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 Serpent on August 24th, 2020, 9:36 am 

I get that. Shatner doesn't want to be labelled. A tweetstorm in a teacup, signifying nothing.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4211
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
Lomax liked this post


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby edy420 on August 24th, 2020, 9:55 am 

Whos Shatner?

Im talking about Captain Cis-Kirk.
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 August 24th, 2020, 11:29 am 

Towel. I'm forced to admit I've been punching above my weight here.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4211
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby TheVat on August 24th, 2020, 12:16 pm 

Haven't said much, mostly because I find this issue so quagmired in cultural assumptions. Willilam Shatner has been running his mouth for years, and it's rarely worth hearing - he's a fading actor who likes attention, so what else is new? To me gender is so culture-based, so tied up with aesthetics and marketing and the body as a presentation of a commodity people are trying to sell, that I can't think of it even as continuum, let alone one with two poles called masculine and feminine. Men have penises, women have vaginas, pretty much everything else is negotiable. I think if we allowed people more fluidity about gender traits, e.g. it's cool to have a penis but really be, at heart, a girly girl who likes to wear frilly dresses, join quilting circles, and bake muffins....maybe fewer surgeries would be needed to deal with body dysphoria. External anatomy wouldn't have to be seen so much as a brand whose label you need to stick with. A person with a penis wouldn't feel it necessary to swagger around as if in a state of advanced testosterone poisoning, and a person with a vagina wouldn't be rejected from various career tracks and social circles for being aggressive, plainspoken, and not smiling enough.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7696
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Serpent liked this post


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby charon on August 24th, 2020, 12:20 pm 



I know :-)
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on August 24th, 2020, 1:09 pm 

TheVat » August 24th, 2020, 11:16 am wrote: I think if we allowed people more fluidity about gender traits, e.g. it's cool to have a penis but really be, at heart, a girly girl who likes to wear frilly dresses, join quilting circles, and bake muffins....maybe fewer surgeries would be needed to deal with body dysphoria. External anatomy wouldn't have to be seen so much as a brand whose label you need to stick with. A person with a penis wouldn't feel it necessary to swagger around as if in a state of advanced testosterone poisoning, and a person with a vagina wouldn't be rejected from various career tracks and social circles for being aggressive, plainspoken, and not smiling enough.

But what would happen to the males who like to consider themselves alphas by virtue of a penis?
I sometimes wonder whether any ardent supporters of unambiguous masculinity realize that they might be betas or epsilons?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4211
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Lomax on August 24th, 2020, 5:54 pm 

Edy,

I don't say that Debra Soh is "baised" or "has a political affiliation". That would be a rather low bar. I say that she consistently spreads groundless and defamatory myths about the trans community, and indeed has built her fame on it.

I'm not sure why Caster Semenya's "fury" would be a point against me. She has some but not all female traits - but lives as a woman and wishes to be treated as such. This is not at odds with the claims the trans community makes for itself. Rather the contrary, I would say.

William Shatner might ask himself why his cis-ness is only ever brought up in a negative way. For my part I don't get upset about being called "cis" any more than I get upset about being called "straight". It seems to me ludicrous to worry about such things.

Now let's get something straight: Debra Soh isn't the only person who's built her career on lies. Jordan Peterson continues to pretend that bill C-16 criminalises misgendering, years after it has been passed and with no such convictions. He has to, doesn't he? Because of the profit motive. Just in summer 2020 both Romania and Hungary have made it illegal to posit a sex-gender distinction, and yet all I hear about is the authoritarianism of the trans rights movement. Where does that bias come from, I wonder.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3738
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK
TheVat liked this post


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby charon on August 24th, 2020, 6:26 pm 

Or, of course, this is exactly what Edy wants...
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby edy420 on August 24th, 2020, 10:29 pm 

Hi Vat,

To me gender is so culture-based, so tied up with aesthetics and marketing and the body as a presentation of a commodity people are trying to sell, that I can't think of it even as continuum, let alone one with two poles called masculine and feminine.


Perhaps Ive been brain washed by these influential factors growing up. I would be willing to entertain that idea, if you could better explain what it is you think we are. How I understand this point of view, makes me think that we are all just a-sexual robots, with different equipment. If the animal kingdom(where we came from) is worth investigating as a starting point, then I have to disagree.

Lomax,

I could discredit Dr Soh without much effort, if I wanted too. My issue is not her credibility. My issue is that while searching for the "Don Lincoln" of gender research, I only come across the loudest voices. When the media would make up a false narrative about Lincolns findings, he was quick to post here, and discuss what he truly thought about his findings. Yet, only the media's narrative is mainstream. I have to wonder if the same is true for gender research..

Who is the Don Lincoln of gender research?

I'm not sure why Caster Semenya's "fury" would be a point against me. She has some but not all female traits - but lives as a woman and wishes to be treated as such. This is not at odds with the claims the trans community makes for itself. Rather the contrary, I would say.


Can we agree that Semenya has the right to identify as a woman? If we adopt a scientific gender spectrum scale, then she would be omitted from the female spectrum by default, and against her will. Scientifically speaking, she would be more central. Hence why it is at odds with a community who believes you can be what ever you want. Maybe we will adopt the gender galaxy, instead of the spectrum, which would make things even more complicated.

William Shatner might ask himself why his cis-ness is only ever brought up in a negative way. For my part I don't get upset about being called "cis" any more than I get upset about being called "straight". It seems to me ludicrous to worry about such things.


Creating group identity is a form of racism, because the only notable design mechanic, is segregation. Racism only exists, because we define people with different skin colour as being different. By saying that a cis-man is different to a trans-man, you create two groups in opposition by nature, as opposed to one unified group.

I used Captain Cis-Kirk as an example to show how ridiculous he is. He asserts that others should not have the freedom of speech, to refer to him as what they wish. But at the same time, this scenario highlights the tribalism aspect of "them" against "us".

Im ok with you calling me a cis-man, if your ok with me calling you a man, problem solved. However!

Jordan Peterson continues to pretend that bill C-16 criminalises misgendering


An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (Bill C-16, 2016) is a law passed by the Parliament of Canada. The law adds gender expression and gender identity as protected grounds to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and also to the Criminal Code provisions dealing with hate propaganda, incitement to genocide, and aggravating factors in sentencing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to ... minal_Code

Regardless, I would rather not break the law. In this situation, not breaking the law, means relinquishing my freedom of speech when identifying and calling a man, a man. The law equates that with incitement to genocide.

Serpent,

I sometimes wonder whether any ardent supporters of unambiguous masculinity realize that they might be betas or epsilons?


All men are betas. There is only ever one alpha.
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 August 24th, 2020, 11:05 pm 

edy420 » August 24th, 2020, 9:29 pm wrote:
All men are betas.

Shame to mill about, directionless and leaderless, when you could organize in tidy ranks.
There is only ever one alpha.

Putin?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4211
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby charon on August 25th, 2020, 6:59 am 

I suppose you know Edy is a girl's name?

http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Edy
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Lomax on August 25th, 2020, 7:05 am 

Just to get the bill C-16 thing out of the way: I am a free speech guy, and don't actually agree with hate speech laws, and think incitement laws need to be very tightly defined. That's a question for another thread. But C-16 doesn't criminalise misgendering.

I'm not sure who would be the Don Lincoln of gender research. Just about everyone who weighs in on the topic has their views misrepresented by journalists, and some of them (Lisa Littman and Julia Serano, for example) have made public attempts to set the record straight on their findings. Dr Ruth Pearce is pretty good at responding to people regardless of their prestige. Perhaps I'll invite her to drop in here and educate us all.

In truth I prefer the gender galaxy to the gender spectrum. "Spectrum" seems to imply it has only one or two dimensions, when it seems to me to have more like eight. "Man" and "woman" are what Wittgenstein called a "family resemblance" - not defined strictly by any one factor, but by a bunch of overlapping factors. This is why I say there are multiple ways of defining man and woman, and our choice of definition is social rather than biological. (Language is, after all, a social construct.) Blaire White makes an argument I find persuasive: nobody objects to calling adoptive parents "parents", or indeed believing them to be such. We understand there is a distinction between an adoptive and a genealogical parent, just as we understand a distinction between cis and trans people. But we consider them all parents.

On the point of creating ingroups and outgroups, I will only say that racial distinctions originated from racists. A fireblind firefighter would be useless; fire-consciousness is a pragmatic approach. But again perhaps we are drifting off-topic.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3738
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby charon on August 25th, 2020, 9:10 am 

Actually, at the risk of boring everybody, I think the issue is prejudice. Personally, I don't care what the trans-or-whatever call themselves, however convoluted. Druggies do the same, so do ghetto gangs, and all the rest of it. They have their own little 'in-terminology' and special names.

Again, personally, I don't know what they are and, frankly, I don't care what they are. They live in their own world of weirdness and as long as they don't break obvious public order laws good luck to them.

Don't think I don't know what it's all about. I used to live in a very liberal town where this was commonplace. I've met them all, really. I treat them with due respect but I wouldn't want to get involved more than necessary; I like to keep my life and mind clear.

Of course, the question then arises what I'd do if I had some sort of gender issue myself. But I know what I wouldn't do. I wouldn't go off and live in a sort of sub-world like various groups have done. That's a form of isolation and death.

I had a landlord once who was gay but who presented normally. He was over 50 and in his day active homosexuality was illegal so he had to hide it, and did. He was a very, very nice man and you'd never have known. I was invited to his house one day and met his partner who turned out to be a bit of a toyboy. Believe me, it was very strange in there, the décor... all the rest of it. But I was unmoved and we just chatted and had a good time. Maybe just a little tense but otherwise fine.

Anyway, I could tell you a lot of stories about all sorts of things, cross-dressers, trans, operations, you name it. A lot of my friends were gay women. But the point is none of this matters. They are what they are and mostly okay.

The real problem is those who are frightened by it, who don't understand it, who are antagonistic towards it, and so on. They will create the problems. And, of course, in the UK, we're extremely lucky to live in a tolerant society. It's not so in other countries, and dangerously so for these people. You could be killed.

So, as I said in a previous post, ignored by Edy, these anomalies should be part of our education. Which needs a radical re-think anyway.

I actually think that's the real issue, the enlightening of ignorance and prejudice. But that should be applied to everything in life, not just gender matters. But no one listens to this sort of thing... :-)
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
Serpent liked this post


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on August 25th, 2020, 9:57 am 

Hooray for Truth in Education!!
If you can legislate it - at least in principle - to apply to advertising, I don't see why you can't extend the same policy to the public schools. Apparantly, in sex and gender issues, at least some school boards are trying and it frightens the parents who want to wrap their kids in the swathes of a single doctrine, never exposed to different points of view.
The same things happens when some schoolboard first works up the courage to drop the comforting mythology and put real science or history on its curriculum.
Children can handle the truth. Adults have a very hard time with it.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4211
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby charon on August 25th, 2020, 11:03 am 

Exactly. Whoopee!

Different generation, that's half the problem. But then, that's always been the problem.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby TheVat on August 25th, 2020, 12:21 pm 

The education aspect seems to present the sticking points here. If you leave it out of the curriculum, then it's easier for children to pick up myths and prejudices. If you put it in, then the RWE's (a common acronym in the US, for Right Wing Evangelicals) become indignant and accuse the system of trying to indoctrinate their children in godless ways.

I started typing this before I saw Serpent's reply. Mine's a bit redundant now.

I"m not entirely sure I agree with Charon's comment that "they live in their own world of weirdness..." They live in our world. Distancing them by assigning them to a different world is part of the problem, maybe.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7696
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Lomax liked this post


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby charon on August 25th, 2020, 12:56 pm 

Vat -

Right Wing Evangelicals) become indignant and accuse the system of trying to indoctrinate their children in godless ways


Well, they would. Screw 'em. Their religious ideas have messed up more lives and started more wars than any person worried about their gender or sexuality.

"they live in their own world of weirdness..." They live in our world.


Of course they live in our world, but you can say that about every human being on earth. It doesn't mean certain types of people don't closet themselves in isolated groups with all that that entails. And where there's exclusivity there's weirdness, whether it's the freemasons, the religious believers, bikers, goths, hippies, academics, or any other type.

This isolationist tendency is the bane of this world, although it can be entertaining.

Distancing them by assigning them to a different world is part of the problem, maybe


I don't understand that. What different part of the world?
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on August 25th, 2020, 2:00 pm 

I suspect a small miscommunication there; like, tide came in one beach and went out another.

I understood Charon to mean that people who are shunned or stigmatized by society for whatever reason tend to put up a front of "normalcy". In order to live their true lives, they must create a secret world of their own, which becomes weird because of its insulation from mainstream culture.

If we diversify mainstream society and make space in it for non-standard individuals, their life becomes easier and our world acquires more colour. It's all-around wins, once we stop letting the control-freaks push everybody else around.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4211
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby charon on August 25th, 2020, 2:32 pm 

Serpent » August 25th, 2020, 7:00 pm wrote:In order to live their true lives, they must create a secret world of their own, which becomes weird because of its insulation from mainstream culture.



Yes, but the seed of isolation is already in place when people adopt these non-mainstream personae. I know that if I have a normal appearance I can go practically anywhere. If I decide to adopt a pink mohawk I can hardly be surprised if there are looks and comments from others.

If I'm prepared for that then, fine, I carry on. If I'm not then I'll go underground, as it were, and only hang out with like minds. Thus a sort of sub-culture is formed.

Only the immature expect nothing to happen if they behave at odds with the norm and blame others' narrow-mindedness on something which they themselves initiated.

However, this doesn't resolve the psychology behind why many people do this. It's probably a form of self-destructive behaviour or attention-seeking, or an expression of inner conflict, and so on... which all in turn have other causes.

BUT this sort of thing has little to do with those who feel, for example, as though they're in the wrong body, or who are gay from birth, and so on. One can appear in normal circles yet have these sorts of issues burning away inside. That's not forming groups and living in separation - which the mainstream does anyway. In fact, in this world, that is the norm.

And I apologise for frequent use of the words 'norm' and 'normal' but I can't think of anything else that just says it simply :-)
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on August 25th, 2020, 2:56 pm 

charon » August 25th, 2020, 1:32 pm wrote: If I decide to adopt a pink mohawk I can hardly be surprised if there are looks and comments from others.

Not so much, nowadays. When i was much younger, purple hair, tattoos on women, facial piercings and so on were regarded as freakish. Now, if we remark at all, it's to compliment the wearer - even many of us who would never do that. Just because, having made room for slightly eccentric self-expression (and who doesn't have a tiny, secret exhibitionist inside them?) in our world, they have made our world a little more interesting.
Didn't the Pride parades?

However, this doesn't resolve the psychology behind why many people do this. It's probably a form of self-destructive behaviour or attention-seeking, or an expression of inner conflict, and so on... which all in turn have other causes.

You mean if they're not forced underground by mainstream disapproval?
Suppose it's just fun to have a club; cool to be on the inside; to own something different and special.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4211
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby BadgerJelly on August 26th, 2020, 11:32 pm 

Lomax » August 25th, 2020, 5:54 am wrote:Edy,

I don't say that Debra Soh is "baised" or "has a political affiliation". That would be a rather low bar. I say that she consistently spreads groundless and defamatory myths about the trans community, and indeed has built her fame on it.

I'm not sure why Caster Semenya's "fury" would be a point against me. She has some but not all female traits - but lives as a woman and wishes to be treated as such. This is not at odds with the claims the trans community makes for itself. Rather the contrary, I would say.

William Shatner might ask himself why his cis-ness is only ever brought up in a negative way. For my part I don't get upset about being called "cis" any more than I get upset about being called "straight". It seems to me ludicrous to worry about such things.

Now let's get something straight: Debra Soh isn't the only person who's built her career on lies. Jordan Peterson continues to pretend that bill C-16 criminalises misgendering, years after it has been passed and with no such convictions. He has to, doesn't he? Because of the profit motive. Just in summer 2020 both Romania and Hungary have made it illegal to posit a sex-gender distinction, and yet all I hear about is the authoritarianism of the trans rights movement. Where does that bias come from, I wonder.


I don’t think it makes sense to refer to someone as a ‘white cis-gendered male’. It is, by its nature, a derogatory term in that it is markedly pointing out certain irrelevant attributes about someone in order to belittle what they say or put them down in some manner.

If people get ‘upset’ being called ‘cis’ do we persist in calling them ‘cis’ if they find the term distasteful? I’d say absolutely not. And likewise, if someone wishes to be referred to as ‘him,’ or ‘her’ should we do so? There is little to no difference here other than to state that one is more universally applicable than the other.

Note: There are a number of instances where people have abused the bill - Lindsey Shepherd being the most publicised incident. As Rowan Atkinson expressed years ago regarding such cases as ‘justice in action’ this doesn’t cover those who are wrongly convicted and go way under the media’s radar.

Also, Jordan Peterson’s MAIN point was that the bill was badly written and unclear NOT that he was against the underlying principle of protecting transgenders - he is an easy target because he has a foot in the ‘religion’ pool and he is eccentric enough to warrant caution in what he says and how he says it (context is literally everything and is often ignored to suit those on the offensive - that said, he is certainly not without faults and he’d hate anyone who agreed with literally everything he said).

At the end of the day many people STRONGLY dislike change and especially dislike items that force them to question their sense of identity. I don’t find it massively surprising that a reevaluation of ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ (an important part of most people’s lives) is going to cause sociological disruption. I mean, society is still adjusting to the idea of homosexuality! It seems ridiculous to me that anyone should care nowadays, but many people didn’t experience anything like this and so, inevitably, some will have issues adjusting to - what are to them ‘new’ - ways of the modern world.

It is PERFECTLY okay to be uncomfortable around someone whose outward appearance and mannerisms are unusual to you. The issue is always more about HOW people deal with their discomfort and HOW they are helped to question it and DEAL with it. It is interesting to view this from different countries - it is almost a non-existent issue in the Philippines (it’s as normal as, if not more so, than being ‘gay’ in the UK or US). Some people live more cloistered lives than others, and they need a modicum of tolerance to come their way as they struggle to rethink/readjust rather than giving them a reason to lash out (and there are always segments on BOTH ‘sides’ pouring petrol on the fire).

Do some research about the Philippines ... it’s quite a bizarre place in this area. Both highly religious and bigoted against such issues AND open and accepting. A very strange admixture indeed. Also, in Vietnam there are many contrary slices to social life. Women are MORE successful in business than men, yet in general I see a more ‘male-driven’ tone day-to-day life. I was discussing this recently. My blithe explanation is that this is something to do with the historical role of women in Chinese/Vietnamese culture - there is a certain temperamental difference I subjective see in women in asia. They are more ‘dangerous’ - short-tempered. To be fair though, the men are equally as vicious when in comes to direct conflict. People tend to snap rather than gradually get angered here ... no idea if this is due to one thing in particular or not. The more I’ve looked into linguistics the more I’m inclined to view this as, at least partly, representative of language structure - meaning a more limited range of vocabulary and sentence structures may cause more issues for expressing nuanced ideas in volatile predicaments where in languages such as English the flaws of diversity of speech manifests in a more slow-burning manner? Anyway, just food for thought (or to be instantly spat out if it tastes too bad! :D)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Lomax on August 27th, 2020, 5:41 am 

Working three jobs so I'm not gonna waste too much of my time playing whack-a-mole with false assertions but briefly: C-16 was not "abused" in the (unjust) treatment of Lindsay Shepherd - her mistreatment was not carried out under its auspices and at any rate it wasn't a criminal trial; "cis" is literally a descriptive term (adopted by the scientific community and various government advisory bodies) the same as "straight" and if we have to drop it then you'll have to drop "transgenders" too; most people have no problem being called "cis" apart from William Shatner, the "Gender Critical" movement and assorted other transphobes; whatever Peterson thinks his "main" point was he gained fame for portraying C-16 as "Maoist" and insisting it criminalised misgendering (it doesn't) and that therefore he was a fearless free speech martyr (if anyone doubts it I urge them to go back and watch the videos that made his name); finally it's fine to be "uncomfortable" but that's irrelevant to how to treat a person and irrelevant to the OP. Edy's concerns were that the "social construct" approach is unscientific (it isn't*) and that it's pointless (it isn't). As to the familiar-sounding "segments on both sides" argument I'd caution against a zero-sum mentality or concluding an inability to form a stance: only one "side" is being denied bathroom access, healthcare, military employment, government recognition, housing, and general freedom from harrassment, on a daily basis, the world over. Hate crimes against trans people have tripled in my country since 2014; trans people experience extremely high rates of domestic abuse and sexual abuse, including by police officers and healthcare professionals; they have a higher suicide rate than any other demographic, by far, including war veterans; high rates of them are forced by economic pressures into sex work and then murdered; when they are not allowed to live according their gender identity - that is to say, when they are forced into the spaces that correspond to their sex-assignment-at-birth rather than their current social role - they are often assaulted, in homeless shelters and bathrooms. The world's bestselling novelist endorses a person who calls trans people "perverts" and "fucking blackface actors" (and incidentally spreads the Soros myth. Antisemitism is prolific in the Gender Critical movement, for reasons I think I can explain). In the face of all this, the eager and artificial self-pity of Peterson and Shatner is of infinitesimal importance.

I'd be interested to learn more on the Phillipine vs English language.

* 2,617 scientists signed an open letter defending it here; there are hundreds or perhaps thousands of studies to back it up, including these ones here; scientists have spoken out against the transphobia of the Intellectual Dark Web, and the science holds that acknowledgement of the above facts is the most ethical approach and best for the wellbeing of trans-identified people.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3738
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK
doogles liked this post


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby BadgerJelly on August 27th, 2020, 6:29 am 

Note: If someone said to me I know nothing because I’m ‘straight’ I would take issue with that. It is NOT important to me, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t important to others. Either way, I find it pointless OUTSIDE of academia and would be skeptical about it being politicised by what could be some misguided zealots - or simply well intentioned people - as ‘helpful’ to transgenders.

If someone referred to me in a discussion as ‘cis,’ ‘straight,’ of this or that ethnicity, without it being of significance I would stop talking to them.

I don’t believe ‘gender’ is a social construct, as the main determiner for sexual identity seems more solidly based in prenatal exposure to hormones, from what I’ve read. If ‘social construct’ means something different to that then the language has been purposefully shifted somewhere, by someone, to suit their own personal beliefs.

There is just reason to be on guard about what is or isn’t deemed as ‘offensive’. As Mr. Atkinson pointed out being arrested for called a horse ‘gay,’ although funny, isn’t exactly something we should take so lightly.

Note: There are also thousands of scientists who warned about 4G that my whacky mate posted. If a study suits a particular narrative then people will use it - I believe there were more than 2000 ... should I start burning 4G towers down?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Lomax on August 27th, 2020, 6:43 am 

I'm not sure why you wish to reduce gender to hormones (not even sex can be reduced to hormones, as I already discussed) but something I do find interesting about the trans-exclusionary movement is that none of them can agree on what to reduce sex or gender to. Magdalene Berns says there's no gender and sex is your genitals at birth (elsewhere she moves the goalposts and says it's chromosomes). Rowling and Greer say gender is the role you grew up in. Who should we authoritatively believe, and why?

As I said, if Shatner is constantly having his ignorance pointed out by a loaded use of the word, there is probably a reason for that. "Cis" has a very good use outside of the scientific community, which is the clarification of language in sociopolitical debate. If a Gender Critical person says "trans women should not be allowed in women's spaces" what they mean is "trans women are men"; if a trans-inclusive person says "trans women are not a threat to women" we are often, by the latter, referring to cis women. The use of "cis" in these cases is value-neutral and for precision. Hey, what's with all the speech policing?
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3738
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby Serpent on August 27th, 2020, 8:56 am 

Denny Crane would take exception - probably with a gun - to being called any kind of cissy. Jame Kirk would just smile and then go harass Scotty about more speed. Shatner doesn't look like Kirk anymore - so who can blame him for feeling insecure?
That's all this is about: the desperate rearguard action of a failed patriarchy.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4211
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby BadgerJelly on August 27th, 2020, 9:45 am 

Lomax -

I think hormones are very much everything about this. Someone with male chromosomes and with an inability to produce testosterone will effectively grow up to be a woman - that in itself is a very telling point regarding both how people look and feel.

Also, keep in mind that MANY people have used ‘gender’ as synonymous with ‘sex’ throughout most of their lives - language changes and people are sometimes slow to keep up.

I would say I don’t transgenderism being equated with body dysmorphia as it makes it appear to be an ‘illness,’ much like homosexuality was treated not so long ago in the UK. I do strongly oppose people who go around suggesting the concept of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ is a ‘social construct’ because if we follow that line of thinking literally everything would be a ‘social construct’ - I’m quite enjoying exploring Hegelian ideas at the moment, but ‘norms’ are still ‘norms’.

Some people will inevitably continue to be dicks and others won’t ... reminds me of Team America! Haha!

Again, when certain zealots start announcing to others that they’re ‘cis gendered males’ so their words don’t hold so much weight in the topic (if and and only if they disagree) then it looks pretty derogatory to me - I’ve seen this numerous times on forums and in the media in general. I think this is damaging to the causes of those being harmed.

I’d also add that anyone questioning anything in this topic is usually drowned out if they even suggest a question in this subject that is perceived as ‘threatening’ to the problem.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby charon on August 27th, 2020, 12:35 pm 

...
Last edited by charon on August 27th, 2020, 12:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby TheVat on August 27th, 2020, 12:38 pm 

If someone is devaluing the opinion of a cis-gendered person, they are devaluing their perspective (much as people of color may devalue the perspective of whites who weigh in on how much racism there is in America), and this does not render the "cis" derogatory. It is being used much as "straight" is used, for precision and clarifying gender status.

And, while the thin-skinned may be eager to find some reason to take offense, having someone point out you have a limited perspective, especially when it's factual, is not an insult. I don't know what it's like to be black: fact. I don't know what it's like to be a trans: fact. All my knowledge is second-hand and may legitimately be questioned. It doesn't mean I know nothing, because I have some empathy, but it does mean I defer to black and trans people on the matter of what it is like to be black and/or trans. People need to stop combing over every single thing other people say in hopes of finding a way to take offense. That way lies madness and chaos, when relaxed and open conversation is needed.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7696
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
LomaxBadgerJelly liked this post


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby charon on August 27th, 2020, 12:41 pm 

...
Last edited by charon on August 27th, 2020, 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: When Men And Woman Are Social Constructs

Postby charon on August 27th, 2020, 12:43 pm 

Looks like I'm a cissy... pathetic, isn't it?
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2282
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


PreviousNext

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests

cron