When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby edy420 on July 6th, 2020, 2:10 am 

Most men and woman identify with a gender that has been invented and based on biological markers. Humans as a species have historically and culturally thought of themselves as belonging to 1 of 2 different groups.

Trans-activists deny any of this is relevant. They argue that Men can be woman and vise versa, with or without any treatment.

My understanding of this ideology, is that now men and woman are one and the same. Considering that there is no biological markers of any relevance (according to activists), then why do we have two groups of gender.

Trans activists wish to invent upwards of 70+ new genders. None of which have any measurable differences..

If gender is in fact just a social construct, then there is no genders.

IMO, this ideology is nonsensical, unscientific and completely pointless. Perhaps I just misunderstand.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby TheVat on July 6th, 2020, 9:40 am 

MOD note:

This OP may need further research, and some supporting citations, to meet SCF standards.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7751
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Lomax liked this post


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on July 6th, 2020, 9:42 am 

And are you ready yet to explain why this is a problem?
What danger does it pose?
I mean: what danger is posed by the idea of gender-fluidity. I can see the danger posed by strife and conflict over it; I see the danger of imposing gender identity on people and enforcing a societal norm through punitive measures.
How does the idea damage persons?
How will the freedom of persons to define their own gender roles damage society?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby edy420 on July 6th, 2020, 7:30 pm 

Ok, regardless of further research, my ultimate question boils down to this.

I was born a male, and I identify as a man. My wife was born a female and identifies as a woman. Under the rules of the trans-gender movement..

How do I differentiate my gender, from my wife's gender.

Its a simple question, one I have been able to answer for years, But under new rules now I have no evidence to support my conclusion.

Of all places to explore this question, I would expect the most logical to be a philosophical discussion forum.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on July 6th, 2020, 10:30 pm 

edy420 » July 6th, 2020, 6:30 pm wrote:I was born a male, and I identify as a man. My wife was born a female and identifies as a woman.

Wonderful!
Under the rules of the trans-gender movement..

Link, please. What rules?

How do I differentiate my gender, from my wife's gender.

I should imagine, the same way you've been doing.
Does the existence of people who don't fit in the same box cast doubt on your own identity?
Does the existence of France cast doubt on the legitimacy of new Zealand?

Its a simple question, one I have been able to answer for years, But under new rules now I have no evidence to support my conclusion.

There are no new rules and you don't need to justify your choice.
Really.
I mean this sincerely: Nobody gives a flying fig about which gender you identify with or why.

Of all places to explore this question, I would expect the most logical to be a philosophical discussion forum.

It might be. But all you're doing is setting up unconvincing straw hermaphrodites, running at them repeatedly and failing to knock them down. There must be some real fear behind this issue, and I'm sure if you really wanted to explore it, you could articulate it better than this.

You hold a belief that I consider unscientific, nonsensical and wrong. People with similar beliefs provably have and demonstrably do harm other people in support of that belief. Yet I do not advocate taking away your right to believe it, preach it, practice it and celebrate it - so long as you do not personally and directly violate or harm anyone.
You are asked for no more than that simple consideration:
Think what you will, but let others do likewise.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby edy420 on July 7th, 2020, 12:23 am 

Serpent,

The main rule I'm referring to, is that you can not use sexual organs to define someones gender. The only proof I have that I am a man, is that I have male parts. But ask any Trans-gender activists, this is not proof of gender. These are "their" rules, but they govern our leading scientific research AND education.

I mean this sincerely: Nobody gives a flying fig about which gender you identify with or why.


This is completely and utterly false. When ever I say, I am a man because I was born with a penis, LOTS of people give a flying fig.

What sparked my interest in this topic was the fact that you pointed out, I am indoctrinating my children with my beliefs and its harmful to them. At the very least, this topic should be cleared up, so that we can properly educate children without indoctrination and/or misinformation.

At this point, based on the evidence provided so far (none), I should be teaching them the truth is, there is no physical evidence that gender exists. Having 70+ genders all with the exact same physical differences (none), means they are all the same. Gender does not exist.

If I can not use my penis as evidence of my gender, then there is no evidence. This is the paradox of trans-gender ideology.

I would agree, if it were not blatantly false.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on July 7th, 2020, 9:11 am 

edy420 » July 6th, 2020, 11:23 pm wrote:The main rule I'm referring to, is that you can not use sexual organs to define someones gender.

No. It's that you can't define another person's gender. You never should have had that right, and nobody else should have that power over you.
The only proof I have that I am a man, is that I have male parts.

When was the last time anyone in authority demanded proof that you are male? In what circumstances have you ever been called upon to provide proof?
But ask any Trans-gender activists, this is not proof of gender.

Why would I ask them about you?
These are "their" rules, but they govern our leading scientific research AND education.

'They' govern nothing. A modern liberal-minded society has generally (though by no means universally or consistently) decided to stop persecuting [some of] its non-conforming minorities.

When ever I say, I am a man because I was born with a penis, LOTS of people give a flying fig.

Name three and tell me why thy matter to you.

At this point, based on the evidence provided so far (none), I should be teaching them the truth is, there is no physical evidence that gender exists. Having 70+ genders all with the exact same physical differences (none), means they are all the same. Gender does not exist.

And the problem is... ?
If I can not use my penis as evidence of my gender, then there is no evidence.

Aha. So you're no longer the Big Aleph by virtue of a bit of dangly tissue? I can live with that. Society can live with that. You have not demonstrated it doing harm to anyone.

What sparked my interest in this topic was the fact that you pointed out, I am indoctrinating my children with my beliefs and its harmful to them. At the very least, this topic should be cleared up, so that we can properly educate children without indoctrination and/or misinformation.

That's really what it boils down to. The thing you are afraid of: losing control of your children's minds. Alternate ideas, different theories, contradictory opinions exist in the world. Some are more factually accurate than yours, some are less. Some are morally inferior, some are superior. Some are more effective, some are less practical.
Sooner or later, your children will be exposed to other points of view. They will have to make up their own minds how much of what to believe. You won't turn off the rest of the world by ranting at it and I very much doubt you can keep your children in an information-proof bubble.
The only chance of philosophy prevailing is to be more convincing than the competition. You'll need to muster better arguments.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby TheVat on July 7th, 2020, 9:42 am 

edy420 » July 6th, 2020, 9:23 pm wrote:



If I can not use my penis as evidence of my gender, then there is no evidence...


Your determination to argue a point on a topic of which you have minimal knowledge clearly identifies you as male.

:-)
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7751
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby doogles on July 7th, 2020, 4:55 pm 

I think this is the sort of thing that edy420 is concerned about -- https://www.rt.com/op-ed/489259-un-husb ... incorrect/.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on July 7th, 2020, 5:05 pm 

And you think that will suddenly confuse loving couples as to which of them puts what where after lights out?
Or are some persons worried that it might confuse married couples as to who's expected to collect dirty socks off the floor clean up the baby-puke?
I'm very sorry if they think the thought-police will come their house and enforce those 'rules' - and perhaps just a little sorry that it won't happen.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby doogles on July 8th, 2020, 3:50 am 

Serpent, I have to give you maximum credit for self confidence in commenting on what you think I think. Not many people have that confidence. It's a rare gift.

But I'll wait for edy420 to acknowledge whether what's written in that article by Robert Bridge contains the sort of material on gender identity he's talking about. I have some thoughts on the subject.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1424
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Lomax on July 8th, 2020, 6:21 am 

There seems to be a confusion here between sex and gender. Some people do deny that distinction but we need to be clear about our premises and assumptions if we're going to get anything figured out. The gender you "identify" as is also not the same as the gender society has constructed for you - these are two different theories of gender.

I'm sure we're all here for intellectual reasons and not just to moan about other people's social/philosophical/scientific positions without actually listening to them, so for the debates between different theories the videos of ContraPoints are a good introductory course. The go-to for an explanation of the "social construct" theory of gender (which is just one among many) is philosopher Judith Butler's Gender Trouble. There are thousands of scientific studies on the sex/gender distinction but for the lay person this brief article might be a good way in.

And by the way Edy your genitals are not the only marker of your sex, as I've explained to you on another thread already. There are six markers used by the scientific community - genitalia, reproductive organs, chromosomes, secondary characteristics, psychology and endocrinology. It may have seemed simple back when the Earth seemed flat but that's not an excuse for us to make up biology on behalf of the experts.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on July 8th, 2020, 8:47 am 

doogles » July 8th, 2020, 2:50 am wrote:Serpent, I have to give you maximum credit for self confidence in commenting on what you think I think. Not many people have that confidence. It's a rare gift.

I have not commented on what you think; I did respond to
I think this is the sort of thing that edy420 is concerned about
with a question. (?)
After which I speculated on what other, unspecified, persons might worry about, in a follow-up question. (?).
Then I gratuitously appended my own reaction to the cited article, as proof that I looked at it.
I have some modest gifts, but they're all too common.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby edy420 on August 17th, 2020, 10:15 pm 

TheVat » 08 Jul 2020, 02:42 wrote:
edy420 » July 6th, 2020, 9:23 pm wrote:



If I can not use my penis as evidence of my gender, then there is no evidence...


Your determination to argue a point on a topic of which you have minimal knowledge clearly identifies you as male.

:-)


Noted, moving forward..

Lomax,

I found the Contrapoints amusing. They ultimately role played most of the information Im already aware of, although it is refreshing to hear a centralists broader perspective on the topic. Interesting.

As for the literature, the science is torn on this topic due to politics. Which in itself is an interesting topic. The theory of evolution has evolved many times, yet there has never been a time when we were taught in school that because the science is just not 100% on the topic, we should not teach it. No. Science makes observations, the broader science community forms a peer reviewed conclusion, and the result is what we teach in schools. Currently the academia is being silenced, and a void of understanding is slowly being replaced with political agenda.

With the state of politics at the moment, I am forced to seek members of the scientific community for their educated understanding. People like Dr Soh who clearly state that there are only 2 genders. Interestingly in an interview released last week, she agreed with Joe Rogan who stated that, to believe there is more than 2 genders, is a religion. I don't want the religious belief of others, I want the science.

The science of Trangenderism is not new. The article you provided opens by saying we have a majority of two biological sexes, but some people have differing forms of xy chromosome combinations. Statistically, only a minute number of people are born with this abnormal condition.

I believe that for the most part, we can, and do fit into genetically supported sub categories of male, female and other. I understand that people who fall into the "other" category, choose freely to identify as one of the two dominant sub categories, male or female. I also understand that trans gender sometimes choose to identify with the opposite sex. Where the trans gender ideology gets interesting, is the idea that any one from any category can choose an identity from any self invented sub category... sorry if this is another circle, but the point Im getting to, is that peer reviewed educational science does not change its mind from person to person.

ie an unborn baby could be considered a "spectrum" of transformation, but each state has scientific markers of which we can reference.

I guess that's my biggest problem, is that if a gender spectrum is introduced, then I want it to be scientifically measurable. Which leads me to my ultimate grudge against the idea of a spectrum.. I wont be able to call myself a man. My favorite colour is pink, sometimes my wife paints my nails, as well as other measurable feminine attributes. In a binary format, I can clearly state that I am a man, regardless. On a spectrum, there is only confusion and an impossible number if immeasurable calculations and varying factors. The only certainty, is that I would not fall into the 100% male catagory. Perhaps ill be a ma'n, or maan or manzimbillioglatoriosistichemminal meme.. but not man.

By altering the science to better reflect the rights of those who would delete gender, my right to associate with gender, is removed. On a side note, this is clearly the motive in the link doogles posted.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on August 17th, 2020, 11:39 pm 

I can't quite see that as moving forward. I see it as running in place. The worry keeps boiling down to to:
I wont be able to call myself a man.

Of course you can!
Nobody else cares what you call yourself.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby edy420 on August 18th, 2020, 1:06 am 

I tried.

Its the motive that Im most concerned with. Canada's attempt to control speech is one example, and doogles post about the UNs attempt to label me a criminal for calling myself a husband, is another example. No one cares what I call myself, but I care if its going to make me a criminal.

Its all meaningless because its not supported by science. But with the state of limbo in terms of scientific understanding, Im not so certain that will remain true. Eventually something will pass, that makes me a criminal for calling myself a man, especially if this limbo is going to destabilize without a scientific foundation.

Dr Soh exclaims that the movement is a misrepresentation of the actual trans community. She knows, because she talks with hundreds of trans. Also, many of her colleagues are afraid to speak out because of cancel culture.

PS. Your continual assertion that I can call myself a man, when the law is at risk of being altered to prevent me, is evidence that we are caught in the same circle.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby curiosity on August 18th, 2020, 6:33 am 

Hi edy 240,
Many years ago a headline in a magazine I was reading caught my attention. I can't recall the exact wording, but I remember that it stated that inuit society recognized and accepted nine (or it may have been ten) different genders.
A quick google search uncovered this... https://research.library.mun.ca/13252/1/thesis.pdf Its not the article I originally read, it is a more in-depth paper on the same topic, so if you scroll through it, you will likely find answers to questions you may be seeking answers to. The inuit certainly were, (and probably still are) more in touch with gender allocation issues than those of us who have grown up in the western world and tend to link an individuals gender solely to their genitalia
curiosity
Member
 
Posts: 417
Joined: 19 Jul 2012


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby edy420 on August 18th, 2020, 7:36 am 

Interesting that you note the influence of the western world. I can see how the Christian foundation of Western Civilization is the reason why we ascribe to 2 genders today. But up until now, the science has supported this belief.

Im not sure what you wanted to highlight in that link. I briefly skipped through, and some things did jump out at me, but I don't think in the way you intended. Much of it seems to be based on past societies and the way they lived based on archaeological finds. If we omit the obscure archaeology and focus on the existing societies of which we can study more easily, then Im even more skeptical. The paper touches on Fa'fa'fine, and tries to exemplify them as a third gender. I grew up with Fa'fa'fine, and they always identified as a boy who is Fa'fa'fine... they never considered themselves as a completely separate gender. This is why I find the Western world influence interesting, because perhaps, the Fa'fa'fine pre-colonization did think of themselves as a separate gender.

All very interesting points and topics, but ultimately, all besides the point. My Polynesian ancestors may very well have believed in a multi-gender society, similar to other past societies. But my ancestors also believed in eating another mans heart to absorb his strength. Modern science tells us that he only absorbs his nutrients, which is kinda the same thing but puts it in a much better perspective.

What is the Western World, if not founded on Christianity, nor science? What is the Western World, if only founded on the feelings of those who pitty the oppressed (ie antifa). While we can learn a lot from the past, I prefer modern science as the governing core of any belief system within an extremely diverse society. That way, as individuals we can all have our own personal belief, but also dis/agree on something that is transparent and open for scrutiny.

With regards to modern science and gender, we can make scientific evaluations and better understand why one gender is better than the other at some things. For example, I can say that, I am unable to give birth to a child, because I was born a man. Such a simple statement like this an undeniable fact, if the science is not controlled by politics. However.. the science is controlled by politics, so this statement makes me a liar and a heartless bigot who wishes pain on the oppressed trans gender community... and a fool.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on August 18th, 2020, 10:24 am 

edy420 » August 18th, 2020, 6:36 am wrote:Interesting that you note the influence of the western world. I can see how the Christian foundation of Western Civilization is the reason why we ascribe to 2 genders today.

What makes you think Christianity is the foundation of, rather than a contributing factor to, western civilization? Christian doctrines (which have conflicted, diverged, reconciled, compromised and changed over time) did attempt, unsuccessfully, to eradicate the classical foundations of European culture, but could not wholly resist Persian and Islamic influences. They did, for varying periods, suppress, control and subvert the sciences, but never wholly succeeded in that either.
But up until now, the science has supported this belief.

At times, valiantly, but not very convincingly.

My Polynesian ancestors may very well have believed in a multi-gender society, similar to other past societies. But my ancestors also believed in eating another mans heart to absorb his strength. Modern science tells us that he only absorbs his nutrients, which is kinda the same thing but puts it in a much better perspective.

Then why can you not also put their less restrictive attitude to gender in a better perspective?

What is the Western World, if not founded on Christianity, nor science?

A hodge-podge of organically grown, impure, intertwined cultures, grounded more firmly in the clay of economics than the sand of ideologies?

What is the Western World, if only founded on the feelings of those who pitty the oppressed (ie antifa).

It's certainly not that! It's put a good deal more faith and science into the mechanics of oppression than into liberating the oppressed.

While we can learn a lot from the past, I prefer modern science as the governing core of any belief system within an extremely diverse society. That way, as individuals we can all have our own personal belief, but also dis/agree on something that is transparent and open for scrutiny.

Unfortunately, most of the subjects on which science has sufficient accord to be useful in governance are still under the control of political entities, which are not always rational, as they are equally, if not more, guided by the will to power, steered by practical interests and driven by the winds of popularity.

With regards to modern science and gender, we can make scientific evaluations and better understand why one gender is better than the other at some things.

I don't believe that's demonstrable - especially when scientists are far from consensus as to how many genders there are and how they can/should/may be delineated. But they're working on it!
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
Chief among these antiscientific sentiments, the IDW cites the rising visibility of transgender civil rights demands. To the IDW, trans people and their advocates are destroying the pillars of our society with such free-speech–suppressing, postmodern concepts as: “trans women are women,” “gender-neutral pronouns,” or “there are more than two genders.” Asserting “basic biology” will not be ignored, the IDW proclaims. “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”


For example, I can say that, I am unable to give birth to a child, because I was born a man.

Of course you can, but you would be talking about your sex, as defined by reproductive organs.
Such a simple statement like this an undeniable fact, if the science is not controlled by politics.

It's not political (and, for all I know, it may not even have been scientifically tested). It's just a statement about your own empirically observed limitations.
from the same article:
The popular belief that your sex arises only from your chromosomal makeup is wrong. The truth is, your biological sex isn’t carved in stone, but a living system with the potential for change.

I can't fly, because I have no wings is a true statement about my biological limitations that's is no way political - and has been tested, though not, alas, under controlled laboratory conditions.

.. the science is controlled by politics, so this statement makes me a liar and a heartless bigot who wishes pain on the oppressed trans gender community... and a fool.

That's sad.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby edy420 on August 18th, 2020, 10:49 pm 

Serpent » 19 Aug 2020, 03:24 wrote:What makes you think Christianity is the foundation of, rather than a contributing factor to, western civilization?


I thought this obvious.. Most tribal communities are founded on their religious belief. As the progression is made to civilization, many of the religious roots begin to evolve, but can be identified in the political systems established. The Monarchy tried to hijack Christianity, form is own denomination and implement Christianity into the English way of life. The USA still puts their hand on the bible when quoting the truth and their official motto is In God We Trust.

Then theres multiple parallel beliefs between Christianity and the Western World, which are only more apparent, the further back in time that you look. Homosexuality and 1 to 1 marriage being a couple examples. As time moves on, society begins to evolve, making it harder to identify the foundation, but I think its evident where it all began.

Then why can you not also put their [Polynesians] less restrictive attitude to gender [Fa'fa'fine] in a better perspective?


I only care about the truth. The more I think about my cultural teachings, the more I realize they only had 2 genders. Woman were not allowed to speak in meetings, on the fishing boats, nor allowed on the battle field... But, Fa'fa'fine were. Concrete evidence that my ancestors believed in only 2 genders, despite the academic misrepresentation. Their attitude wasn't less restrictive on gender identity, it was about a million times more restrictive.

PS. I was good friends with Fa'fa'fine, they are generally accepted for being who they are in our society. A feminine boy.

[What is the Western World] A hodge-podge of organically grown, impure, intertwined cultures, grounded more firmly in the clay of economics than the sand of ideologies?


I would add, that haphazardly ventures into unknown territory of social ergonomics whilst existing in a threatening political climate.

The societies that exist today, are here by trial and error. The societies that were weak, or offensive to neighboring cultures and or countries have been shed by a form of evolutionary natural selection. With places like Islam seemingly impossible to obliterate, you would think that all societies are here forever, but that has never been the case, historically. Only the strong survive.

Antifa thinks you can just create an entirely new society in one day, and exist perfectly in your own little bubble, free from all harm... Transgenerism is taking off as the latest fashion, as an increase of people identifying by 4000% is still rapidly growing.

In God We Trust is a strong statement, your acknowledging that your willing to fight for a higher cause. But when you change your motto to, "Feeling Before Facts", I wonder if such a society can survive long in the current climate.

Unfortunately, most of the subjects on which science has sufficient accord to be useful in governance are still under the control of political entities, which are not always rational, as they are equally, if not more, guided by the will to power, steered by practical interests and driven by the winds of popularity.


While the intangible relationship between science and politics is undeniable, I feel it has been pretty well balanced in comparison to say, Nazi Germany. Those scientists were merely puppets, whos only purpose was to benefit the political agenda. As long as scientists of the Western World have free speech, then the truth is easier to access.

Admittedly, as Lomax pointed out, I still use the term woman when I should use the term female. When you quote something like "Transgender woman are woman" I can see the political misconceptions involved. More accurately is should read "Transgender woman were born female". Female being the key scientific term to identify someone who can be categorized into one of two scientifically supported groups.

[I am unable to give birth to a child, because I was born a man.]
Of course you can, but you would be talking about your sex, as defined by reproductive organs.


I was trying to keep my points as non political as possible, but your not going to let me take the easy way out are you. Another true statement I can put forward for discussion is this...

A person born female, will never be the world champion in a multi gender sport. Including chess.

I can say its scientifically true. Because science has established what is a female. When a top tier elite female is put against a top tier elite male, they will lose every time. When you begin to meddle with language, you begin to alter the truth. The transgender movement would make these statements untrue. Simply because they wish to abolish gender all together, including the terms female and male.

As discussed in other threads, sport would be severely impacted by a non binary culture. Thereby devaluing the desire to have a female infant. For example, in todays society my daughters can be anything they want to be, and I often admire the idea of them becoming a world champion martial artist. But in a multi gender society, sport would be forced into an open gender devision only, so this dream of mine becomes non existent. I still love my daughters, but they are devalued in the sense that I dream less for them, making them an inferior sex. In other cultures, they simply kill the babies of an inferior gender until they get the dominant gender... I wonder how a multi gender society would circumvent this type of practice utilized in societies like China... although to be fair, under the current ideology, theres nothing wrong with culling a female unborn baby before the third trimester, hmmm.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on August 19th, 2020, 1:16 am 

edy420 » August 18th, 2020, 9:49 pm wrote:[Christianity is the foundation of western civilization]
I thought this obvious.. Most tribal communities are founded on their religious belief. As the progression is made to civilization, many of the religious roots begin to evolve, but can be identified in the political systems established.

Yah... except that seven major civilizations in the Mediterranean area precede Christianity by over 4000 years, and then there were all these large and small tribes, like the Britons, Gauls, Hebrews, etc., each with their own religion and social organization.

I think its evident where it all began.

It isn't at all evident. Takes a lot of anthropologists and archeologists a lot of time and puzzle-solving to work out where even a fraction of what we believe today began.

Then why can you not also put their [Polynesians] less restrictive attitude to gender [Fa'fa'fine] in a better perspective?]
Their attitude wasn't less restrictive on gender identity, it was about a million times more restrictive.

I see. And you have a better perspective on that now? Good!

The societies that were weak, or offensive to neighboring cultures and or countries have been shed by a form of evolutionary natural selection. With places like Islam seemingly impossible to obliterate, you would think that all societies are here forever, but that has never been the case, historically. Only the strong survive.

Strength is relative to something, or specialized in some way. The muscular often perish while the clever thrive; the sluggish and timid may do better in some conditions than the swift and bold. The ones most suited to the prevailing circumstances survive.... assuming anyone does.

Antifa thinks you can just create an entirely new society in one day, and exist perfectly in your own little bubble, free from all harm... Transgenerism is taking off as the latest fashion, as an increase of people identifying by 4000% is still rapidly growing.

And these two groups are related in some way? Pose some kind of problem? Wills survive because they grow? Or what?

In God We Trust is a strong statement, your acknowledging that your willing to fight for a higher cause.

No, it's not; they might have been willing, but the cause turned out not to be so much higher.
Mottoes are just words. They start out as clever PR device, then turn to mass commercial product, then are reduced to a mindless chant, or some print on a currency that never stopped anybody stealing it.
But when you change your motto to, "Feeling Before Facts", I wonder if such a society can survive long in the current climate.

Even if that were anybody's motto (I mean anybody besides POTUS), that's not what brings a society down.
As long as scientists of the Western World have free speech, then the truth is easier to access.

And harder to assess, if they're not all in accord.

Admittedly, as Lomax pointed out, I still use the term woman when I should use the term female. When you quote something like "Transgender woman are woman" I can see the political misconceptions involved. More accurately is should read "Transgender woman were born female". Female being the key scientific term to identify someone who can be categorized into one of two scientifically supported groups.

Unless you're submitting a scientific paper to Acta Medica, your terminology is of little importance.

A person born female, will never be the world champion in a multi gender sport. Including chess.

Never takes too long to verify, but you're entitled an opinion. It may be correct. So what?

As discussed in other threads, sport would be severely impacted by a non binary culture. Thereby devaluing the desire to have a female infant.

People are breeding selectively for athletes? Given how many vitally urgent matters the next generation or two will have to deal with, I shouldn't think martial arts talent will be their top priority.

In other cultures, they simply kill the babies of an inferior gender until they get the dominant gender... I wonder how a multi gender society would circumvent this type of practice utilized in societies like China... although to be fair, under the current ideology, theres nothing wrong with culling a female unborn baby before the third trimester, hmmm.

Well, there you go: The solution! If they can't divide the foetuses neatly into M(good) and F(bad), maybe they won't be able to decide which ones to abort. Maybe they'll wait and see till the babies grow up and decide for themselves.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby edy420 on August 19th, 2020, 3:11 am 

Well, there you go: The solution! If they can't divide the foetuses neatly into M(good) and F(bad), maybe they won't be able to decide which ones to abort. Maybe they'll wait and see till the babies grow up and decide for themselves.


Or maybe history will repeat itself, who knows. We should just all be optimistic?
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on August 19th, 2020, 11:34 am 

edy420 » August 19th, 2020, 2:11 am wrote:Or maybe history will repeat itself, who knows.

History may be interpreted as working in cycles, where everything repeats every few hundred years. But there are always differences and discrepancies that need to be interpreted away to make it work.
We should just all be optimistic?

If that's in your nature.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby TheVat on August 20th, 2020, 12:52 pm 

Just a side note: the prevalence of men among chess masters is owing to cultural factors, especially men being encouraged to play competitively, and not to any cognitive advantages. If women are encouraged to play more, we will see the thicker corpus callosum prove useful.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7751
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on August 20th, 2020, 1:46 pm 

We've heard the same thing about art and science. Take a closer look at the obscure (and often deliberately concealed) historical record and see how, even though they were hampered or expressly barred from those activities, some women still accomplished notable works -- for which the nearest male colleague promptly took credit. Some of that misinformation is being corrected by modern chroniclers.
This probably won't apply to martial arts or track-and-field. In the physical sports, edy240 is probably right in assuming that men and women can't compete on equal footing. (Personally, I'm quite happy with separate leagues: women's soccer and tennis are far more enjoyable to watch. Not for the players' legs; for their demeanour.)
The few trans- and indeterminately gendered persons who wish to participate in competitive professional sports of that kind will have to be sorted out in some way by the governing bodies. (Personally, I'd be much happier if sports and arts were not commercialized.)
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Lomax on August 24th, 2020, 5:16 am 

Brill, I can post again.

I'm sorry to see Dr Soh is still spreading disinformation on this topic. She's a sexologist, which means her education is in sexual preferences, not in transgender biology. Her blog posts, interviews, articles and books consistently repeat completely unfounded myths such as the concept of autogynephilia and the claim that children are being transitioned to appease the homophobia of their parents. She gives no citations.

Edy, you suggested that scientific enquiry is being distorted by pro-trans-rights political motivations. Citation needed, I'm afraid. Dr Soh and her ilk (there are many like her) repeat these canards with no evidence - what is that if not pseudoscience motivated by transphobia?

As for downplaying the prevalence of intersex people, it depends how strictly we define "intersex" (which in turn depends how we define "sex" - and that's the point. There are myriad different ways to define it biologically, and our choice of definition will be, and always has been, a social construct). If we define it as having genitals of one sex and chromosomes of the other, intersex people constitute about 0.018% of the population. If we factor in all the other markers of sex (endocrines, secondary characteristics, other reproductive organs, gonads, etc) it's more like 2%, which makes intersex people about as common as people with green eyes. But what difference does it make? A definition of sex that can't admit of exceptions is, by definition, not a working definition. The movement against trans rights forever tries to sweep intersex people under the rug, because they have to, in order to make their own claims coherent.

The right wing likes to talk up the role of Christianity in founding Western civilisation, but the other huge, rivalling intellectual tradition is of course Hellenic and Hellenistic philosophy. Gender roles were not nearly as over-simplified in these cultures. It's false to say that the science has supported the idea of two genders this whole time - the notion of "gender" did not enter scientific research until the work of John Money in the late 20th century. But perhaps I am splitting hairs. Your appeal to tradition perfectly illustrates the camp in which the old-science-tradition-and-intuition school of pseudoscience belongs: flat earth, climate change denial, geocentrism, evolution blindness. Science isn't about never changing your mind.

On a final note, the claims in doogles's link are false on their own face. It even provides the United Nations tweet, which does no thought policing, and for that matter Edy, doesn't call you a criminal. If the gender Old Guard can settle their argument so easily with logic and science, why all these years of hysteria and misrepresentation?
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby edy420 on August 24th, 2020, 6:33 am 

Hi Lomax,

I'm sorry to see Dr Soh is still spreading disinformation on this topic.


If you can point me in the direction of an unbias gender researcher with no political affiliation, Id be more than happy to have a look.

Edy, you suggested that scientific enquiry is being distorted by pro-trans-rights political motivations. Citation needed, I'm afraid. Dr Soh and her ilk (there are many like her) repeat these canards with no evidence - what is that if not pseudoscience motivated by transphobia?


Funnily enough, its the same science your quoting, just explained through a different political lens. Alternately, the animal kingdom of which we are a part of, could be thought of as scientific evidence also. A well documented area of science but without the bias political connotations and distortions. All Queen bees are female. All alphas in dog packs, wolves, goats etc etc are male. Gender is clearly associated with sex in the animal kingdom. So then I wonder, why is this not true when analyzing our species? (if not politics) More specifically, apes and chimps our closest relative, have clear gender roles, which are clearly associated with sex...

Her [Dr. Soh] blog posts, interviews, articles and books consistently repeat completely unfounded myths such as the concept of autogynephilia and the claim that children are being transitioned to appease the homophobia of their parents. She gives no citations.


I would think it important to keep these people anomymous? Although she did quote a public affair, of a teenager who transitioned and now regrets it. She is now sueing the clinic that helped her transition, saying that they should have denied her the treatment..

"I should have been challenged on the proposals or the claims that I was making for myself," she said. "And I think that would have made a big difference as well. If I was just challenged on the things I was saying."
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51676020

As for downplaying the prevalence of intersex people, it depends how strictly we define "intersex"


I don't know many intersex people, but from what I can tell, intersex people firmly associate with a binary gender identity. People like Seminya the female intersex runner, is infuriated by the idea that she can not identify as a woman. In all the cases I've come across, intersex always associate with either female or male very firmly, despite the Trans misrepresented narrative. I think until we can find a legitimate study on how many intersex identify with a fluid or non-binary gender, we have to agree to disagree on this topic. I suspect the numbers would be similar to cis-gender identity ie 99%. But we are only speculating.

The right wing likes to talk up the role of Christianity in founding Western civilisation, but the other huge, rivalling intellectual tradition is of course Hellenic and Hellenistic philosophy.


Something only brought to my attention in this thread :P When I think of Ancient Greece, I think of over eating till you puke, and orgies... While those activities are conducted in Western Societies, they arent traditional in any sense. Can you identify anything that both is similar to Hellenic tradition, and differentiates from Christianity? I can agree that of course, there are many varying influences on any forming society, but I think Christianity the most influential and dominant foundation.

Your appeal to tradition perfectly illustrates the camp in which the old-science-tradition-and-intuition school of pseudoscience belongs: flat earth, climate change denial, geocentrism, evolution blindness. Science isn't about never changing your mind.


Im not in that camp. The moon is round, the sun is round, so are stars.. why would earth be flat. Climate change is real, although I do wonder, what effect does our carbon footprint have on global warming... say 10-15% and if so, then will removing our foot print reverse the damage. Of all the Big Bang theories, I like Sir Roger Penrose idea of a re percussive im/exploding universe, or that its infinite, so then clearly we can't be in the center .In Church, our priest goes on a lot about evolution, its real (although my protestant brothers firmly deny it)... Many of these topics ive already commented on in this forum, so not sure why you'd assume these are my beliefs. This camp you talk about, at a glance, seems kind of like a brain dead soldier... please don't associate me with them.

On a final note, the claims in doogles's link are false on their own face.


I didn't check to be honest. The fact that Canada wants to control speech is proof enough I think. Today I read that Captain Kirk is at war with the Trans community. He doesn't like to be called a Cis-male because its only ever used to talk about him in a negative way. Ironically, the same community (Trans) who wants society to call them by their pronouns, is infuriated that they can not call Captain Kirk by their selected formal pro-noun cis. Lets just all agree that speech is free, and call it a day.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby charon on August 24th, 2020, 7:57 am 

edy420 -

As a matter of fact I'm inclined to agree with you on some level. Psychologically there's no difference between men and women. When a woman feels joy, sorrow, fear, loneliness or elation, it's exactly the same as when a man feels it. Thinking or feeling isn't male or female, it's just thinking and feeling. It also has nothing to with height, weight, type of hair, colour of skin, or anything else.

The problem, of course, is that the identification with the body is so strong, not only subjectively but in the eyes of others.

If a man walks into the room looking like a man no one bats an eyelid. If he walks in wearing a dress there's an atmosphere. We don't like overt differences. That person will either be tolerated, avoided or, in extremis, attacked.

It's always been the case that certain people feel neither especially male or female. Gender fluidity is nothing new at all. These days it's talked about more openly but in some societies it was an accepted part of the prevailing culture.

I don't know why a physical man should say that he thinks he is, or wants to be, a woman, or something in between. I don't know whether it's because of his physical structure and chemistry or for some other reason, but there's no question these anomalies exist. The same also applies to women, of course.

If we simply accept the fact that these things exist then there's no problem but it's not as simple as that. We may take an intellectual stance but deep down feel extremely uncomfortable. I'm sure that's the case with many of us.

I have no idea of the answer to it. There are many things in life that people find very difficult. Intolerance, fear, ignorance and bigotry are hard to fight, and not just in this particular area.

But I also think it should be accepted that people are going to be uncomfortable with it. Like it or not, it isn't the norm, the norm being that which prevails with the majority. I don't know what the global ratio of 'normal' to 'other' is but it's not something which is round every corner and in every house. If it was, it would have been accepted long ago.

It would be nice if we could wave a wand and make everyone tolerant and understanding but, as things are, that's a fairly tall order. I've no doubt it should be part of education, that some people feel like this, because exposure to it from quite a young age would allay a lot of fears. But then we need a completely different kind of education in any case.

Beyond that, I don't know. It's a funny world.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on August 24th, 2020, 9:09 am 

edy420 » August 24th, 2020, 5:33 am wrote:If you can point me in the direction of an unbias gender researcher with no political affiliation, Id be more than happy to have a look.

I don't think so. I think you would immediately, and without reading, accuse them of political bias, since most colleges and universities receive some financial support from government.

A well documented area of science but without the bias political connotations and distortions. All Queen bees are female.

Now that's interesting on two fronts. That you need to go all the way back to insects that have been stable (i.e. compared to the evolutionarily volatile mammals) for 120 million years. But more importantly, that gender in the bee physiology is nothing like the human.
sex is normally determined by the fertilization or non-fertilization of eggs, rather than the presence or absence of sex chromosomes. ... In haplodiploid systems, male progeny normally develops from unfertilized eggs, which are haploid and have just one set of chromosomes.
So, in fact, the queen is the only female; the workers are sexless.
As for social dominance... well, that tells us more about your desire than about the animal kingdom, cose it doesn't hold true of elephants and leopards and meerkats...

When I think of Ancient Greece, I think of over eating till you puke, and orgies... While those activities are conducted in Western Societies, they arent traditional in any sense.

And there goes any relevance of your appeal to history!

Im not in that camp. The moon is round, the sun is round, so are stars.. why would earth be flat.

Plates are round, too. All these heavenly bodies used to be seen as discs. Now they're seen in three dimensions.
I didn't check to be honest. The fact that Canada wants to control speech is proof enough I think.

Proof of what? Anyway, all of Canada doesn't want the same thing, on any subject, ever. We have flat-erathers, anti-vaxxers and even KKK.

Today I read that Captain Kirk is at war with the Trans community.

You know he's a fictional character, right?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
Lomax liked this post


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby charon on August 24th, 2020, 9:13 am 

He means Shatner.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Next

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests