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.

Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby BadgerJelly on September 3rd, 2020, 10:51 am 

Lomax -

I mean that the complexities of sex classification are a question of their own


Yeah, and I don’t think they are separate. I guess you think the connection is looser than I do ... no biggie.

When it comes to an empirical measurement I’ve laid out what this looks like already. There is a problem when someone says they are a ‘woman’ when they are ‘physically’ a ‘man’ - because as much as people may like language to different we still tend to mean ‘male’ when we say ‘man’ and ‘female’ when we say ‘woman’ (you have no problem accepting that).

Having terms for a ‘man’ who has transitioned to become a ‘woman’ doesn’t make them a ‘woman’ with all that may entail - this shows through in competitive sports. Generally I don’t think it matters if someone is a man or woman in most circumstances, so if someone appears to be a ‘man’ I address them as so, and if someone appears to want to be perceived as a ‘man’ I address them as so - it is then up to them to point out if they don’t like this or that term if I use it. That isn’t difficult at all.

If I’m completely honest here I don’t particularly like people knowing my nationality or asking where I’m from because it seems silly to me on some level, but I do ask other people the same question so it does make me a hypocrite!

No matter how this is defined biologically there will always be some grey area just as there is with all scientific definitions including ‘consciousness,’ ‘life’ and countless others. The vast majority of people are men or women and I don’t see this as a problem to use these two terms (with there exceptions) as problematic anymore than I do ‘father’ or ‘mother,’ and neither do I see an issue with exploring what other common terms could be brought into play that allows everyone to feel ‘part of society’ (which is underneath everything what the whole ‘identity’ issue of humanity orbits - the need for a place and a degree of acceptance).

If you were to say to me now that you’re a woman I would disagree. I’m sure you’d disagree if I said I was a woman on a fundamental level. That is NOT the same as saying I would refuse to address you as a woman and I hope in the near future people will actually have a means to TRULY transition from one sex to another (at the moment the technology isn’t with us ... it’ll come though, and if I was younger I’d think about switching myself out of pure curiosity).
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby charon on September 3rd, 2020, 12:05 pm 

charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
BadgerJelly liked this post


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby BadgerJelly on September 3rd, 2020, 11:45 pm 

Lomax -

To expand my position a little further:

I don't know - but I say that whatever option we choose here, we'll be doing it on the basis of social relations, not new data. What would an empirical approach to the question even look like?


Any decision on the basis of social relations will, if sensible, be informed by empirical data not by abstaining from using it. As I mentioned previously, the laws around abortion are informed by empirical data (albeit fairly loosely, but it isn’t ‘arbitrary’). That is the thrust of my argument about how, if the need is present, to categorise certain demographics be this to further our understanding of social interactions and/or to address health issues.

If you’re not already aware of this organisation (I assume you are) you may find it useful to peruse:

https://www.genderhq.org/viewpoints

I’ve looked through it myself and it is fairly transparent about the issues and the positions of the members of the organisation too.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby edy420 on September 8th, 2020, 9:28 am 

Cancel culture begins its assault on J.K Rowlings for these statements..

"Opinion: Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate.”

"People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”

https://variety.com/2020/film/global/jk ... e-comments

I believe the word she's looking for is woman. According to the link, her book sales are taking a dip. Cancel confirmed.

She gave back an award, because she values the right to freedom of speech, more.

This highlights the fact that simply hinting at the idea that genders are different, is enough to offend the trans community.

No matter what the scientific community decides, no man can identify as someone who menstruates. What's the big deal?
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1386
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby BadgerJelly on September 14th, 2020, 1:10 am 

edy -

If that was literally all she said ...? Seems a little bizarre to me.

The very nature of the media is to sensationalise everything anyone says in order to demonise or idolise someone. The remark is a little flippant, but I don’t see it as being intentionally harmful to anyone. I see someone questioning the degree to which radical activists have been targeting others because they don’t really have any reason to change the use of a common everyday term to suit a minority.

The west has suffered from centuries of sexual repression that has been antagonised by attempts to frame and categorise people into certain groups.

All that said, I imagine what she said is probably the tip of the iceberg. I cannot see how that lone comment has caused people to act like she’s been actively murdering people or is responsible for the deaths of others. She MUST have backed up this comment with something that was misinformed and/or biased ... even then, I would’ve hoped (in vain perhaps) that others would’ve been able to discuss the issue rationally and in a collected manner.

I guess if people argue and come to trade blows about football teams or artistic sensibilities none of us should be too surprised that something that has been historically shaped into a ‘taboo’ subject causes such tension and insecurity.

All in all the prominence of the movement will help more than hinder in the long run I believe. It will likely take a few generations for the culture to develop something akin to a traditional ‘passage of rites’ so that large sections of this group of people can plant their axis mundi firmly upon the social landscape.

The topic is likely antagonised by the general problem of ‘sexuality’ and ‘sex roles’ in society having shifted fairly recently in western society. The ‘male’ and ‘female’ roles have certainly become more fluid, and it does seem too much of a stretch to suggest that the further addition to the topic of sexuality and sex roles in society has added weight to an already fragile item in the sphere of debate - and rightly so! An interest gains more attention when the topic attaches to prevalent debates in the day-to-day life of everyone.

Humans are weird, thankfully!
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby charon on September 14th, 2020, 3:07 pm 

Woman = womb-man. So, except for the baby bag, she's a man!




Yes, I'm making it up as I go along.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby neuro on September 16th, 2020, 3:54 am 

charon » September 14th, 2020, 8:07 pm wrote:Woman = womb-man. So, except for the baby bag, she's a man!
....


so she just has something MORE than men.
Which I rather like, given that women, being epigenetic chimeras, are one step ahead in evolution...
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby charon on September 16th, 2020, 12:42 pm 

You're right, men are just incomplete women. That's why they have nipples.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on September 16th, 2020, 2:04 pm 

It's been known for a very long time that the distinction between male and female isn't all that simple or absolute. Ancient mythology has many examples of overlap.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hermaphroditus
It's the Christians imposed this notion of strictly delimited roles on sex, as they did on everything else in people's personal and public lives. (It wasn't their idea: they and the Muslims both inherited the Abrahamic tradition wherein the function of women is to incubate lots of obedient little soldiers for the fatherland.)
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4211
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby edy420 on September 18th, 2020, 7:53 am 

Badgerjelly,

I haven't looked too deep into the J.K Rowlings controversy, but cancel culture is literally about cancelling you for one comment. Or in this case, two.

As for the culture shift, thats an interesting topic to explore in relation to what we are observing today.

Serpent,

While the Greeks may have been accepting of trans, they also had some of the most toxic masculinity in history. I think they were just more accepting, and less afraid of trans.

It's the Christians imposed this notion of strictly delimited roles on sex... (...they and the Muslims both inherited the Abrahamic tradition wherein the function of women is to incubate...)


Its not a mans role to incubate a baby. Thats not a Christian notion, its just fact.

I think it goes back further to our time as neanderthals and apes. Alphas and warriors are male. "Incubators" are female. A tribe thats confused on these roles, would be easily destroyed by neighboring tribes. Im pretty sure they weren't Christians. Considering this is why I think Badgerjelly provides some good food for thought.

Im all for accepting trans, gays, woman's rights etc etc. But when it comes to promoting them, I begin to become concerned. In all these areas, acceptance is important and necessary, but promotion is detrimental.

Promoting trans has lead to controlled speech, indoctrination, children getting operations they later realize they didn't want, complicating science(aside from evolution), and another cancel culture category, among many other problems. If we just stopped at accepting, there'd be no issues.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1386
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on September 18th, 2020, 9:33 am 

edy420 » September 18th, 2020, 6:53 am wrote:
Serpent,

While the Greeks may have been accepting of trans, they also had some of the most toxic masculinity in history. I think they were just more accepting, and less afraid of trans.

I'm not clear on how the cult of masculinity was more toxic in ancient Greece than modern America, but I do think acceptance and lack of fear can be compared.
When you start from persecution, you don't get to acceptance without the intermediate steps.

[S - It's the Christians imposed this notion of strictly delimited roles on sex... (...they and the Muslims both inherited the Abrahamic tradition wherein the function of women is to incubate...)]

Its not a mans role to incubate a baby. Thats not a Christian notion, its just fact.

I'm aware of that. The significant term there was imposed; that is, restricted females to the function of serving and servicing a militaristic patriarchy.
Such patriarchies tolerate no deviations, no overlaps, no crossing or blurring of lines, no grey areas, nobody marching out of step. Christianity is certainly not the only religious institution, and the modern western nations are certainly not the only civilization to have such a social order. But it was the christianized Romans who imposed this order on Europe, and christianizing European imperialism that imposed this order on its conquests.




Altered by another user??
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4211
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby edy420 on September 18th, 2020, 7:39 pm 

It has less to do with Christians, and more to do with our cultural shift.

Joan Of Arch, a Catholic Saint was not forced to incubate babies. She is revered for her role in war. I don't know much about her love life. Perhaps she couldn't have children or didn't marry, so she had the opportunity to accomplish what she did.

Past cultures didn't have birth control in the way we do today. It's not that Christians demanded woman have babies, it's just that they usually had them.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1386
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on September 18th, 2020, 8:50 pm 

edy420 » September 18th, 2020, 6:39 pm wrote:It has less to do with Christians, and more to do with our cultural shift.

Joan Of Arch, a Catholic Saint was not forced to incubate babies. She is revered for her role in war.

When? Before or after being burned as a heretic? Actually, before by some and after by many.
I don't know much about her love life.

She didn't have one. She didn't have time. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Joan-of-Arc/Capture-trial-and-execution
Perhaps she couldn't have children or didn't marry, so she had the opportunity to accomplish what she did.

Normally, a good devout Catholic girl, which she emphatically was, wouldn't know whether she could have children until many years in a marriage. She was 19 when the king she fought for betrayed her to the enemies with whom he wanted to sign a treaty.
When the trial proper began a day or so later, it took two days for Joan to answer the 70 charges that had been drawn up against her. These were based mainly on the contention that her behaviour showed blasphemous presumption: in particular, that she claimed for her pronouncements the authority of divine revelation; prophesied the future; endorsed her letters with the names of Jesus and Mary, thereby identifying herself with the novel and suspect cult of the Name of Jesus; professed to be assured of salvation; and wore men’s clothing. Perhaps the most serious charge was of preferring what she believed to be the direct commands of God to those of the church.

So, you see, she still served the militaristic patriarchy, both in life and in death.

Past cultures didn't have birth control in the way we do today.

Not to mention that birth control is forbidden by the Catholic church.
It's not that Christians demanded woman have babies,

It's just that christians didn't allow them to do anything else.
it's just that they usually had them.

Especially if they were raped, or sold into marriage at age 13, like that poor famous little virgin, with no recourse and no escape except perhaps a convent.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4211
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby edy420 on September 19th, 2020, 1:34 am 

You do realize nuns are Catholic? Why are you so sure that Christians force woman to play the role of having babies. What evidence do you have.

Celibacy is the ultimate 100% guaranteed contraceptive. Better than the pill, condoms, and abortion combined. The Bible promotes a life of celibacy, so that you can dedicate your life to God. ie, have no children. ONLY in the instances where one can not refrain from sexual sin, St Paul advocates marriage(hed rather you not marry if possible). These teachings contradict your ideas.

Woman who don't have children are cherished in the Catholic community. Where do your outrageous ideas come from.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1386
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Previous

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests