that I think transgender people are or are not really men or really women, it's that I have no reason not to accept their statement at face value. Except, as I said, sometimes I do - as in the case of the vulnerable 16 year old girl.
There is no doubt in the world that your experience in this area is much greater than mine. I take your opinion seriously.
Quoting Artemis
The "gender-fluid" people I've met strike me as fairly confused and irrational about sex, bodies, roles, and so forth. Their confusions are aided and abetted by the times they live in.
I have long felt that bisexuals and trans people were inappropriately included in what was first the "Gay and Lesbian Liberation movement". "Bisexuals" just don't seem like they ever developed an identity as such. Trans-gendered people are not homosexuals, presumably. Then there are the "queers" who are some sort of limp dick nouvelle cuisine. So we now have the GLBTQ movement.
There is a specific political reasons for grafting bisexuals (a '3' on the Kinsey Scale), transgendered, and 'queers' onto the movement, such as it is: Numbers. The conventional politics of gay liberation has required respectable numbers, with "10%" being the desired [and delusional] portion of the population belonging to the gay movement. As Mike McCarthy famously said, "If 10% of men are gay, who is getting my share?"
Partisan politicians get away with the 10% figure because it sufficiently nebulous to disprove. So, 10% it is. (The percentage of people in the US who identify and perform as gays and lesbians is probably below 4%. Transgendered persons constitute less than 1/2 of 1% (based on surveys).
Quoting T Clark
And I return this respect for the depth of your experience and opinions.
In the last 50 years, all the homosexual men I have met were interested in having pretty conventional sex (adjusted for male anatomy) OR were interested in having sex with somebody else. I don't know... human anatomy doesn't really allow for much variation in sexual mechanics. There are shafts, orifices, hands, and brains.
My daughter's intimate personal relationships are with women. I found this out about seven years ago when she was 31. I know she had relationships with men when she was younger. I know she didn't wait till she was 31 to tell my wife and me because she was afraid of our reaction. She knew we wouldn't care and she wouldn't let herself care if we did.
Of course I don't think of her as gay. She's my daughter. I call her gay when the subject comes up because I don't want people to think I'm ashamed or avoiding the subject. She has told me that she doesn't self-identify as gay. I know she's not ashamed of it and isn't afraid to face other people's reactions.
So, where does she fit into the picture?
Sex seems to work a bit differently for women (so I have heard) than for men, for which there are various evolutionary reasons.
That seems consistent with how my daughter lives her life.
The answer to this one is a bit complex. There a many layers. One level is a personal identity, how someone understands how they belong, similar to people understanding the belong to a gender son account of a particular trait the posses. Someone thinking they are a man because they have a penis is one example.
Another is the confusion or doubt people have about being accepted. Under social pressure of needing to be something to belong, people will play out certain behaviours. They’ll pretend, even to themselves, they need to as or have something to feel like they belong in terms of others.
Others might just knowing feel falsehoods in pubic to fit in, just to avoid the tension or drama or violence other would subject upon them for breaking their gender expectations. Even if you know a gender role is bullshit and it has no place win your identity, it’s sometimes easier or safer just to play along, to get others to recognise a gendered belonging. One may not care for long hair and dresses, but that might be one of the only way to get other people too read them as a woman.
In terms of the question you appear to be going for, it does becomes a cultural thing for some. Dressing and presenting up as “feminine” as possible. This kind of culture has the same kind of problem did does amongst cisgender roles. Cis gender roles get in trouble for insisting someone only come in the particular shapes, such roles within trans culture have the some problem of ignoring the existing of women who fall outside those standards. Just like a cis gender role claiming the absurdity that a woman with short hair and pants is not women/less of a woman, the trans version ignores woman come in al shapes and sizes.
So it foes happen, but it is not good. It is not the reason (even amongst trans women who perform those roles) a trans woman is a woman. It can never be the point because such gender roles only amount to following a rule other insist upon you. They aren’t descriptions of a gender itself. Just like cis gender roles, some may think they have to perform certain behaviours or characteristics to belong to to a gender, but it's really just a violence of a social hierarchy.
The tricky thing is there isn't an answer to these question. Gender it always a question of the particular identity itself. It has no standard for when it appears or not.
Take the example of being "in the wrong body." There is no reason or constraint for this to amount to a transition in gender. To someone is might appear appear in purely biological terms. We might have, for example, a man who felt a body of a vagina and breast. He might have no identity or identification as a woman. Describing himself, he might say: "I am a man. I've always been a man. My body just feels like/ought to be one of breasts and a vagina."
For the instance of the "wrong body" to amount to a transition of gender, there has to be a certain kind of identity truth present itself. The body must come in tandem with a particular truth of identity itself, a fact that this particular instance of the body is a certain gender.
Using the usual concepts of gender, the metaphysics are impossible to grasp because they don't really talk about them. Everyday notions of gender just view gender as an act of following a rule. They don't give truth to gender itself.
At the limit isn't a singular identity almost contradictory? If I'm not constrained by any accidental properties, I float off into the aether.
We're always floating in the aether.
Whether we manage to find ourselves there or not, each of us is one floating around others. Identity is always singular and never constrained. The contradiction is to think the accidental was ever given by a property.
If you were not floating in aether, if you were the constraint of something else (not you ), you would not exist at all. There would just be a dick. Or a vagina. Or some short hair. Or a dress hanging on a body.
At least that would be the mirage. Till the question of who or what they were was asked, then they would be discovered to be floating in the aether themselves. They would be realised as accidental singulars, given by no property of constraint. Or else themselves become a mirage of the world of no dicks, vaginas, shot hair or bodies wearing dresses.
So the cycle will repeat endlessly, until one is comfortable recognising singular difference.
Will you two speak English? Y’all are too smart for me.
I'm not sure I've ever seen csalisbury speak proverbial English, poetic flourish has been his demeanour for as long as I can remember.
My feeling is he's going for a certain sense that would be lost in technical outlay.
The English version of what I just said might be:
Things are present on account of themselves. Until we reorganise this, we'll endlessly be rejecting the existence of things and be incapable of describing the metaphysical relation. We'll be stuck thinking everything is something else (a given "property" which supposedly make a thing).
To being this back around to the topic, this is why the wonder cannot identify the metaphysics of sex and gender. If we are describing the presence of something with a sex or gender, we are referring to a specific existing person.
So if I try to take the route of defining sex on the basis of the property of a certain kind of body, my metaphysics will fail. My movement is try to say that this person is present as they are (e.g. someone with the sex of male) on account of something which isn't them at all, just the property of having a bodily characteristic (e.g. penis, which might be found on all sorts off people). I've left the person I'm trying to describe out entirely.
Focusing in on one part - what does it mean to say 'accidental given by a property'? That makes me think something like this: 'A property is still too general; what's accidental, is singularly accidental.' Sure, but ---
There comes a moment where someone asks 'who are you?' and you say ' nothing you could ever recognize' and to that I agree! but thats what floats out endlessly. What makes a life is the clash of that singularity against the recognizable, right?
You can drop it all, but at the cost of floating beyond anyone's grasp, ever - safe, but alone. Self-realized, with no actual realization.
Ah but that is the reverse mirage formed on trying to find other in properties: we already know our singular selves in that situation. Who are you asking the question about if you don't know this?
I'm telling a falsehood and your question is asking for what you already know.
I have floated/I am out endlessly, which you have recognised is asking a question about who I am. What endlessly floats out is the opposite of unrecognisable, you already know it perfectly.
So then a metaphysics of gender is ultimately doomed to failure? My intuitive sense is that a person identifies as a certain gender because of their emotional feeling reflecting their concept (often cultural biases and norms) of what the gender is. I identify as a heterosexual man because I am sexually attracted to the opposite sex and I have a penis. I also like having a penis. This is my concept of a heterosexual man. Now that’s not to say that some people wouldn’t perceive in me anything feminine, as most of us fall on a spectrum from totally masculine to totally feminine (which as concepts are mostly cultural biases and norms).
So, a transgender male born in a female body would most likely feel like they should have a penis and they don’t belong in a body with a vagina. They can be gay, straight, or bi or whatever sexuality they are. So sexual orientation is an instinctive drive, while sex is anatomical (and can be changed through surgery and hormones), while gender is a feeling on a spectrum based on concepts of male and female roles (or masculine or feminine attitudes or traits) situated in cultural biases and norms.
I don't have any problem with what you're saying. My comment that you're responding to is this:
Quoting T Clark
This still seems right to me. If a man is going through all the difficulties it requires to become and be accepted as a women, it just seems to me she would want to be considered a woman as typically defined in society at large. That's my intuition. More than that, it's what I feel when I try to place myself in their shoes. Yes, of course, it is a bit presumptuous for me to think I can do that, but it's disrespectful for me not to try.
I'm inclined to say that means you don't really see me.
When presented with my singular difference, you seem to want to insist you don't I exist unless I met some standard of properties, unless I'm able to tell you everything I am at the moment or how I am constrained.
You do truly know me, but you're unwilling to accept that you do, for it is not enough. Willow vanishes because you need me to be more than just Willow to qualify for existence. To just know my difference, is not enough for you. You want me to be funny. Or smart. Or insightful. Or something. For me to just be is not enough for you.
Perhaps then, that is why the paradox is so intractable to many. They want others to be something more to them than just a singular they exist with. Sometimes, this is great and necessary of course-- relationships, teachers, ideas, ethics, etc.-- but it seems to easily spill over into a demand people can only exist if they are this something more.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Well, I don't know you in real life. I know you online, on philosophy sites, where you talk about certain things. You could just be, and not talk about philosophy, but I mean, that's not what you're doing here, on philosophy forums, talking about specific conceptual areas.
I would agree that I don't see you, but how would I?
Metaphysics trying to describe gender or sex by talking about something else are doomed to failure. If you are trying to find gender or sex be the fact someone has a particularly body part or behaves in certain way, it will always fail because you aren't talking about the existence of a person's gender. You're just describing the presence of another kind of fact.
The description of gender or sex you are tying to give just because an ad hoc just so story about a person-- e.g. "Well, this person a penis, so must be a man..."-- which doesn't engage with describing a fact of sex or gender itself.
You identify as heterosexual because you are heterosexual and recognise it. Plenty of people are attracted to the opposite sex and have a penis, but are not heterosexual. Those two properties don't define one as heterosexual.
One cannot be heterosexual just because they have a penis and are attracted to the opposite sex. There are many sexual orientations a person with attraction to the opposite and a penis might take. It's even possible they might have none (e.g. a person who falls outside of categorising their sexual attraction under an orientation).
There's perfectly a coherent metaphysics of sex, gender or sexual orientation. People just have to realise they aren't talking about the fact a penis exists. Or that any instance of anatomy exist. Or the fact of someone being attracted to the opposite sex. That sex, gender or sexual orientation is it's own fact about a person itself. A truth not given by properties (e.g. "I'm a man because I have a penis"), but rather one given in itself (e.g. "I am a man") which occurs alongside their properties (whatever those might be, be they a penis or a vagina, burly or scrawny, short hair or long, etc.)
It's not clear to me what you have in mind here. I might agree with you, but I don't know what an example would be.
I can accept that (many, not all) aspects of gender are social constructions.
It makes no sense to define sex as such. Sex refers only to biology. You're born male/female/intersex, and that's just the reality you have to live with and can choose to shape your gender presentation around.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
What is the truth of belonging to identity itself? What kind of identity do you use here?
Do we need the principle of identity to define gender or sexual orientation? Butler claims that categories themselves, as products of regimes of power, produce the identity they are deemed to be simply representing.
"A genealogical critique refuses to search for the origins of
gender, the inner truth of female desire, a genuine or authentic
sexual identity that repression has kept from view; rather
genealogy investigates the political stakes in designating as
an origin and cause those identity categories that are in fact
the effects of institutions, practices, discourses with multiple
and diffuse points of origin."
That's simply not true, it's merely biased speculation on your part. It's illogical to jump from the fact that a transgender woman - or someone who has a desire to become one - wants to transform themselves to reflect a more traditionally feminine image, to the conclusion that therefore they ignore the fact that women come in all shapes and sizes.
Quoting T Clark
It's not far off, and I'll just come out and say that, yes, that's based on my own experience of having had these sort of thoughts and feelings ever since I was a child, to varying degrees over the years.
Those are interestng questions, but I do not recall asking them.
I also just changed that on the other thread so that this will catch on.
https://www.academia.edu/38273657/le_bon_dieu_nest_pas_comme_%C3%A7a.docx?auto=download
This is the most sensible talk about transgender people and transgender metaphysics I have come across so far. Perfectly captures my view on the matter at least.
This doesn't account for the instances where we can be wrong about our identity. There are no accidents in a deterministic world. Genetics AND upbringing are the primary contributors to the essence of one's identity.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
If someone isn't referring to some physical property about themselves that distinguishes them from "not-man" when they say "I am a man", then what use does the word, "man" have? What would it mean?
That's why they matter in the first place: to misgender speaks an untruth about someone.
Demands are made prescisly because what is thought untrue is actually true. After all, it is this truth speaking the terms is about. The language was never isolated to "terms" which were just a fun, arbitrary nickname.
But who is speaking the untruth? If I see a person asserting what appears to be the opposite of the case, their “truth” can be doubted,
Such "doubt" is dime-a-dozen and not at all instructive. Anyone can "doubt" quite literally anything in this way. Just see a claim, assert we don't know anything about it.
It's lazy and directed at "winning" an argument. The question of what is true is not even approached.
If we are concerned with what is true and what we know, this approach is closed to us. We have to turn upon our own "doubt." For if something is true, if there is good reason to accept it, taking a postion in which we just reject anything is a gross error.
Likewise, any claim is a dime-a-dozen. Anyone can claim literally anything. It’s not only a lazy argument, but not even an argument.
In this case, the reason to doubt it, even to fully refute it, is that the assertion does not match up to the biology, the claim contradicts the reality.
Which is a failure to recognise the distinction between sex and gender; and indeed, a failure to recognise that gender is not binary; indeed, failure to notice that even sex is not binary.
Now if my memory serves me well, Nos is one of the influx of Christians presently infesting the forums.
The lack of regard for the huge variations of which people are capable is a hallmark of their thinking. Their purpose is not to learn, not to do philosophy, but to defend their faith.
Completely untrue.
We know stuff, make claims, describe what's happening to us all the time. Our lives are filled with experiences of what's going on around us. People speak truths all the time without jumping through some triplicate justification game.
In most respects, knowledge and justification are actually separate axis. The former is to understanding something is true, the latter is to engage in some game with others which allows your statements to be justified.
As I spoke about a few posts up, there is no question of biology here. An identity is not the presence of a body. Pronouns are not given in the existence of a body. They are a social fact about people with bodies.
Even if I grant all that, a person who claims to be a woman but appears to me to be a man has neither the right nor the justification to demand I conform to their language, especially when that language is used to refer to them in the third person, that is, in conversation with anyone besides them.
You're contradicting yourself: in your first post you claimed it wasn't just a question of terms. Now your running back to an insistence others cannot demand you use terms.
What's more, they (we all should) can indeed demand it. Misgendering them tells a falsehood about them, casts aspersions upon them as a trans person, denies there very existence, etc.
We have many ethical and descriptive reasons to respect.their identity, using the language which recognises it. Using it amongst others, in the "third person" is actually really important. It means we've recognised their identity for the objective truth of is, rather than disrespecting it as a delusion we only entertain for their feelings.
I did not claim that, as is evident from my post.
They can demand anything they want. By the same token I can refuse. None of this involves casting aspersions or denying anyone’s existence.
I respect their identities and their right to be who they want and express themselves how they see fit. But I would expect the same treatment, that I can express myself how I wish, and that includes refusing to distort my own language to appease the demands of those who think I should speak otherwise.
I take offence to your use of that term. Do I demand you speak otherwise? No.
Pronouns are an important functional element to speaking. The n-word isn’t.
If someone demands that you call them the n-word, will you refer to them as such in conversation with others?
They can demand anything they want. By the same token I can refuse. None of this involves casting aspersions or denying anyone’s existence.
If someone demands that you call them the n-word, will you refer to them as such in conversation with others? Why or why not?
Exactly right. Do you believe the same or would you refer to him as the n-word to others?
Besides being ugly, the hubbub over the (censorship of the) n-word is not the use of it, but the demand for it, that people must conform to your language even if they know it to be untrue...
Quoting NOS4A2
I’m sorry but is this some form of argument I’m not aware of? I appreciate you mirroring my argument but copying and pasting them for me is a little much.
That I can use what you've written, with word substitutions and minor edits to preserve grammar, to defend calling people racial slurs if you feel like it should probably disturb you.
You used racial slurs and I did not once demand you speak otherwise. It does disturb me that you use racial slurs, but I am quite proud to defend your right to speak how you like.
I'd go at this from a related but different angle. All language functions in thidsmanner of talking about something.
If NOS4A2's postion is taken to be the case, There are no rules or justifications for.the use of.langauge. We are not just free to say anything we want, but incapable of being wrong in our language use. Anyone could take any statement by another and claim it said anything. We could give any description of any one, no matter how false or deflamantory and it would be fine.
This is not just a defence of racial slurs in the end, but a defence of any lie or flasehood told about anyone or anything.
Yes, defences on the grounds of free speech applies to all speech. But it also applies to the voices of the oppressed and marginalized, including the trans community. It’s worse, and ironic, you using racial slurs to make an argument against free speech.
That’s not quite true. The rules and justifications still apply, it’s just that everyone isn’t forced to use them via threat and coercion.
Yes, but I was going for a little bit more than just oppourtuinistic defences.
I'm saying, in this case, we actually have thesis no-one can make a mistake in the words they use. It's not just that people ought to be able to tell lies, flasehoods, vilifications, but that there are no grounds to even assert these are occurring.
In the case of allowing such speech, it is still false/unjustified, etc., we just grant a permission to speak the words. NOS4A2 appears to be taking a postion beyond even this, where any speech is completely fine.
Ah, sorry, I didn't read your posts in thread. I just saw the same old shit from @NOS4A2 (also shit I used to say in this context) and wanted to chime in with the argument that convinced me to stop being an ass and start seeing things structurally.
I never said nor implied any speech was completely fine, only that no one can coerce you to speak how he wants you to. Think of it this way: imagine if someone told a trans person he was not aloud to express himself how he wishes.
I'm very happy that you've come round to seeing the importance of amplifying the voices of marginalised people and allowing them to (1) state their existence (2) demand recognition in their own terms and (3) do what they need to to get it.
Think about the political positioning of this 'matter of principle'; of what role you are playing in the discourse. Do you go into discussions about systemic racism arguing that use of the n-word is fine on a free speech basis? Have you tweeted Youtube for censoring ISIS material? I very much doubt it.
I respect free speech, I don't respect its selective invocation. I very much hope you are a true warrior of it, demanding that Youtube allows ISIS propaganda to propagate globally, and picking a fight with any verbally abused kid you see who wants his insulters to stop.
But that's just the issue: if the speech is not completely, then coercion is in play.
At the very least, there is the reason/shame of being mistaken, the ethical question of speaking how one should. Even if we take a postion, for example, that some offensive comments can be uttered, we are still in a space of cocerion because the identification of them as offensive marks the utter as shameful. It's still the case one ought not be speaking that way, even if they are allowed to. Pressure of cocerion is being applied in the mere recognition of a vilification, falsehood or lie.
The main reason I defend free speech is for the marginalized voices, especially for those who risk death for the mere act of speaking. What I will not do is risk defending their right to speak because of the implications of free speech, that some bigot may find comfort in it down the road.
I do not agree that ISIS propaganda should be censored. I have read enough of it to know what my enemies believe, what they think of me, and how they aim to murder me. Those who cannot read it will continue to remain ignorant of it.
I don’t respect censorship. I suspect it, and those who preach it.
Then it is strange that you are not on the side of the normalisation of language that recognises flaws in how we think about gender that undermine the disastrous effects of its norms. Maintaining a sense of linguistic decorum in the face of the measurable harm it causes should not be construed as noble.
They ought not to be speaking in a manner that belittles or dehumanizes the trans person. On that we can agree. But we do no service to the trans person to coerce those who refuse to conform or agree with him. I’m not sure of the answer, but perhaps there are other remedies, and I believe on such remedy is championing the free speech of trans people.
Amplifying someone's voice != championing free speech. Free speech is already why they can say what they say, it's why we can have this discussion to begin with. You want to amplify their voice? Listen to their concerns and act in accord with them; form relationships of solidarity, think critically; what's needed is a new scalpel (critically motivated, recognition enabling vocabulary) rather than a redundant sledgehammer (the capacity to speak like that without punishment).
Why you frame your responses in this thread as an intent to amplify the free speech of gender non-conforming people rather than as an invocation of free speech to resist the perturbation of language norms is beyond me. It's like you're using free speech to marginalise someone; to stop them from articulating suffering so you do not have to accept it.
I’ve said nothing of “amplifying someone’s voice”. They can amplify their own voice, and I will defend to the death their right to do so. None of that means I have to “act in accord with them” or “form relationships of solidarity”, especially with people I do not know.
I have expressed no such intent, so anything that arises from this misrepresentation is more misrepresentation.
I applaud your patience and calm responses sir, but I cant help but wonder why you keep at it. Neither of those two are really listening, and constantly use straw men In their “arguments”. Its just a bunch of self righteous douchery, id have given up long ago.
What are you getting out if it, if you dont mind me asking?
Aight.
Something I don't understand: why would you take offence to a racial slur but not the pronoun stuff?
No one's voice should be amplified in a society where we are all equal and have free speech. That is something you don't seem to understand. Free speech doesn't mean that you get to use your emotional state to dictate what others can or can't say. It means that others can stay things that you don't agree with and you have to live with it or argue against it using logic, not your subjective emotional state, because everyone has subjective emotional states, so who's subjective emotional states win, and who decides? Logic should be the only process by which people's words are accepted or rejected.
It's your subjective emotional locus vis-a-vis logic that compels you to proclaim the preeminence of logic. You have a feeling that logic is of a higher order than a feeling.
Those who care care because it's kind to care. Do you value kindness?
Not to the extent that one thinks that it involves catering to something just because someone wants you to, no.
What kind of kindness do you value?
It leads to bad speaking and writing no matter the concessions we make. Only using proper nouns would be repetitive and cumbersome. Pronouns are necessary to everyday conversation.
Yes. Why do you think people want to have their voices amplified then? Say someone who's been skeptical of their gender from birth, but doesn't identify with the...
Wait you don't believe in that, either.
It's just another internet right talking point, and you're here to take the predictable line under the banner of truth and reason.
There's not some set of criteria for it, really. It's just whatever I feel is warranted.
It's inaccurate to say there's no criteria. The criteria in operation may be unconscious to you but there is without a doubt some set of criteria.
Is there a situation in which you would designate a transgendered person by his or her pronoun of preference just to be kind?
Um, you asked me what kind of kindess I value. There's not really any set criteria for the kindness I value. On what grounds can you say that it's not accurate to say that there's no set criteria for the kindness I value? You're claiming to know my mind better than I do?
I don't buy unconscious mental content, by the way.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Sure, if the person is a friend/has earned my respect, etc., then it's likely though not guaranteed that I'd do it.
If you "don't buy unconscious mental content" then, yes, I know your mind better than you do.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Do you only show kindness to people who have earned your respect?
And the way you know that is?
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Right, so when I say there's no set criteria for it, really, that's what I mean. So no. And I don't necessarily show kindness in particular ways to people who have earned my respect, either. It depends on the situation, really, the way I feel at that moment, what's being asked, what's being interpreted as kindness--all sorts of things.
I know that at this moment not everything in your mind is conscious to you. It would be difficult (if not absurd) to argue with that.
It sounds like you're just not a very kind person. That squares with your other assertions above. Fin.
I wasn't asking you to rephrase your claim. I was asking you to justify it epistemically.
Different people will have different assessments about that. ¯\_(?)_/¯
It's not worthwhile to restate a claim that's obvious to all. Some mental contents, at any point in time, are unconscious. Fin.
Which again is a claim that I don't at all agree with. I said that from the start. What do you accept as plausible evidence of it?
Apart from derailing the thread, it's a silly and fruitless line of argumentation.
Are you going to tell me what you accept as plausible evidence of unconscious mental content?
Because they want special treatment, not equal treatment.
Quoting fdrakephhhtttttlmao - skeptical of their "gender" from birth? How do you know that a newborn that has just come out of it's mother is skeptical of it's gender when it doesn't even know it has arms and legs yet?
Quoting fdrake
Exactly. I don't believe that stupid shit you just said.
Quoting fdrake
Well, yes. Just take your own argument and apply it to Christian vs. atheist debates, or "white privilege" debates where you can say what you want that offends others. If you were consistent, then we shouldn't be telling Christians that their god doesn't exist because it hurts their feelings, and we shouldn't be labeling others as racist because it offends them.
You seem to think free speech entails only saying things that don't hurt YOUR feelings, and to hell with everyone else's feelings that disagrees with you.
Baseless assertion.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Calm down. From age 3. This happens. If you were interested in finding out anything about what you're criticising, you'd probably not have jumped on any chance to show the world I'm an idiot.
Quoting Harry Hindu
How can I be consistent when you've decided what I've believed is inconsistent? You never actually go away and read anything about anything. I would love to have an informed discussion with you about this kind of thing, but you never want to inform yourself about the perspectives you're criticisng. You put accounts in some box purely of your own invention (well, your ideology's), decide what people are saying, then come in all guns blazing.
There is a place for that, sometimes, of course.
You're obviously not interested in having a "reasoned debate" on the topic. In which people at least understand the other's perspective and then criticise it. You're interested in a bloodsport of worldviews, that you're going to portray as the natural functioning of reason or logic, which is always in agreement with what you've decided is true beforehand. Funny that.
What terrible consequence happens if your ideological enemies win an internet argument? People use zir as a word? Jesus.
No it isn't. I don't make baseless assertions. I make assertions based on observation and logic. If you want people to change the words they use around certain people because of their feelings, then you should be applying that rule to everyone, not just those whose political ideology you support.
Quoting fdrake
I only decide something after I have evidence, and you provided plenty of evidence that you aren't consistent. How would you know if I ever go away and read anything about anything? Talk about baseless assertions. You are consistent when your statements are consistent.
I take what you say, and ask you to clarify for consistency's sake, but you'd rather engage in ad hominems rather than answer the questions. They aren't rhetorical. Then need answers to make sense of what you already said. You seem to think that your words are religious gospel and uncontestable. I'm sorry to hurt your feelings. They aren't.
You're the one not interested in finding out anything. You don't even wonder how it is even possible or coherent for a man to claim to be a woman. You simply take their word for it. Why don't you take a schizophrenic's word for it? Again, I'm asking for consistency in the application of your arguments.
Yeah, I agree with this.
At that, I don't have any problem with the idea of someone being transgender, but I have no problem with the idea of someone thinking that they're really a dragon or a toaster or whatever. I'm not necessarily going to call them a dragon or toaster, but I don't have any problem with people thinking that.
So I went away and did some reading by way of a Google search for "differences in gender brains" and can you guess what kind of search results I received? Why don't you go away and do the same thing and see if you get the same results and then come back here and lets have a reasonable discussion about it. :cool:
Sure, but like religion, they are trying to use the government to push their ideology and make it a crime to say certain things. That is when it crosses the line.
Gender nonconformity often leads to bullying and social exclusion; it leads to mental health disorders, it leads to workplace discrimination and hiring discrimination, it affects long term life outcomes pretty much everywhere. But it doesn't always, why? Why don't these people just "buck up" and accept their lot and work with it? Thing is, they already are. In some communities, gender nonconformity is a life or death matter. And that matters, because people's arbitrary social expectations should not inspire mistreatment of any demographic. This is the "we're all created equal"; but who we are is always to a greater or lesser degree in contrast with societal expectations. They shoulder all this while working like you do. Could you stand the same burden? I doubt it, we'd crumple like the sensitive little flowers we are.
Think of a societal expectation as a norm of interpretation; a prediction of someone's behaviour; they are also of course moral standards; if you do not behave consistently with society's norms, you will face social costs. Whether this is socially excluding the tomboy, beating the shit out of a guy at school for being "gay" because he seems feminine, or a trans woman losing a loving relationship just because "they're really a man".
This latter point, necessarily dichotomising people into genders and the normative consequences that entails based on sex is usually something which is presented as a consequence of a reactionary belief system, but should really be seen as a premise rooted in avoidance of punishment for society's norms shifting underneath them. It is a transference mechanism to avoid that vaunted conservative sense of social responsibility even applying to shifting their worldview. If these people cared about truth, they would fess up to their obvious mistakes in public. "This threatens society" <=> "This threatens me". It is a self defending response to something which, if they would only be more logical and observant, could be challenged; and a more informed, inclusive worldview would result. Alas, it is not. These people would burn the world and harm those in it because it does not satisfy their expectations; they are triggered by the fact that they are involved in systems of suppression and subjugation. But they will never thematise their response as emotionally driven; reason for them here is little more than an identity signifier and a defense mechanism. It's just tribalism expressing itself through stupidly motivated arguments, fisking condescension, and a total inability to consistently argue the same points.
Then there's the equal under the law stuff; hiring policies are written to be gender neutral, for example, but this does not imply that hiring is gender unprejudiced (see the article "Discriminating Systems" for a thorough data driven treatment of the issue). When even fucking Google and Facebook know that gender archetypes negatively impact their talent acquisition, one wonders why it is so difficult for people on the internet right to think in these terms.
Underneath all this is a state of prelapsarian (white, almost always male) bliss, a garden of Eden absent from politics that classifies anything which would perturb the current social order as political; as inappropriate state or community interventions; but the forces which to benefit of the people I'm criticising maintain the present social order and their place in it. Inappropriate political action is just that which does not maintain my "rightful" (pfft, entitled buggers) place in things. This is only sustainable by a blinkering of perspective away from systemic issues; which is funny, as political leaders have to be able to think like that about social issues. Think structurally, not personally, and allow suffering to speak.
The apoplectic resistance any systemic critique encounters by the internet right stems from an obvious failure of thought which absolves them from a guilty conscience; don't worry, mummy's already made the bad things go away, they don't exist because they're logically impossible. But you, dear reader, need not feel guilty. Just try and be better in what limited ways you can! And it's hard!
So this is ultimately why internet reactionaries are drawn like flies to the same topics. They don't need to have a consistent worldview to defend themselves; it's a a panic response expressing itself through white nerd rage. You don't need to panic, the world will be better eventually since you're wrong.
It ain't the left who're triggered, darlings.
Yeah, definitely. You know I'm against any speech laws.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6977/unconscious-mental-phenomena-evidence-for-and-against
So if you don't actually know any empirical support for it that you accept, it's probably worth examining why you believe in it so firmly.
I feel like I've been here before, but this is a pernicious myth. It is not feelings which are determining truth at any point. One's feelings are just one sense of what's happening.
We might say they are the means by which one knows their sex or gender. Any time we understand something we have a similar sort of feeling, that specfic meanings are of certain things or events.
Like these many other situations, what makes a gender or sex true is not a fact someone feels it, but a truth of sex or gender itself about the particualr person in question. We are bound to recognise trans people not because they feel a certain way, but instead because it is true they have a particualr idenity.
When we misgender a person, we are telling a falsehood about their idenity. We are claiming their idenity is something which it is not.
I started a thread on the subject so you can get a broader look at a range of opinions. So far the consensus is that your question doesn't make sense.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6977/unconscious-mental-phenomena-evidence-for-and-against
The evidence is overwhelming. I'm just not interested in pursuing what I consider a disingenuous line of questioning.
I don't know what's difficult to understand about me asking YOU what YOU accept as plausible evidence of unconscious mental content, but apparently it's difficult to understand.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
You said that you accept that there's unconscious mental content. If you think the idea of that doesn't make sense, then it wouldn't make sense to say that there is such a thing. If you think it makes sense and you think there is such a thing as unconscious mental content, then presumably you could tell me what YOU accept as plausible evidence of it.
It's a simple question. I'm sick of playing these sorts of stupid games online where someone can't answer a simple question.
How am I going to have an interesting/worthwhile conversation with you when you can't even answer a simple question about what you accept as support as something that you said you buy? I've got a play a game trying to get you to answer the question. It's like trying to take a journey with someone and they want to play a game to get their shoe on first.
The unconscious mind (or the unconscious) consists of the processes in the mind which occur automatically and are not available to introspection, and include thought processes, memories, interests, and motivations.[1]
Even though these processes exist well under the surface of conscious awareness, they are theorized to exert an impact on behavior. The term was coined by the 18th-century German Romantic philosopher Friedrich Schelling and later introduced into English by the poet and essayist Samuel Taylor Coleridge.[2][3]
Empirical evidence suggests that unconscious phenomena include repressed feelings, automatic skills, subliminal perceptions, and automatic reactions,[1] and possibly also complexes, hidden phobias, and desires.
The concept was popularized by the Austrian neurologist and psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. In psychoanalytic theory, unconscious processes are understood to be directly represented in dreams, as well as in slips of the tongue and jokes.
Thus the unconscious mind can be seen as the source of dreams and automatic thoughts (those that appear without any apparent cause), the repository of forgotten memories (that may still be accessible to consciousness at some later time), and the locus of implicit knowledge (the things that we have learned so well that we do them without thinking).
It has been argued that consciousness is influenced by other parts of the mind. These include unconsciousness as a personal habit, being unaware, and intuition. Phenomena related to semi-consciousness include awakening, implicit memory, subliminal messages, trances, hypnagogia, and hypnosis. While sleep, sleepwalking, dreaming, delirium, and comas may signal the presence of unconscious processes, these processes are seen as symptoms rather than the unconscious mind itself.
Some critics have doubted the existence of the unconscious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_mind
I'm not interested in debating the existence of unconscious mental content so you're not "going to have an interesting/worthwhile conversation with [me]" on this subject.
I didn't say the idea of unconscious mental content doesn't make sense. I said the consensus on the thread I created (so far) is that your question doesn't make sense.
Your question is: What is the empirical evidence for unconscious mental content?
I don't agree that your question doesn't make sense. As I've said a number of times: I'm not interested in having a debate about the existence of unconscious mental content. It seems really, really silly to me.
I recommend you stop playing them.
So is the reason you accept it just because many people accept it?
So then why, when I said, "I don't buy unconscious mental content, by the way," did you quote that and start responding to it instead of arguing about kindness and its connection to the pronoun debate?
Just an aside.
I gave you my opinion: If you don't believe in unconscious mental content, you likely haven't read very deeply in psychology and have likely expended very little effort in analyzing your own mind.
I'm not interested in defending my position. Unconscious mental content is widely accepted and in my opinion isn't worth defending. If you don't believe in these things, you have your reasons. But I'm not interested in your reasons.
The irony here is amusing.
If you'd like to defend your naysay vis-a-vis a phenomenon almost universally accepted in modern psychology, I'm listening.
For example: If an obscure memory of trick-or-treating with my mom as a child blipped into consciousness three days ago on Halloween, 2019, in what sense was this memory, prior to its arising, conscious?
If (as you say) you don't believe in unconscious mental content, then all mental content must be, at all times, conscious. In what sense was an obscure memory of trick-or-treating with my mom as a child conscious when there was no consciousness of it? In short, how can what was unconscious be said to be conscious?
These are the kinds of ludicrosities your position gives rise to.
The unconscious mind (or the unconscious) consists of the processes in the mind which occur automatically and are not available to introspection, and include thought processes, memories, interests, and motivations.
Also I felt it was important to assert (having a passion for psychology) that although you have no criteria, visible in consciousness, for the application of kindness, you certainly have unconscious criteria. There is in every case some methodology - of which you confess unconsciousness - arbitrating your choice to be kind or to be unkind.
What would be the reason to believe that prior to it "blipping into your consciousness," it exists as the memory--with just the same qualities it has when you're aware of it--with the only difference being that you're not aware of it? It's making an analogy to something like a paper in a folder in a filing cabinet, where you can then open the filing cabinet, pull out the paper and look at it. What's the justification for analogies like that, though? It's not as if it's the case for all phenomena that it always exists more or less the same, just it's often hiding.
For example, take a car alarm. Is it always going off, just most of the time it's going off in hiding? And then it blips wholesale into something no longer in hiding? Or is the car alarm something that only sounds when it's in a particular dynamic state, and when it's silent, it simply has the potential to be in that state (because the of structure of the materials, and the possible states it can be in as a result of those materials and structures), but it's not actually in that state (in hiding)?
I just want to get a grasp on this point. Is this falsehood about their identity false because only they can determine their identity, and therefor what is true or false about it?
You feel like you've been here before because you say the same thing in every similar thread and when I respond to it, you ignore it and then repeat yourself in the next thread.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
And I already pointed out that people's own identities about themselves can be wrong. Some people are delusional. Some people think that they are a special creation of some god. Telling them that they aren't is no different than telling a man who thinks he's a woman that he isn't. I can't make him believe that. He has to come to that realization himself, but he can't make me use words that don't represent my identity. I am a man - a human male. His declaration of being a woman makes my (and everyone else who identifies the same), use of the word, "man" and "woman" incoherent.
I guess your identity comes directly from your dick. That fits. Although for most people, there's this thing called society that gets in between dangly bits and their identity-forming powers.
From your statement it appears you do believe in unconscious mental content. But you have a question about the form it takes.
Its form is unknown. It's safe to say it isn't like a filing cabinet. It may be more like a digital file stored on a hard drive. But, again, its form is unknown. (I certainly never asserted my memory exists in identical form in its conscious and unconscious states.)
Analogies are always imprecise.
???
What gives you that impression exactly? The bit you're quoting? That's a characterization of the belief that I'm saying has no justification.
You accept that a memory can blip into consciousness.
“Oh hey, Davina is come to the party”
“Oh cool, is X going to be bringing a friend?”
“No, I’m meeting X beforehand and we are going together”
Is it? For example, a transwoman's belief that she is a woman is not really like a delusional belief: It is an inherent aspect of the person that believes it and it comes from a psychological/neurological difference from the others that it is a core aspect of it -it is not simply someone believing an extraordinary thing later in life (and it is also based around a more defensible claim, i.e. their gender is different).
In your example, them believing they are a special creation of some god (assuming it is not an unrelated insult at religions and it is about a person who believes they were created by god in a particularly very special fashion) is not a core aspect of the person- it would not have been that way if the culture was different, they would have believed something extraordinary instead. But the transwoman would have still believed only that and, if she was allowed to transition, would not have gone back to being a man after some consideration. If you fed into a delusional person's beliefs, they would have only grown more unstable and not more stable. That is not what we observe with trans people unless discrimination is involved.
Quoting Harry Hindu
That's mainly because you (and everyone else who identifiesthe same) equate being a man with having certain genitals and being a woman with having another set of genitals. Of course, from that perspective, that person will be a "man"-but a man that dresses like a woman, sounds like a woman, literally has boobs and the curves of a woman, has a generally feminine body and prefers to be on the girl side of things nonetheless.
I would say that a social perspective of gender ("gender as a social construct") can more accurately represent those kinds of situtations than a simple biological definition.
I asked a question about the scenario as you presented it and asked for the justification for characterizing it that way.
Do you accept that an obscure memory ("not available to introspection") can blip into consciousness?
You can suddenly have a memory. There is nothing like a memory, with the same qualities that you're aware of when you're aware of a memory, that's present in your mind that you're just not aware of at other times however.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
It's not anything like mental content when unconscious. Hence there isn't unconscious mental content.
Mental content is phenomena such as thoughts, desires, ideas, concepts, propositional attitudes, etc.
It's just like the car alarm (as a particular sort of sound) is not anything like that sound when the alarm is not going off. It's not that the sound is present but just hidden.
You claim it isn't mental content. So I have to ask: Is it nonmental content?
If it's nonmental content, what specific kind of nonmental content is it?
If it's no kind of nonmental content at all, is it nothingness?
If it's nothingness, how does it blip into consciousness?
I've already agreed the memory in question takes a different form in its conscious and unconscious states. When I'm unconscious of the obscure memory in question it isn't floating around in my mind in an unconscious state. But it certainly is in my mind. It's stored in my mind and can be retrieved.
Does the hard drive analogy help?
A file saved on a hard drive is certainly digital content. The file as it appears on the screen is also digital content.
Your definition of mental content is esoteric and arguable.
In fact, all I have to do to explode your definition of mental content is add - memories.
Most reasonable people would agree, memories are mental content.
You'd have nonmental potentials, which amount to specific brain states (structures and processes that can respond in specific dynamic ways), that can result in mental content, which is necessarily conscious. Again, it's just like a car alarm, where particular structures/processes can respond in specific dynamic ways to produce a sound.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
You could think it takes a different form, but it's something like conscious mental content.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
lol
It wasn't an exhaustive list. And sure, memories are an example. Again, there's no reason to believe that there are unconscious memories.
Most people would probably say that there are unconscious thoughts, desires, etc. too. Unconscious, or colloquially, "subconscious" mental content is a very popular idea.
The definition wasn't gerrymandered to pick out only uncontroversially-conscious phenomena. If there were unconscious mental phenomena, unconscious desires, thoughts, memories, etc. would be an example.
What I call "unconscious mental content" you call "brain states with the potential to create mental content." You leap from the psychological to the physical to avoid using a phrase that rings nonsensical to you. I prefer to describe the mind without referencing the physical.
The mind is mysterious. There's no one right way to describe it. Your way is fine and my way is fine.
One trouble with leaping from the psychological to the physical in a description of the mind is - one is no longer describing the mind.
I say obscure memories ("not available to introspection" - the blipping kind of memory) are "unconscious mental content." I'm describing some facet of the mind.
You reduce this sort of memory to a brain state. You're no longer describing the mind. It's a kind of surrender.
Unless for you minds and brains are the same. That happens too.
I'm a physicalist. I don't think anything about mind is nonphysical. I'm not "leaping to the physical." I think the idea of nonphysical >>whatevers<< is incoherent.
What I'm describing as potentials etc. isn't anything qualitatively like mental states (which are purely physical), so I'm not about to start calling them mental states.
Again, this is why I'm using the car alarm analogy. There's nothing controversial about that only being physical. It shouldn't be hard to understand that it isn't the case that the sound is present at all times but just hidden most of the time. And there's nothing qualitatively like the sound as a property of the alarm when the alarm isn't going off. So it would be silly to call certain states of the non-sounding alarm something like the "inaudible alarm." (Using "alarm" there in the sense of the sound it makes when triggered.)
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
The mind is brain states.
That's an extreme variety of physicalism. I suppose if you hold the image of a tree in your mind you make the attempt via the intellect to reduce this tree-thought to its physical counterpart. But, of course, the tree-thought itself is nonphysical. (I suppose you disagree.)
The tree-thought exists and the brain state giving rise to the tree-thought exists. One is psychical and one is physical. (I suppose you disagree.)
To reduce the mind to physicality is to fatally limit your scope of exploration. It's a dogmatism and hence fatally limiting.
But to return to your criteria for practicing kindness. Let me use your language:
You may think you have no set criteria for practicing kindness but in fact there is a particular concatenation and mechanism of neurons and other unspecified brainstuffs that determine when you will and when you will not practice kindness.
Yes, I disagree. I think everything is physical, and I don't deny thoughts or anything psychological, so I think psychological phenomena are physical.
Again, I'd say that the very notion of nonphysical >>whatevers<< is incoherent.
I don't buy determinism, either, but at any rate, non-mental reasons for something aren't "criteria for kindness." Criteria for kindness would refer to reasons that we can practically state as sentences, reasoned or emoted conditions, etc.
Let's suppose you decide to be unkind to X. You're conscious of no special criteria underpinning your decision to be unkind. You're curious about this and devote long, painstaking hours to self-examination. After a period of introspection you realize Y is why you made the decision to be unkind.
That's what I mean by unconscious criteria.
To use your language (supposing throughout that minds and thoughts are brains and brainstates, respectively):
A certain brain-state was present at the time I made my decision to be unkind. I was at that time unaware of the relationship of this brain-state to the decision to be unkind. After long hours of self-examination, I discovered brain-state-Y to be present at the moment of my decision to be unkind. At the moment I made the decision to be unkind I believed there was no special criteria, but through introspection I've learned that brain-state-Y underpinned my decision to be unkind.
Again: This is what I mean by unconscious criteria.
Quoting Baden
As I said, I'm a man - a human male. So there was more to my identity than my dick. My first identity was that of a human with my sex being secondary.
It's no surprise that sex was the first thing to come to your mind - as if sexual identity trumps species identity. The authoritarian left has this fetish with sexual identities.
You have the additional problem of your argument getting in the way of everyone's identity forming - including "transgenders". Your argument supports the idea that society, not the individuals, form identities of individuals. So, how is that a man can identify as a woman, and society not get in the way of their identity-forming? You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
What is it about religion and politics that makes people throw logic and reason out the window?
It would have been different in another culture. Just ask anyone around these parts and they will tell you that gender is a social construction. That means, that in order to change one's gender, they'd have to change their culture that they were raised in, not their clothes. In the same vein, religious people would have to change the culture that they were raised in order to have a different religion.
So, is "gender" a social construction, or a individual feeling? If is it an individual feeling, then how does a man know what it feels like to be a woman to claim that they are a woman? These are very basic questions that everyone should be asking, but they don't because they have an emotional attachment to their political beliefs, no different than a religious person.
You don't seem to understand what a social construction is. It is a shared assumption about others identities, which means that it comes from society, not the individual. Also, these assumptions can be wrong AND SEXIST. The assumption that a person wearing a dress is automatically a woman is wrong AND SEXIST. A man can wear dresses and still be a man. You're conflating the shared assumption of an individual with the actual physical characteristics of that individual and promoting SEXISM.
1) Society mediates biological identity.
2) The subject is socially embedded.
3) What do you disagree with re 1) and 2)? And how does what I said exclude personal psychological input into identity formation?
On my view, what people are doing in that situation is making up a reason to "explain" why they did the behavior they did, because they have a belief that there should be a (stateable-in-a-"reasoned"-sentence) explanation for everything, and for some unknown, irrational reason, people have a tendency to think that there always need to be one or two "background" reasons, but that there do not need to be one or two "background" reasons for the background reasons.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Again, "Criteria for kindness would refer to reasons that we can practically state as sentences, reasoned or emoted conditions, etc.," which the brain states in question wouldn't be. They're not mental brain states.
And that is if the antecedent brain states are even causal to the behavior in question. Again, I don't buy determinism.
That's why I mentioned all of that in the first place. Either you're ignoring what I said or you don't understand it.
I don't agree with 1 or 2.
Natural selection mediates biological identity and by extension, social interactions.
What does it even mean to be a "subject" that is socially embedded?
I already explained how your personal psychological input is excluded from identity formation. Based on your own arguments, it is a social construction and it is the identity that society is assuming of a person that is sexist. So transgenders are reinforcing sexist assumptions of the society they are in.
This has nothing to do with natural selection. We're presuming the existence of humans of both sexes. So, I'll try again. To start off: Society, at whatever level, is involved in forming the identity of individual humans? Yes or no?
(1) would need to be clarified (and justified if dubious after the clarification).
In what way do you see society as involved in this?
Your usual tactic of answering questions with questions. :yawn: In what way could you justify society not at all being involved in identity formation?
You made a claim: "Society mediates biological identity."
That claim is not at all clear to me. I'm asking you to clarify the claim. Are you not capable of clarifying a claim you're making?
Do you realize that I asked a simpler question above in order to begin the process of clarification? Do you realize that above you answered that simpler question intended to help clarify things with another question? Do you understand that I'm aware that you use this tactic all the time to avoid addressing issues and waste other posters' time?
So no. You're not capable of clarifying the claim you're making. Maybe work on being able to articulate your ideas better. Try writing (and try publishing because that will push you more) some of your ideas out as a paper, so that you need to be clear and detailed about what you're claiming without interacting with others. That will help you be able to articulate your ideas better.
Don't get pissy with other people just because you can't articulate your ideas well. Work on yourself instead.
No, the core part would have been the same-to "be a woman." The difference lies in different cultures having different established social rules on what women should do.Quoting Harry Hindu
Or change how they talk, act and sound to that of a the other gender's-the subtle differences that makes someone of a gender along with the more usual ones.
That isn't contrary to what i said.Quoting Harry Hindu
It is both. You have to both act and look the way of the other gender (and no, acting masculine/feminine is not what i'm talking about, but rather what makes someone recognize,in a social setting, someone else as a male or a female) and feel that way. Albeit the individual feeling comes first since it determines which way one should act.
As for the question, "feeling like a woman" is not really seen as that much of a real thing anyways-even by trans people as far as i'm aware. It is rather a feeling that tells you that you are a woman deep inside and you are of the other gender. A feeling of connection to the idea of being a woman. "It just feels right."
Quoting Harry Hindu
Well, i apologize. Using "social construct" when i was just talking about how we use it in a social setting (which, to clarify, is what i'm asserting is more accurate) was clearly wrong on my behalf-albeit i do not get how i'm promoting sexism since i was not talking about people acting stereotypically like the other gender. (In your example, that is still a man since he, even if we grant that he can make a woman's voice and can look like a woman, does not "act that way" and does not feel that way.)
From this statement it appears you don't accept that a person can engage in self-examination to learn more about his past behavior.
You don't believe that brain states (thoughts) can cause behaviors?
They're not going to learn something like, "I did x because I think y," where at the time they did x, T1, there was no thought like y present to their consciousness. They'd be making up the notion, at time T2, that they thought y at time T1 (but they just weren't aware of it at T1). It's a fiction.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
They can, but they don't necessarily. There's no reason to believe that some events can't occur acausally (including probabilistically but not ultimately causally).
It's a well-known phenomenon and as clear as it needs to be. It even has its own wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization
That's a dogmatic assertion that you can't possibly defend (except with more dogma).
Is this your belief or is this the absolute truth of the situation?
Sure. so how would you finish this sentence: "Socialization mediates biological identity by ________"?
The way it's defended is that there's zero evidence of y being present at T1. There would need to be some evidence of it being present at T1 in order to not say it's a fiction.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
"Absolute truth" is a nonsensical phrase. There's no reason to believe that something else is the case in lieu of any evidence that something else is the case.
...the process of internalizing the norms and ideologies of society. Socialization encompasses both learning and teaching and is thus "the means by which social and cultural continuity are attained".[1]:5[2]
Socialization is strongly connected to developmental psychology.[3] Humans need social experiences to learn their culture and to survive.[4]
Socialization essentially represents the whole process of learning throughout the life course and is a central influence on the behavior, beliefs, and actions of adults as well as of children.[5][6]
Socialization may lead to desirable outcomes—sometimes labeled "moral"—as regards the society where it occurs. Individual views are influenced by the society's consensus and usually tend toward what that society finds acceptable or "normal". Socialization provides only a partial explanation for human beliefs and behaviors, maintaining that agents are not blank slates predetermined by their environment;[7] scientific research provides evidence that people are shaped by both social influences and genes.[8][9][10][11]
Genetic studies have shown that a person's environment interacts with his or her genotype to influence behavioral outcomes.[12]
Wiki
Wouldn't an important part of that be semantics?
There's plenty of evidence vis-a-vis the continuity of personality.
Through self-examination I discover that at T2, T3, T4 and T5 I behaved in such and such a way in light of thought-pattern X.
Considering T1, and noting its similarities to T2, T3, T4 and T5, I hypothesize that thought-pattern X was at play at that time as well.
First, what does "the continuity of personality" even refer to, exactly, in terms of observables?
To this:
Through self-examination I discover that at T2, T3, T4 and T5 I behaved in such and such a way in light of thought-pattern X.
Considering T1, and noting its similarities to T2, T3, T4 and T5, I hypothesize that thought-pattern X was at play at that time as well.
How are you defining "personality" then, because that doesn't seem to resemble any conventional definition of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality
Explain what you take issue with in this scenario:
Through self-examination I discover that at T2, T3, T4 and T5 I behaved in such and such a way in light of thought-pattern X.
Considering T1, and noting its similarities to T2, T3, T4 and T5, I hypothesize that thought-pattern X was in play at that time as well.
Put more precisely:
At T2, T3, T4 and T5 I behaved in such and such a way in light of thought-pattern X. Thought pattern X was present and conscious at T2, T3, T4 and T5.
Considering T1, and noting its similarities to T2, T3, T4 and T5, I hypothesize that thought-pattern X was in play at that time as well.
So if you're defining "personality" conventionally, this:
===================================
To this:
Through self-examination I discover that at T2, T3, T4 and T5 I behaved in such and such a way in light of thought-pattern X.
Considering T1, and noting its similarities to T2, T3, T4 and T5, I hypothesize that thought-pattern X was at play at that time as well.
===================================
Has nothing to do with "continuity of personality"
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
We're getting to it. I won't do more than one "issue" at a time. You mentioned "continuity of personality" first. And you just introduced a whole host of other issues that we have to cover first, because we're now much further away from talking about how observables would count as "continuity of personality" than we were a few steps ago.
Okay. I disagree but it's not important. Moving on.
Please explain what you take issue with in this scenario:
At T2, T3, T4 and T5 I behaved in such and such a way in light of thought-pattern X. Thought-pattern X was present and conscious at T2, T3, T4 and T5.
Considering T1, and noting its similarities to T2, T3, T4 and T5, I hypothesize that thought-pattern X was in play at that time as well.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
That's a claim. What is the evidence for the claim?
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
It was conscious at those times? Okay. And we're saying that to that person's mind, at those times, they acted in such and such way because of thought-pattern x?
Not necessarily because of. Possibly because of. Definitely in correlation with.
It's correlated with it if it's present sure.
Okay, so at another time, where X isn't consciously present, we're saying that it was unconsciously present because we believe in induction (with respect to sameness) strongly enough when there's similarity that we're willing to posit thoughts that we aren't aware of?
How would this be different, by the way, than saying:
On occasions 1, 2, 3 and 4, when I shook Joe's car, the alarm went off.
On occasion 5, I shook Joe's car, but I didn't hear the alarm. That must mean that the alarm went off, only in a hidden or silent way.
That would be making a similarly absurd move because of a belief in induction and an unwillingness to deal with non-"neat" data/scenarios.
I might substitute "conscious" for "present".
And instead of "thoughts that we aren't aware of" I might say "unconscious cognitive structures that may or may not give rise to conscious thought-pattern X." It's the same to say thought-pattern X is "in play." via "unconscious cognitive structures."
The power of attention comes into play here.
It's different because car alarms aren't minds. It's not a precise or useful analogy.
I edited that quickly after I wrote it, by the way.
There are no unconscious cognitive structures.
So if we make an analogy between A and B, if anything is different ontologically when it comes to A and B, there's a problem with the analogy?
Are there unconscious brainstates?
Yes. They're not cognitive.
Generally, yes. Arguing by analogy is inherently imprecise.
In this case, certainly, yes. A mind or brain is far more complex than a car alarm. There's no comparison.
Yeah, that's pretty stupid.
You don't have an analogy if A and B are identical.
So at T1 brain-state X is unconscious to you. At T2, T3, T4 and T5, brain-state Y is conscious to you. You note the similarities between T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 and hypothesize that brain-state X may be similiar to brainstate Y, the central distinction being, possibly, that at T1 I was unconscious of the nature of brainstate X.
What do you take issue with here?
There's no reason to say that there's a brainstate X at T1 if you're not conscious of X at T1.
Analogical argumentation is inherently imprecise.
"Strength of an analogy
Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy:
The relevance (positive or negative) of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion.[2][3]
The degree of relevant similarity (or dissimilarity) between the two objects.[2]
The amount and variety of instances that form the basis of the analogy.[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogy
In this case "the degree of relevant similiarity" between minds and car alarms is in doubt.
There is certainly a brain-state at T1.
I'm calling it brain-state X.
What would you like to call it?
Noting that there's an ontological difference between A and B is irrelevant to whether the analogy works. It's stupid to suggest that it's relevant. Analogized things are necessarily different ontologically, otherwise it's not an analogy. You need to be able to focus on what's being analogized, not irrelevant ontological differences.
There's going to be some state as long as there's a brain, sure. What are we using for evidence of the state in question, and what does it have to do with anything cognitive or conscious if we're not aware of it?
So let's call it brain-state X.
Again:
So at T1 brain-state X is unconscious to you. At T2, T3, T4 and T5, brain-state Y is conscious to you. You note the similarities between T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 and hypothesize that brain-state X may be similiar to brainstate Y, the central distinction being, possibly, that at T1 you were unconscious of the nature of brainstate X.
What do you take issue with here?
The next problem: what similarities are we noting? You're saying something about similarities, but you're not saying what's supposed to be similar. Similarities of brain states? To whom?
Sorry, I'm not answering your questions until you've answered mine.
What do you take issue with in the above scenario?
My question is the next thing I take issue with.
"You're saying something about similarities, but you're not saying what's supposed to be similar. "
"The next problem" should cue you in to the fact that that's something I take issue with.
We're not going to add that you have reading comprehension problems to the rest of this now, are we? I'm so tired of the complete bullshit way that folks like you try to have conversations online.
We're looking at a logical abstraction. It isn't necessary to know what the similarities are. What do you take issue with in the logic of this abstraction?
So what similarities is someone noting, and who is the someone?
The scenario doesn't make any sense without specifying some sort of similarities we're noting.
First off, "x is similar to y" is a judgment that an individual has to make.
I'm sorry this logical abstraction doesn't make sense to you. I don't think we can go any further.
So you're incapable of specifying any sort of similarity we could be noting?
I'm interested in the logic of the abstraction. Not in filling in the variables.
Without bogging down the discussion by filling in variables, is there something you take issue with in the logical form of the abstraction?
I just pointed out the problems with it. If you want to just ignore that, I guess you can. That would suck from any sort of conversational or philosophical standpoint though.
The logical form. The logical structure. What do you take issue with in the logical form or structure?
How would you even attempt to formalize it? You've got a bunch of terms like "noting similarities" that have no standard formalization.
That's okay. It was fun. :)
It wasted my time. I'm still looking for an honest, straightorward conversation with someone who won't resort to bullshit tactics.
I always feel like I'm dealing with children (well, or teens/people with a teen mentality) who are trying to find creative ways to be "difficult," and that's all I'm doing. I'd rather have what I'd consider a good faith conversation with an adult.
There had better be a lot of ego in folks acting like children and trying to be "difficult," because the other option(s) is less attractive.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Maybe, although there would be no reason to believe that it's unconscious mental content.
You say minds are brains. M is B.
It would follow that mental content is brain content. MC is BC.
If some BC is unconscious then some MC is unconscious.
Dogs are animals. Therefore if x is an animal, x is a dog?
You say minds are brains. M is B.
It would follow that mental content is brain content. MC is BC.
Do you disagree?
This rejoinder would be relevant if I had said:
Minds are brains = brains are minds.
I haven't said that.
To be clear I changed the = to an 'is'.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Looks like my logic was flawed.
"Some brain content is unconscious" is the closest we can get to an agreement.
Right, we agree that some brain states, activities etc. are unconscious.
Yes. Thoughts, desires, emotions, memories, etc. are physical. They're properties of molecules/atoms in particular relations (structures), undergoing particular processes (so the structures are dynamic).
Why would it seem more plausible to you to say that thoughts are vague "nonphysical" > >whatevers<< ?
Thoughts are vague whatevers. Yes.
And molecules and atoms are vague whatevers.
These days, physicists don't even seem to know what a particle is.
So with molecules, for example, we can give their location at a particular time.
What's an example of a property we can specify like that of a vague nonphysical >>whatever<
A thought-tree is perceptible.
A molecule as such isn't perceptible.
Are you using "perception" in a way that doesn't refer to becoming aware of information via our senses?
"able to be seen or noticed"
https://www.google.com/search?q=perceitible&oq=perceitible&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5191j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
So the thought-tree is a property of a molecule or atom?
Are you saying that you literally see thoughts with your eyes?
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
As I said above: "They're properties of molecules/atoms in particular relations (structures), undergoing particular processes (so the structures are dynamic)."
No.
Able to be seen or noticed.
I notice I have thoughts.
So you're not using "perception" in the conventional sense, because that has a connotation of information obtained via our senses. You're just saying that you can be aware of something, it's "noticeable," and that's a property of nonphysical things. Being noticeable isn't a property of physical things though?
It seems far-fetched to call a thought-tree a property of atoms or molecules. At best it's an imprecise use of language.
A thought-tree may be a product or correlate of "molecules/atoms in particular relations (structures), undergoing particular processes (so the structures are dynamic)."
It's a dogmatic leap to reduce the thought-tree to a property.
It's much more far-fetched to just say that you don't know what it is, exactly, but it is.
At any rate, there isn't anything that's not properties.
Dogmatism and humility are the polarities in question.
Dogmatism denies the mysterious, positing certainty or knowledge. Humility accepts the mysterious.
Dogmatism and egoism (non-humility) go hand in hand.
It's not a property of atoms, molecules, particles. The basis of the physicalist view.
How are they not noticeable? Note that we're not saying that we can't perceive them with our senses, because that's not what you're saying about thoughts, either.
A table is noticeable. An atom isn't.
I don't know what a thought is made of. And I don't know what an atom is made of.
I don't know what a thought is made of. And I don't know what a particle is made of.
Nah. It's possible Terrapin is right and thoughts are physical. It's a mystery to me.
That doesn't seem right - isn't it wise to admit sometimes that there is stuff you don't know?
Again, note that we're NOT talking about perception in the sense of receiving data via your senses here (sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch). Because you weren't saying that thought is perceived via your senses. You said you just "notice" it. If you don't notice atoms in the same way, how do you even have any idea about them?
The context is one of explaining things. You don't explain something better by saying, "This is some mysterious who knows what"
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Even in the context of explaining things...
Quoting Banno
If you don't know, then yes, you do explain what you know better by admitting that you don't know...
Much better than making stuff up (we can leave that to out theological infestation).
But that's fine. There will be a way to set out the these issues so that they make sense - I just haven't worked it out yet.
I don't know.
In the mean time, I'll still try to refer to some folk as "they" rather than "he" or "she", because although I do not get it, it makes sense to them.
Again, how do you have any idea about atoms if you don't notice them in the same way that you notice a thought?
What does "explain" refer to here then?
Please explain in what way you've noticed an atom.
It's the same way that you've noticed a thought.
Atoms are present to mind--when you think about them, for example, right?
That's pretty weak.
Thought-atoms, like thought-trees, are noticeable.
1) I don't think you believe physical objects are made of thought-atoms.
2) If thought-atoms are the same as atoms, thought-trees are the same as trees.
It's weak to say that a property of nonphysicals, akin to a property like location for molecules, is that you "notice" them (at least when they're thoughts that you happen to have).
Nothing; it's a verb, not a noun.
Seeking definitions is a very old philosophical game; you can see where it leads by reading Plato. Mapping out use would be a more interesting task.
Further, you already know what an explanation is, and how to explain things, and can sort good explanations form bad. So don't bother asking.
Not pretending to having an explanation when you don't, is a mark of intellectual honesty. That's a good thing, isn't it?
Verbs do not refer to anything in your view?
(What did I say earlier about this being like interacting with children who are trying to find creative ways to be difficult?)
What would you say a verb refers too? Let's consider "run".
And yes, i am trying to be difficult. it's called analysis. If you don;t like it, don't play.
One way is through models and enlarged photos. I can also read about atoms and notice their existence. Does that answer that? If not, please explain how you "notice" thoughts and we can re-word in a way that fits.
Quoting Banno
I think all @Terrapin Station is saying is that saying "I don't know" is less of an explanation than saying the part you do know. "I don't know" is NOT an explanation. But I agree (and I think Terrapin would too) that it is sometimes worthwhile to admit ignorance.
I wouldn't say it like that.
Society, at whatever level, is involved in forming assumptions and expectations about the identities of individual humans.
You seem to be saying that our biology already provides the identity of being a male or female, and then society comes along and creates assumptions, or expectations of those biological identities. Those assumptions and expectations are usually wrong which makes them sexist.
This is what I've been saying all along - that you and others are confusing the shared expectation of a particular sex as the actual identity of being that sex.
Exactly. Societies have different established social rules on what women should do, not what makes one a woman. Those rules are sexist because they put women in boxes that limit them. Why can't a woman wear pants and have short hair and join the military and still be a woman?
What makes a person a man or woman? Natural selection.
Do you even care if anything you write is true? I mean, if you're going to appeal to biology, at least know something about it. Why any particular baby has a natal sex (all else held equal) is due to essentially random union of gametes. On the individual level this has nothing to do with natural selection.
Sexual reproduction is evolutionarily old, need not have just 2 sexes, need not have one sex per organism. And you wanna reduce all of the question of "what makes a person a man or a woman?" down to evolutionary adaptations that occurred prior to the evolution of humans. What in the fuck are you even talking about.
And they'll keep going, really, because it's never about the fact of the matter (if it were, they wouldn't behave like douchenozzles trying to refute you on all points and being internally inconsistent in the process), it's about a personal feeling of discomfort with norms shifting underneath them.
Of course I care if it's true. I answer your questions because I seek out criticism of my ideas in order to fine tune them. You're not returning the favor and it's not just me that notices.
I've already done the research on evolution and natural selection as it is what changed me from being a theist to being an atheist. What I see is the same thing happening in politics - that many atheists have simply swapped one big brother for another. They make the same logical errors that the theists do and don't even question their beliefs, or what they are told, like when a man claims to be a woman.
How do you think two different gametes came about?
Quoting fdrake
In order to procreate as a human you need two different sex systems - a vagina/ovaries and a penis/testicles. Each system includes the storage for the gametes and their delivery method. It seems to me that you need both to have a functional system. Those that are born with both don't have both as fully functioning - it's either one or the other or none at all. We usually say that they are intersex, which reflects their condition of being between the two sexes, but typically they lean one way or the other because of which system is more fully functional.
Hermaphroditism is old. Sex isn't. You are the one that doesn't know what they are talking about.
Humans are still born with tails from time to time. We still carry genes from our distant ancestral species that get activated by some mutation in the copying of genes when a person is being conceived.
Quoting fdrake
We went over this already.
If "gender" isn't about sex, then what is "gender"?
You defined "gender" as a social construction.
"Social construction" is defined as a shared assumption or expectation.
This means that "gender" would be kind of shared assumption or expectation, but a shared assumption or expectation of what?
The answer: the behavior of the different sexes within a culture.
So, again you are confusing a shared assumption or expectation with the actual sexual identity of that person, which is the result of millions of years of evolution and nothing that they have any control over.
Those shared assumptions or expectations are sexist, so when someone claims to identify with them, they are the actual proponents of sexism.
Quoting fdrake
Right, so when I show you that you're wrong and don't know what you're talking about your tactic is to then say it doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. :roll:
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yes.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yes (broadly)
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yes
Quoting Harry Hindu
No. You've just conceded that gender is a social construction, so it's not a confusion at all. Social constructions are like the boxes available on a census form, you still get to pick which one to tick.
Yes, some social constructions are sexist (that's my particular beef with some radical trans philosophy that seems to reify such constructions), but..
The important thing is that people are required to choose anyway in order to take part in the culture which has just constructed those options.
So the trans thing is really about support for a choice between options which someone else presented but where 'none of the above' isn't an option.
Note - philosophically, 'none of the above' is what I agree with, but practically it can only go one way, society changes the choices first.
You've not established that the evolution of sex is relevant to gender at all. You've left it in the background as a framing device. We're not arguing about whether sex is relevant to gender, you invited me to argue about the specifics of the evolution of sex as if it were relevant to gender, this is just something you do. You say you want to "refine your worldview", you mean "perform certainty about it". If you were interested in questioning aspects of it, you would stay on topic, and not rabidly and uncharitably jump on anything you see as false while keeping your presumptions in the background.
You're only caring about evolution as it applies to producing typically sexed human bodies. Like it was a biological necessity. Like all the social stuff regarding gender is reducible to it. This is a major error.
Quoting Harry Hindu
"fdrake is wrong because hermaphroditism isn't a form of sexual reproduction"
"provides quote showing hermaphroditism is a form of sexual reproduction"
The entire point of raising hermaphroditism here is to undermine your claim that "we have the sexes we have because of natural selection", because evolution also produces hermaphrodites and species with more than two sexes...
Edit: I don't even mean to say that natural selection has nothing to do with human sexuality, just the story is way more complicated than you're giving it credit for. Well, what you're leaving in the background unexamined is giving it credit for, anyway.
Quoting Harry Hindu
This is "he who smelt it dealt it" applied to social categories.
So one way to know what "run" refers to is to use a dictionary; "Run," in one sense of the term, refers to "moving at a speed faster than a walk, while never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time."
Can we stop pretending that you're a toddler now?
If a woman has a short hair, they're still seen as a woman. If a woman joins a military, they're still seen as a woman. The only difference would be that now they're not seen as a "real woman" if the society decides such things determine that. But even the people who think that will not refer to them as a man, but as a woman-just not a "proper" one.
I do not think you can find any instance of someone, not insultingly or out of a mistake, calling a woman a man because the person believs that the person is a man just because she has short hair. That would be extaordinarily rare.
Quoting Harry Hindu
It is the SRY gene by that definition, as per the name "Sex-determining region Y protein". Natural selection is not really relevant.
So you can refer to things other than things...?
If that's all you are claiming, then we might agree; but can we denote things other than things?
If you're using "thing" in the "noun" sense, then yes, of course you're not limited to referring to "things."
"Things" in the noun sense are processes by the way. It's not really the case that anything is static.
On many views, denotation and reference are the same thing. Denotation and reference are both what a term "points to."
Quoting Banno
So "run" points to...what?
And if it's every instance of running, it's circular.
IF it's moving at a speed faster than a walk, while never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time, how will you "point" to it?
And the point here is that definitions are usually either inadequate or to strict, and hence do not help us in working out what we are doing with our words.
It's a thing I learned from reading and thinking about the issue of family resemblance and other related problems.
But I just wrote what it points to.
Quoting Banno
You'd have to explain (a) how you see it as circular (in your view the instances of running are pointing to something?), and (b) what you'd see as the problem with circularity in this case.
Quoting Banno
Descriptively, as with the words you just used, for example. If you're talking about literal pointing, you take your finger and keep it aimed at them while they run.
Quoting Banno
All I was commenting on was the fact that referring isn't restricted to nouns. I have no idea why you'd think that. Whether definitions are inadequate etc. would have no bearing on whether we can refer only to nouns.
But I don't what you to write it, I want you to point to it.
'cause you see, you cannot. That sort of pointing is sort of metaphorical.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Well, if you cannot see the circularity in "Run points to [i]running[/I]"... let that be an end to the discussion.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I think the circularity is fine, just so long as you don't think you have shown what "run" points to.
Quoting Terrapin Station
All of the instances of "run"? You got a lot of fingers.
Quoting Terrapin Station
What you did was request definitions as if that would help our discussion. It's a habit of yours. I think it is fraught with philosophical problems. Hence, I'm behaving as a toddler in order to show you the issue.
I can easily point to run(ning), but you need to come visit me to see it, obviously. So when are you going to be around?
Quoting Banno
Metaphorical?? At any rate, if it's "metaphorical" how would any pointing not be "metaphorical"?
Quoting Banno
Again, phrased this way, how would any reference not be circular? What I'm addressing is the odd claim that words don't have references if they're not nouns. But if you have a problem with "run" pointing to "run(ning)," then you'd have an equal problem with "Joe" pointing to "Joe" or "cat" pointing to "cat" or whatever . . . which would have nothing to do with the odd idea that only nouns pertain to reference.
Quoting Banno
You can't point to all of the instances of anything by that token, including Joe. So again, what would this have to do with the curious idea that reference only comes into play when we're talking about nouns?
Quoting Banno
What I did was write, "Verbs do not refer to anything in your view?" a la "What sort of crackpot nonsense is this?"
It helps to drop the second pair of quote marks in each case, no?
I.e. "run" points to run(ning), "Joe" points to Joe and "cat" points to cat?
Ain't that the root of all our (thinking we have) problems?!
Yeah, I should have left the second quotation marks off. Thanks.
Re "Ain't that the root of all our problems"--I think I'm more inclined to say that seeing it as a problem, or wanting it to be otherwise, is more at the root of many problems.
Yeah indeed, hence my parenthetical edit that you likely didn't see.
Poor Banno is still confused about the difference between how what is in your underpants scientifically/objectively (not culturally/subjectively) identifies them as a particular biological identity, and how subjective cultures form subjective expectations (not objective identities) about those scientific/objective identities.
First, I never conceded that "gender" is a social construction. What I'm doing is taking that idea and showing the illogical implications of that idea.
The boxes that are available on a census forum are related to biological characteristics, like sex and race. If gender is a social construction, then the boxes would be labeled:
Women wear dresses
Women wear makeup
Women have long hair
Men wear pants
Men don't wear makeup
Men have short hair.
The list would have to be much longer for any behavior that one takes as their "gender" and you could check more than one. Notice that the list isn't identities - they are behaviors expected of those biological identities. That is what it means to have a shared expectation as opposed to having an identity. If gender is a shared expectation of the behavior of the sexes, as you agreed with, then gender would be statements like, "Men wear pants", not "Man". That confuses the expected behavior that the members of a culture share ("men wear pants") with the biological entity, "man".
The other problem you have is the term "shared" in the definition of a social construction. If a social construction is "shared" then that means that it is an agreement between the members of society. Transgenders aren't conforming which means that their idea of gender isn't shared, it is an individual feeling, so it wouldn't qualify as a social construction.
There is also the problem of transgenderism promoting sexism. If these social constructions are sexist because they put men and women, who are biological entities, into subjective boxes, then a man claiming to be a woman simply by wearing a dress reinforces those stereotypes. Wearing a dress doesn't make one a woman. It is simply the expected behavior of women. This is why people get confused when they see that a man is under the dress. They expected a different identity because of their shared expectation that only women (the identity) wear dresses (the shared expectation of behavior for that identity).
Quoting fdrake
I've established that if gender is a social construction then that means it is a shared expectation of biological identities, not identities themselves.
I brought up the evolution of sex to show that our species has diverged enough from our far distant hemaphrodite ancestors that when those hidden genes are activated during conception and our physiology has changed so much since then, that the outcome of ancient DNA expression in a body that it wasn't designed for can have unpredictable consequences.
Quoting fdrake
Quoting Isaac
Yes, but those are defining characteristics of those species, not humans. Which species were we talking about again?
I brought up hermaphrodites. You didn't say anything about hermaphrodites, and they were not part of your argument. To my understanding, you were suggesting that the equation of gender and sex in humans makes sense in light of natural selection. I brought up hermaphroditism and other forms of sexual reproduction in organisms to show that evolution alone is not even a sufficient explanation for sex in humans - since it produces many forms of sexual reproduction.
You can't just argue "gender is sex because natural selection", the evolutionary story is way more complicated than that. Natural selection isn't a magical device that allows you to equate cultural characteristics with anatomical characteristics.
It's also an incidental part of the discussion; mostly off topic. The central claim is whether gender is reducible to anatomical sex; not how sex came about in humans. An account of gender in terms of the evolution of human sex only argues for your point that gender = sex once the framing is accepted that it's even relevant at all.
I indulged in refuting your irrelevant points because, well, I don't want you to propagate these ludicrous falsehoods, or to have a bulwark of intellectual terrain to retreat to to avoid more relevant challenges. If you want to reduce gender to sex on the basis of natural selection, you have to do more than just frame your central point (gender = sex) as correct.
Gender roles differ over cultures, how many genders there are differ over cultures, yet we share the same evolutionary history - the same sex characteristics. How can you possibly account for the cultural disparities in gender, and the cultural shifts in gender roles over time, when all of this has occurred so quickly that evolution will not have acted much?
If 'we're still the same species with the same sexual characteristics' sufficed for an explanation of gender, if that's all there was to it, then you'd expect little unexplained variation from your model. Your account of things (sex=gender) leaves all cultural shifts, cultural norms, differences in gender expression, differences in social roles, and even the progression of expectations you want to reduce gender to unexplained; there is far too much variation left unaccounted for for your account to be sufficient.
Moreover, the sources of variation - cultural ones, norms of conduct and explanation - vary independently of human sex characteristics. We have the same anatomical structures independent of culture.
This is just bad reasoning upon bad reasoning. I don't think you even know how to keep your story straight, or what you're aiming to account for.
Quoting Harry Hindu
The only confusion there is yours. Cultural variation regarding sex and gender is causally independent of anatomical variation of sex characteristic in humans. You need to keep these two things (sex, gender) somewhat separate to tell a coherent story about them. Even their relationship.
That wasn't my argument. You aren't taking time to read and digest what I'm saying. You just have this knee-jerk emotional reaction to what I say and then post this wall of text that doesn't apply to what I said.
Gender is sex because that is how we've use the term and now a particular political entity wants to redefine it for their own political agenda.
Quoting fdrake
This makes no sense. Cultural variation regarding sex IS gender, according to your own arguments that gender is a social construction. Gender cannot be causally independent of sex if gender is a shared expectation of the sexes. You'd have an expectation that is devoid of any object it is associated with and be then gender becomes meaningless.
Do you think having a willy necessitates being a breadwinner?
Right. What's sex? Sexes are summaries of presence/absence of sexual characteristics. The sexes male and female correspond to typical configurations of human bodily anatomy in terms of their sexual characteristics. Women have wombs, vulvas, boobs, a certain hormone chemistry, periods... Men have testicles, dicks, facial hair, a certain hormone chemistry... Typical clusters of these things define the sexes male and female.
Now, let's set up sex as a construct. A construct is a conceptualisation of a phenomenon of interest that facilitates its study and (ideally) captures all relevant variability of the phenomenon in question.
So, for example, a depression index in clinical psychology might measure mood intensity, mood persistence, feelings of worthlessness, thoughts of self harm, concentration issues, anhedonia... All of these are indicators of the presence of depression and its severity. Depression as a construct, then, correlates with each of its indicators; which is what it means for those things to be an indicator of depression. Depression is more likely given an indicator, and more likely given a strong scoring on all indicators.
In our case, sex as a construct would look at human bodies, and look at their sexual characteristics, whether they are male or female or intersex.
Now, let us hypothesise that sex is gender. As Harry instructs us to. Let us agree with Harry and see what the world would look like if he were right!
What does the claim sex is gender entail? This should suggest that there are no unique sources of variation which are not causally reducible to sex as a construct. That is, any variability in gender norms, archetypes, codes of conduct, expectations and practices should be explainable by the presence or absence of sexual characteristics of bodies.
Now, the sexual characteristics of bodies are constant across cultures in terms of their presence or absence. In every population of humans there are the same sexual characteristics in roughly the same proportion. That is there are negligible differences in sex characteristics over human populations. Moreover, sexual characteristics of humans are roughly constant since before we were even H. Sapiens. Let's just say they were constant since 10,000BC to be sure.
But, the norms, archetypes, codes of conduct, expectations and practices regarding male or female bodies differ strongly over cultures and over time.
If sex = gender, we would expect little to no variation in norms, archetypes, codes of conduct, expectations and practices regarding male or female bodies over time or human populations.
But there is strong variation over both.
Huh.
Guess sex isn't equal to gender then.
Edit: just in case the logic is difficult, if two constructs are the same, we would expect variation in one to strongly correlate with variation in the other. Since there are negligible differences in population sex characteristics over populations and time but over the same populations varied configurations of gender norms, we can't say they're the same construct. Differences in one do not explain differences in the other; they don't even correlate, nevermind strongly correlate, nevermind cause (edit: nevermind conceptual or logical identity).
There used to be an argument about new pronouns and free speech and stuff.
Now there's an argument about whether trans or non-binary people exist, and about gender.
This is the general pattern, arguments about the map mask underlying prejudices in the territory.
It’s also the case that trans talk has escalated in the opposite direction outside of the thread, to the point that biological males can now participate in sport intended for biological females. I’m surprised the pushback hasn’t been far worse.
"But the left does this too therefore I don't have to think about it!"
“Oh no, a forum post escalated to a worse forum post!”
What do you actually believe regarding sex and gender?
I no longer use the term gender, personally, but believe anyone can express themselves how they want, using whatever terms they want. I do not think sex and gender are a one-to-one ratio and that criticisms of the gender binary are largely accurate, and even necessary.
This is an example of the sort of underlying prejudice fdrake was talking about.
What ever made the bodies in question "male" or "female?" People have different bodies no doubt, but this is no more informative then the fact people have different colour hair.
Sex is.exactly like a gender role here: it supposedly sets an idenity which a given body can be. It is drawing out who.someone is on the notion having certain genitals just cannot be that. In having this account, we are prejudiced in the same way as any other gender role. We are not describing who they are in terms of how they exist, but just applying an our insistence the world is not supposed to work that way.
Sex more describes biological facts about mammals and reproduction than setting an identity for human beings. So I think the denial of these distinctions is more an underlying prejudice than my reiteration of these facts.
I'm pointing out this is not true at all.
If I describe the body parts any person has which are involved in reproduction, I make no mention of sex or gender. To say, "This person has a penis and testes, etc. and they do..." or " This person has a womb, ovaries, etc., and they do..." involves no distinction of male or female. The description of bodies remains the same if they are female or male or something else entirely.
Sex is not describing biological facts. It's our, in this case, prejudicial account of what someone of certain biological facts can mean or be. We are saying: "Well, this person cannot be a man/woman because it just not what those genitals do", just as we do in accounts of gender roles, where we insist people can only be certain things because they have certain genitals.
It's not reiterating biological facts, it just insisting where a body can only be certain things because it exists with some genitals or chromosomes or organs.
The distinction is biological and no amount of verbal hand-waving can alter that. The description of bodies changes but the body remains the same. People go out of their way to alter their bodies through surgical means for this very reason.
I just showed that is not the case: describing the present biological states involves no reference to gender or sex.
My point is precisely that bodies don't change. Whether a body is male, female or something else, it will be its bodily self. If we have a male vagina, it works just the same as a female one. Same for a female penis. The body is always unaffected by which sex or gender category a person belongs to.
People alter their bodies when they want a change to their body.
You didn’t, actually. Whether describing biological states refers to sex or not does not entail a certain biological state is not of a certain sex. Sex is an accurate descriptor of a biological fact of many species and organisms.
Male vaginas and female penises are constructed, first in the mind, then by the knife of a surgeon. Anything else is little more than wishful thinking.
You're almost there: it also the case female vaginas and male penises constructed in the mind, for the biological fact does not care whether it is female, male or something else.
Sex was never the descriptor of bodies. It always a supposition of identity we've added on top of the biological fact.
This part is correct. Why? Just because sex is not a biologcal fact, that doesn't mean those with certain biological facts don't have a sex. Many people with a body (i.e. biologcal facts) have an idenity which is sex. People have sex on it's own terms: it is true some people with biological states also have an idenity of sex.
But the point is sex must be given on it's own terms. To exist with a one type if body does not give a fact of.sex identity. People aren't a sex because they have a penis or vagina, they are a sex if that's the truth of their sex idenity. People of bodies have sex identity, rather than one's body determining which sex is identity one has.
Sex doesn’t pertain to just people, but to plants and animals as well. Perhaps they identify as something else but the facts remain nonetheless: two distinct types of organisms are required for sexual reproduction. Human beings, too, fall into this distinction. It’s why a member of the male sex cannot give birth. or why a female cannot produce sperm.
Yes, people are of a certain sex if they are born with a penis or vagina. Their identities are always constructed after the fact of their biology. I am willing to give up gender, but we simply cannot supersede biological facts because someone hates their body.
Sex is equally a construction put over the biology of plants too. As with people, it is the biological state of the plant which is doing sexual reproduction, not a sex.
To describe reproduction, we need to describe the states of body which do it. It does not matter what "kind" they are. Bodies aren't changed by whether the are understood to be female, male or any thing else.
A male with the appropriate biology can give birth, his body has determined it so. Sex is not a biological fact.
Sure, the term sex is very general in its application, but it is accurate; it describes the world, the relations and the things within it. In the same manner I could say the term “body” is such a construction, therefor not a biological fact. We can now just go around and speak of humans as “biological facts”. I wouldn’t doubt it if someone has done that already.
Either way it seems to me if the biological fact is the body, then the identity, insofar as it differs from the biological facts, isn’t the biological facts at all, and therefor falsities. So which is it? Further, if one wants to identify as something other than the biological facts, which biological facts is he identifying as?
Sex, in this sense, is not accurate at all. At best, it's a description of a sex identity, at worst it is a lie about sex and biology.
Either way, it is not any sort of description of what biology is present. It does not describe biological relations at all.
So you last paragraph there is true except for the very last part. Identity isn't a biologcal fact at all. But this doesn't mean identity is false itself, just that it is a different sort of fact, not a biological fact but an identity fact.
For sure, my point I'm the notion of biological sex is exactly like gender is this respect. It is not a description of bodies, what bodies can do or what bodies might do, but rather a concept of (supposedly) when and where certain identity and traits(e.g. male, female) can occur or not.
Sex is not biology at all. In this sense, it is nothing more than expectation of who can belong as male, female or something else, much like any gender role.
Sex is a lie about sex? I’m not convinced here, and it appears to me the argument against the use of sex to describe things in the world is mere quibbling at best, propaganda at worse, and says little to nothing of states of affairs.
The identity, on the other hand, is not a biological fact in particular nor fact in general but bestowed, chosen, or otherwise taken as a matter of reification by the biological facts themselves.
I suggest that to identity as something other than the biological facts is to misidentify.
Biological sex is a lie about sex and it's relation to people, as sex is an identity not a biological fact.
Sex says nothing about the states of affairs of the body (which is why we always find ourselves falling back on bodily description when trying to explain sex. If sex really was a bodily description, we wouldn't have to say " well male/female means... xyz body" ).
Sex is not an identity nor a lie. The body is an identity, his only identity, the living organism itself as it exists in the world. How the body goes about identifying itself as something other than what it is, I suspect, is the greatest tragedy of humankind.
But that's just it: no-one does it. The often discussed "wrong body" trans person, for example, does not misidentify biological facts. They know what body they have, which is the problem for them.
If they did misidentify biology, thought they had a vagina when they had a penis, they would have nothing to worry about/desire to change their body. They would already understand themselves to have the body right for them.
If one is not his body, what is he? Who or what is this little being that possesses this body? I worry this little being might be parasitic. Perhaps the body should rid itself of this little being before it does anything it can never undo.
How? Let us consider these definitions i thought of:
"A person is a female if and only if that person has eggs."
"A person is a male if and only if that person can produce sperm."
I would say that this is what we generally mean by "sex". If my definition is the definition we use or it is close enough, i have to ask: How is this related to an identity in any way?
The only requirement when choosing a word is that it is understood in the same way by speaker and listener. If the person Peter/Paul comes more readily to mind when we refer to him as Peter, then Peter is the name we should use.
Inventing new pronouns only makes communication more difficult. We already have a common reference, we know who the pronoun is pointing to, and that’s all we need.
Referring to people is no different than referring to chairs and rocks. Only the people conversing should have a say in what is said.
That has nothing to do with the argument I was making.
Can you have a shared expectation about what a willy necessitates and what it doesn't if there weren't willies and non-willies?
Quoting fdrake
There you go again with the straw-men. That isn't my case that sex is a mental construction. Willies aren't mental constructions. They are biological ones, constructed by millions of years of natural selection.
So, you've gone so far as to argue that sex is now a mental construction. What about species? How do you stop yourself from slipping on the slippery slope?
Biological sex is based on an amalgam of five characteristics:
- chromosomes (XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)
More than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes using just the characteristics of genitals and gonads. The the other traits almost always occur within these classes. You can do a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits and you would find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, not mental constructions. Horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.
Sexual selection is a mode of natural selection where one biological sex exhibits preferences in the characteristics of the opposite sex, and those characteristics (and the preferences for them) are made more prominent in subsequent generations.
If sex were a mental construct, sexual selection wouldn’t work: males would look identical to females. That difference itself suggests that there’s a biological reality to sex, and that this biological reality is what has caused both behavioral and morphological differences between the sexes.
Say we take a census on what it means for someone to be a woman or a man. If we get differing opinions on what it means to be a woman or a man, then those can’t be social constructions, because social constructions are shared assumptions – shared by those in the same society. It would be more of an individual feeling, or inclination.
If there is a consensus on what it means to be a man or woman is that consensus a social construction?
How can you tell the difference between a consensus that is socially constructed vs one that is acquired by simple observation and categorization based on similarities as members of the same species as opposed being members to just a culture?
How do we know that some categorization in the mind is the product of society or natural selection?
Different cultures have different shared assumptions about the behavior of the sexes, but there is a general agreement among different cultures that there are only two sexes that these varying shared assumptions are about, and this is related to how we seek out mates and tell the difference between males and females in a society with the legal requirement to cover up your body with clothes.
The shared assumption that we have is that a person wearing a dress is a female under the clothes. If there wasn’t a legal requirement to wear clothes, or there weren't these biological realities of male and female, we wouldn’t have shared assumptions about what clothes a female should wear. There would be no gender, or gender would be the same as sex.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Dude. a construct in that sense isn't just a mental thing. It's a way of splitting up a phenomenon into components that have measurable aspects. I linked to what I meant by construct. Here it is again. Then I gave you the definition I was using in my own words, they were:
Then I gave you a worked example unrelated to the topic, that should hopefully ease a charitable reader in:
Quoting fdrake
Perhaps I should also have included motor symptoms in the index. Maybe you got the wrong idea that the sense of construct was purely mental because I didn't put in a bodily component.
Here's another example; chronic fatigue syndrome, as a construct, (in terms of symptoms) is indicated by persistent fatigue, chronic bodily pain, reduction in energy... If you gave gave someone a checklist of things in this construct (symptoms) and they ticked all the boxes, they'd be more likely to have chronic fatigue syndrome.
The crucial thing about a construct is that it should indicate patterns in the studied phenomenon. That is to say, it should change when the phenomenon in question changes. Differences in the phenomenon should be observable in the construct. One should track the other.
Quoting Harry Hindu
So with sex, let's take your checklist of what sex is, define it as a construct, and see what happens; what would the world look like if gender = your idea of sex? That is to say, "what if gender and sex were one construct characterised by sex characteristics?"
Quoting Harry Hindu
All the sex characteristics are roughly constant over human populations and time. This means that there is little to no variability in your sex construct over time and population. Moreover, in areas and times where the same sex characteristics hold within a population (same human anatomy), there are marked differences in norms of conduct, expectations regarding typically sexed bodies... cultural differences. Social differences.
None of the things on your list vary with any observed social pattern. This means they do not explain any of the variation in social patterns regarding gender.
As a construct then, your "sex = gender" idea does little to explain anything about cultural norms, expectations, archetypes... Or how they can shift over time.
In fact, this is good evidence that we need (at least) two constructs; sex and gender; to explain all this variation. One that tracks anatomical properties of bodies in populations. One (or more) that tracks social stuff in populations.
(edit: @'Isaac' would easily pick this apart in terms of the sociometrics, but I don't think it makes any huge errors; one glaring one I can see in re-reading is that stuff like depression has multiple constructs which are measured and then summed to produce severity scores, rather than being one thing. Anyway. This is probably fine. Sexual characteristics of populations are a multidimensional construct that still don't vary too much over time. Social aspects of gender do. Doing it with one construct (sex) is like trying to measure an area when you can only measure length and do no calculations..)
Both of those definitions comment on identity. They don't describe bodies at all.
The account is of which people can belong an idenity (male or female), supposedly, by which body they have. It's all about idenity.
If we look at the bodies, we find they don't care about these identities. A body which produces sperm does so whether it has an identity of male, female or something else. A body which has eggs does so whether it has an idenity of male, female or something else. The body does not define only those with sperm are male or only those with eggs are female.
Well, it having eggs or sperm makes it female or male as per the definition. If you wany to say that it is "identity", then so be it. (Well, then, any definition would be ascribing "identity".)
And, yes, bodies do not care about definitions. And..? Autistic brains do not care about their identities, psychopathic brains do not care about theor identities and disabled bodies do not care about their identities either. The list goes on and on. Your point seem to be just pointing the obvious. Howewer, what does that have to do with sex and it's relation to gender apart from both of them being about identities?
It means the given definition is lie.
Supposedly, the body is meant to make the identity, but this is not the case. We find the presence of the body is not granting the identity at all. The body is silent upon identity. The body is not making or stopping anyone being male, female or anything else.
This is a huge point: it means having a sperm or eggs does not make one male, female or anything else. If one has an identity, it must be given by a truth of identity.
You're missing the point. She is her body. She (the woman in question) recognises it.
She moves to alter her body (a penis, we'll be reductive for simplicity) because she recognises it is a part of her.
If she was delusional about her body, she would have no motivation to alter her body. She would believe she had a vagina and no penis (again, I'll be reductive for simplicity's sake), so she would not hold her body (with a penis) needs changing.
This is nonsense. You're redefining the term 'identity' to mean something it never meant in this context. I completely agree with you that sex is a social construct, we decide arbitrarily that these bodily characteristics are going in the 'male' construct and those are going in the 'female' construct. It could have been any other way, it could be some other way tomorrow. Nothing about reality is determining that these particular criteria apply to these constructs, nor that these constructs need even exist at all.
But - there's no justification at all for introducing some new force which somehow assigns identity to arbitrary social constructs. How would it even know such constructs exist? 'Truth of identity' doesn't mean anything. One is not 'truthfully' male or female because male and female are words labelling artificial social constructs, nothing about your intrinsic being even knows these words, let alone 'truthfully' assigns you to one.
If people want to be grouped by different criteria from the ones currently used to group people, then that's fine, maybe their community of language users will change the criteria. If people feel actually harmed by being grouped that way, then maybe we should enforce change in the criteria, to help them out (depending, of course on the consequences on others). If people want to be in one of the social constructs that their community wouldn't normally assign them, then that seems fine to me too, just label them the way they prefer. But there's absolutely no need to introduce some flaky notion of 'truth' into the matter, it just feeds the worst stereotypes of post-modernism, and it's utterly unsupported.
Yes. That is true for any definition that is about a body. And..? All that means is that it is somewhat arbitrary and nobody would dispute that. The question is "Should we use this definition? If so, to what extent?" We use this type of categorization in, for example, pedigrees and sexual reproduction as the chromosomes really matter in the first one and women and men (by this definition) have different bodily reactions and the entire proccess is different for women and men.
Also, how does that mean the definition is a lie? How could a definition even be a lie? The only way seems to be the definition contradicting the actual definition we use and we do use this in spesific contexts. Sexes, i would contend, are very useful.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
But we use definitions for identities and "the truth of an identity" does not give the definition in the sense you are using. So, no definitions fit your criteria. Or all definitions fit your criteria but you just take it to be the case that the biological definition is not correct (not the one we should use) and thus end up being circular in your judgement, which is worse.
Of course, if you just want to say that we should not use this outside where it matters, then i'm more than okay to just concede you the point since that is the position i hold. A transwoman is a woman in an everyday context and i would not say that a transwoman is a man unless we are speisifically talking about biology (or genetics).
Dude, you're entire post is a red herring.
From your own link:
A construct is a hypothesized cause for a certain behavior.
It is a mental category that is causally connected with the observation of biological realities. The biological realities exist before the construct, and the construct is based on the observations of those realities.
Therefore, when you made the following statement:
Quoting fdrake
I showed, and it appears that you now agree with me, that your social construction of gender IS about sex, because you admitted that:
Quoting fdrake
I asked you:
Quoting Harry Hindu
Answer the question.
The differences in the biological sexes should be observable in the construct - meaning that any change in the assortment of willies and non-willies would change our construct of sex, or our shared assumptions of what entails gender. If we're not agreeing on what gender is, how is it a shared assumption (a social construction)?
If transgenders are non-binary, then why do they keep using those binary terms of "woman" and "man" to refer to themselves. If gender is non-binary then shouldn't they be using different terms to refer to themselves, and why would they be changing their sex if gender has nothing to do with sex?
If "she" (so much for steering away from gender-binary terms) recognized that the penis is part of "her" then why would she want to remove it? Why would someone want to remove something that is part of them. It seems to me that people would only remove things that they think aren't part of them. Both can recognize the existence of the part, but one thinks it doesn't belong, or isn't what defines them, yet they go about transforming themselves into the opposite binary entity, even though they claim it's non-binary.
I'm not quite sure what you think was going on. My point was she recognised she existed with penis, but understood it doesn't belong or ought not be there.
All along my point has been these are both true. Transformation is sought because she recognises how she exists but understands this ought to be different.
My point is a falsehood to say she is delusional about what body she has. If she already believed she existed with the body she ought it have, she would understand there is nothing which needs to change. One has to realise something is part of them to be have the goal of removing it from themsleves. My point is someone has to recognise how they exist, if they are to think something about their existence doesn't belong.
Ergo, it is impossible for this person to be delusional about how their body exists. They need to know how they exist (with a penis) for them to want to change it.
It's not really question of binary either because it's about the body. If the issue is you exist with a penis, then whether one is male, female or anything else doesn't define the problem.
If one ought not have a penis, then there is motivation to remove it whether you are male,.female or something else entirely. Whether having a penis is binary or non-binary does nothing eliminate the issue. Either might be true, the person question would still want it removed, it's the state of body which they hold to be a problem.
While the first part is true (albeit both of you are strawmanning each other, you are doing it by taking "delusional" to be something different while he does it by taking "being a part of something" to be something different), there is a problem with this: Some transwomen are fine with their penises and do not have genital dysphoria. So, it is not merely them having a penis existing that is the problem.
That is the same for a lot of things that you would think transwomen would have a problem with: manly voice, beard (i have even heard someone say she only cut her beard because it was weird, but she liked it), being called a "he" or a "lad"...
It is because some of them can't see someone with a penis/manly voice/beard as a woman, especially themselves, that they want to change it. *The misidentity is the reason, not the mere fact that they have a penis or whatever.
*That is not to say that they do not recognize such people as women (if they do identify as such, the the vast majority of them do), but rather that they would not be able to convince themselves that they are a woman because of these features. It would constantly bug them (for simplicity's sake).
It is "I ought to not have a penis because i do not want a penis since it makes me feel manly which i do not want.", not "I ought to not have a penis simply because i just do not want a penis for an unknown reason."
How is that any different than someone cutting off their legs because felt they didnt belong to their body? Is someone that cuts off their legs delusional?
Check this out:
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/health/psychology/at-war-with-their-bodies-they-seek-to-sever-limbs.html
Dr. John Money is even mentioned and the whole gist of the article is that this is a sexual deviation - an abnormality.
What makes it okay to cut off your penis, but not your legs? If one is a psychological disorder, why isn't the other?
What does it mean for someone to think that they should have been born in a different body? It doesn't make sense to say that they recognize the part as being part of them and then removing it makes them more like how they are suppose to be. If they already recognize the part as part of them, then removing it would remove part of them.
A delusion is defined as:
characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
The idiosyncratic belief is that they were born in the wrong body. What does that even mean? Are they saying that they have a soul that is female that was put in the body of a male? What exactly are they implying when they claim to be the opposite sex, or that their body parts are wrong, and how is that consistent with how we treat others who follow the same pattern - just with different body parts?
But he does not identify with the sex he was born as and often seeks to alter it through surgical means, or less dramatically, by adopting the garb and mannerisms of the opposite sex. If he was his body, and identified as himself, he wouldn’t seek to alter himself and portray himself as something he wasn’t.
A gender-less society should have zero concept of gender, humans should just be viewed as humans with no categorizing of people based on the concept of gender.
I've heard the argument that money is a social construct and this is used as an example of how gender might also be a social construct. Indeed, there are examples of societies that do not use money and have no concept of money (Awa people of the Amazon, for instance). Therefore, we should be able to identify a society that has no concept of gender.
Examples have been given of societies that acknowledge more than 2 genders, but these societies still have the concept of gender. This is simply an example of a wider view of gender, not an example of a society that has not conceived of gender.
Differences in language such as the non-existence of gender pronouns is not evidence of a gender-less society. If a society doesn't have gendered language but still acknowledges gender through societal customs, beliefs, and rituals, then this is not a true gender-less society. I could be wrong, but I don't think that such a society exists or has existed. If anyone knows of an example of a society with no concept of gender, I'd be curious to learn about it.
I still do not have a strong opinion on this topic. I have just been reading the back and forth to see if I would be persuaded in any direction. Still not there, but I think what you are getting at here is logical and potentially significant to the discussion. I look forward to any responses. good stuff.
As it was your first post, I will point out that since you did not tag anyone in your response, it may take a while before everyone sees it. (usually try to hit the @ button and type the name of the poster(s) you are responding to, and then they will get a notice - some people here are VERY active and may forget about the 8 different threads they commented on. Another option is to highlight lines of text - of other posters - and then a "quote" button will pop up - hit that and the lines will be added to your post AND the person is tagged)
If convention X is in play in every society, convention X cannot be a social construct?
The logic is problematic as it's possible, logically, that convention X is both a social construct and in play in every society.
Welcome to the forums!
I think that gender is derived from both biology and society. In genetics we have the concept of a genotype and a phenotype. The genotype is the DNA sequence and the phenotype is the expression of that DNA. I might have a DNA sequence that codes for blue eyes. The blueness of my eyes is the phenotype. I think sex and gender work the same way. My sex is female, my gender is female. There can be variations and anomalies, but female sex is generally predictive of female gender. If your sex is female, it is most likely that your gender will also be expressed as female. This doesn't negate the validity of transgender, non-binary, intersex, etc. Biology is complex. Most biological systems are not an on/off switch or a yes/no.
The reason that we don't see any example of a genderless society is because if we could remove all social rules about gender, there would still be the concept of gender, because of biology.
Much more interesting questions arise if gender is viewed as a product of both biology and society. How much of gender is due to societal influence and how much is driven by biology? What would gender be like if we could somehow strip away all gender roles and rules implemented by society? What would it feel like to be my gender under these circumstances?
All societies of humans have humans with sex characteristics in them. This is because humans obviously have human sex characteristics.
This makes sex characteristics useless in explaining all the variety in gender over populations, geography and time; even if it is granted that gender is a social construct whose existence requires the existence of human sex characteristics; or that some gender norms occur commonly enough over populations and time that they may be promoted or influenced by differences in sex characteristics over male and females (in terms of their natal sex). This "promotes" and this "influenced by" are still much weaker statements than "is explained by" or "is causally reducible to".
What remains after that small caveat is still most of the variation; and for that we have to look to culture and social life.
Who presents it that way? The social construct gender is no more independent of biology than the social construct of "President" is. In the sense that both need bodies to function. In neither case though is the required biology determinative of the construct (though obviously gender is more likely to map).
Quoting Roxanne Kelly
This is based on a confusion. Presidents are also derived from both biology and society. But there is no phenotype "President" nor is there a phenotype "gender". The phenotype of sex chromosomes is their physical expression, i.e. our respective junk.
(Another way this cashes out is simply that there is no physical experiment you can carry out to determine gender but there is to determine sex.)
You assert that most gender differences are due to society and culture. I'm not arguing that point. No one knows how much of gender is due to biology vs society. I guess a good place to look would be at our closest ancestors. How do chimps express gender, do they have gender roles? I will look into it, I'm curious. :)
It works the same. Physical bodies are biological systems.
Quoting Roxanne Kelly
As I said above, it's a social construct. I mean you can use it interchangeably with biological sex in a loose way. But if you're talking about anything of importance, it's best to keep the terms separate for clarity. That's another way of saying I go along with the standard dictionary definition:
"Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/gender
Broadly "biology" would have something to do with it, probably. Gender nonconformity in children is a thing. It spans cultures and epochs. There are people that don't fit "penis = who I am" or "vagina = who I am" as social archetypes. This isn't surprising, at least it shouldn't be. Questions about what biological factors influence gender nonconformity are useful.
But (and this is a big but), this influence should not be treated as a causally reductive. We're not dealing with something like "the ebola virus causes the ebola disease" or "having no legs makes you unable to walk unaided" or "daddy didn't beat sonny enough so the kid became a sissy", we're dealing with observations of humans as a result of natal hormonal environments interacting with humans interacting with social groups interacting with family units interacting with societal tropes interacting with systems of punishment and praise... It's complex in the sense that it would be a miracle if there was just one thing going on; if there was one type of cause, and that this cause could be called "biology" when we already know it's not just that.
We don't think things like economies are reducible to anatomical characteristics, why should we think that other systems of social relation are? We just don't think like "The reason that the price of tuna just increased is because people have stomachs", and we shouldn't, it's stupid,
Seems to me that this definition is saying that gender is a property of a culture, not a body. So to change your gender would require you to change your culture, not your clothes or your body.
A social construction is a shared assumption - meaning that it is something that people of the same culture would agree on. If someone comes along and doesn't share that assumption, then what they are talking about isn't a social construction, but an individual feeling or notion.
The assumption isn't that wearing a dress makes you a woman. The assumption is that females are females no matter what they wear, but in order for us to distinguish males from females, females should wear different clothes than a man. When we have a social construction about wearing clothes in public, where we can't observe each other's junk, then we need another social construction where men and women need to wear different types of clothes to be able to distinguish them apart for mating purposes.
"What's good for the gander, is good for the gender."
I walked into an institute where I am a frequently seen guest, and wanted to use the washroom. But I was barred. It had a sign on it, "All Gender Washroom". I am only one gender. How could I with clear conscience pee in the toilet when I am not all genders?
"And verily I say unto you, collect manna on the Mount of Hober, and pay sacrifice by letting the blood of a black gander. Lo, I say unto you, thou shalt gather all the genders, and conjugate them during the congregation of the feast of Passover, praise be to the Lord of the highest, Amen."
Jokes over. Take it, Benny.
Right. We often speak of "ships" as "her" or "she", although they definitely have no tits.
It is a socially assigned role, he-she is. In jails oftentimes a male is referred to as somebody's bitch, and the guards call male inmates "ladies".
A butch is a Dutch dyke. These two are apparently very, very derogatory terms, and I would never use them beyond the value of a pun.
In England, many men are referred to as Kant, imagine the proper spelling. Other males are assigned the term "asshole", which is a common entry point in copulation, while agricultural terms are given to prostitutes, who can be male, female, or both, sich as "back hoe", when they specialize in one, and only one position.
I'm old enough to remember, when people took exception to women wearing pants. "Who wears the pants around the house in your house?" Then came the men with long hair, and then later with earrings, and women started to wear cucumbers in their pants.
By this time, nobody gave a hoot that the majority of the people in a certain well-known country carried weapons, and were drunk or high on drugs at the same time.
Eventually we will all wear diapers, and defacate in each others' lattes and plates of soup, all due to gender identity boundary desruction issues, and then, in addition, because of PC, we will be forced to drink the blood of living creatures. The whore of Babylon shalt then in those times rise from the east, and throughout the land there shalten be a great rubbing of parts.