So I was watching this young girl make this painfully stupid argument and it got me thinking. What is she trying to accomplish?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WChwBGf05DA
First they use language that conflates the classification with the actual thing it classifies ''race/sex is a social construct or race/sex does not exist" Then they say hey look the classification does not perfectly describe this one rare instance of reality! But I wonder what is their purpose? what do they want? it seems to me they just want to delegitimatize certain concepts that are problematic for "equality" rather than to actually refine the classification for it to reflect reality more accurately or be more useful. When they see a discrete classification they try to refute it by showing it is actually a continuum, but then they turn around and use the continuum fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy) to deny the objective existence of distinction between separate segments of the continuum, rather than accept that it is a real classification that just isn't discrete, therefore dismissing the entire notion of this type of classification. And they conflate this illogical idiocy with the trivial truth that classifications arise out of social convention (socially constructed). This is tactic known as the motte and bailey doctrine (http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-bailey-doctrines/) used to avoid being refuted when debating, by basically swapping your radical/interesting idea for a trivial truth by a subtle change of definitions of a crucial concept in the middle of the argument. But even in their best case scenario they lose, because classification is NOT the actual thing, so even if you disproved and showed the classification to be meaningless that does nothing to the actual thing it attempted to describe. That's why statements like: ''race/sex is a social construct or race/sex does not exist" are highly misleading when uttered by SJW's.
SJWs are not for equality. Whereas I personally have long recognized the existence of things like white privilege and unequal rights, and have seen them as a problem since I was first cognizant of them as a pre-teen, my solution is for everyone to enjoy the same privileges and rights, and that these privileges and rights should be maximal. SJWs, on the other hand, want to transfer privilege and rights to those who have least of it, and take it away from those who have most of it, essentially turning the social hierarchy upside down, resulting in privileged classes still lording it over unprivileged classes. And in their world, I would be at the very bottom of their hierarchy, being white, straight and male.
Also, when it comes to nature vs. nurture involving behavioral differences between the sexes, SJWs fall 100% on the nurture side, while those on the far right fall 100% on the nature side, whereas the reality is a mixture of both.
Moreover, while it is true that gender is not a binary, and there is a spectrum between the two poles of male and female, the actual distribution is highly bimodal, and those who fill the "neither" category, while deserving of the same rights, privileges and respect as everyone else, are rare, and this cannot negate the fact that Homo sapiens is at its essence a two-sex species, just like all mammals are.
(Have you noticed that both commentators pronounce "strong" as "shtrong"? Weird. Weird!)
(http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/af34/pr126/nb7kg_zpsaeqsvwb1.jpg)
Quote from: mauricio on November 04, 2015, 10:22:04 PM
So I was watching this young girl make this painfully stupid argument and it got me thinking. What is she trying to accomplish?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WChwBGf05DA
First they use ...
Stop right there.. "They"????
If the speaker is using all these advanced and tricky rhetorical techniques ... deliberately ... then she is being brilliant, not stupid. Rhetoric is about winning, not about truth. If she is doing this naturally ... then she is a genius of rhetoric. If one is interested in truth ... or the lack of it ... listen to a philosopher, not an advocate of anything. Of course everyone has hidden agendas ... the question is ... is the speaker aware of the agenda or not. If aware, then they are a propagandist, if not ... they are a useful fool.
Failure on her part. Gender is a social construct, not sex. Though race is now commonly held as a social construct as well... for me anyways, not trying to say anything with that other than that is the belief now amongst biologists and anthropologists.
Can we cut this off here? Please?
Quote from: dtq123 on November 05, 2015, 08:56:32 AM
Can we cut this off here? Please?
Why are you trying to stop criticism of SJW/Feminism? This is the second thread I've seen you try to stop today. I personally find the debate interesting.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 05, 2015, 08:25:59 AMGender is a social construct, not sex.
I strongly disagree, and I'm sure many transgendered individuals would as well. There are clear physiological differences between men and women which effect the way they think and behave. Brain structure and sex hormones are quite different. There are studies that show testosterone levels are inversely proportional to empathy, and directly proportional to the desire to dominate in social relationship.
Here's an interesting study that shows primate toy preference - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/gender-toys-children-toy-preferences-hormones_n_1827727.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/gender-toys-children-toy-preferences-hormones_n_1827727.html)
There is no doubt that society accentuates these differences but, at the core, gender is biological.
Quote from: Jack89 on November 05, 2015, 10:00:40 AM
Why are you trying to stop criticism of SJW/Feminism? This is the second thread I've seen you try to stop today. I personally find the debate interesting.
I would say the issue is that even she admits that she does not represent the common "SJW" viewpoint and that they find it too far in her opening statement, which is then followed by a short essay attacking "SJW"s for holding her viewpoint. That isn't criticism of "SJW/feminism" any more than "All atheists hate Christians!" is a criticism of atheism.
QuoteQuote from: Jack89 on November 05, 2015, 10:32:10 AM
I strongly disagree, and I'm sure many transgendered individuals would as well. There are clear physiological differences between men and women which effect the way they think and behave. Brain structure and sex hormones are quite different. There are studies that show testosterone levels are inversely proportional to empathy, and directly proportional to the desire to dominate in social relationship.
Here's an interesting study that shows primate toy preference - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/gender-toys-children-toy-preferences-hormones_n_1827727.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/gender-toys-children-toy-preferences-hormones_n_1827727.html)
There is no doubt that society accentuates these differences but, at the core, gender is biological.
You can disagree with it all you want, but at the end of the day gender refers to how society interprets what actions, roles and expectations are masculine and which are feminine. In some societies in Africa females, biological females, are the aggressive/dominant sex who check nearly every box of what we consider masculine while the men stay at home and nurture the children, take care o the house, gossip and do "stereotypical women" things.
Are the women of that tribe actually men since they behave like we think men should behave and the men actually women since they behave as we believe women should behave?
Yes, how one interprets and assigns them self to a gender is partly biological... but that says nothing about gender itself, the concept of gender, but rather how one assigns themselves to a gender.
Quote from: dtq123 on November 05, 2015, 08:56:32 AM
Can we cut this off here? Please?
I'm with you, but its not going to happen. :34:
Quote from: Baruch on November 05, 2015, 07:25:20 AM
If the speaker is using all these advanced and tricky rhetorical techniques ... deliberately ... then she is being brilliant, not stupid. Rhetoric is about winning, not about truth. If she is doing this naturally ... then she is a genius of rhetoric. If one is interested in truth ... or the lack of it ... listen to a philosopher, not an advocate of anything. Of course everyone has hidden agendas ... the question is ... is the speaker aware of the agenda or not. If aware, then they are a propagandist, if not ... they are a useful fool.
I was talking about SJWs in general from my many debates with them not this chick specifically, which I think is just repeating their talking points, talking points which themselves are watered down post modernist arguments. Many of this guys don't even notice they are doing that, they just do it and they think it all makes sense, because it sounds convincing. Lot's of fallacies also sound convincing until you understand the underlying non sequitur in their logical structure.
Quote from: facebook164 on November 05, 2015, 05:01:44 AM
Stop right there.. "They"????
yeah "they": the group of people who do this stuff? what's so hard to understand?
Quote from: Shiranu on November 05, 2015, 08:25:59 AM
Failure on her part. Gender is a social construct, not sex. Though race is now commonly held as a social construct as well... for me anyways, not trying to say anything with that other than that is the belief now amongst biologists and anthropologists.
what does social construct mean? Also what exactly is gender? how is it different from sex? and how is it related to the structure of the body?
Quote from: mauricio on November 05, 2015, 03:48:12 PM
yeah "they": the group of people who do this stuff? what's so hard to understand?
What group? I font think there is a self identified grouo that argues that bilogical sex is a socisl construct. And that is definitely not feminists.
Quote from: facebook164 on November 05, 2015, 03:52:27 PM
What group? I font think there is a self identified grouo that argues that bilogical sex is a socisl construct. And that is definitely not feminists.
You are missing the point, this girl is meaningless, she just exemplifies the rhetorical tricks because she lays them bare and got me thinking about all my conversations with this type of neoprogressives. SJWs is the group, check this out to see them in action : https://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/
Almost all of them call themselves and each other feminist
I'm going to call this "Walking Butt Hurt Syndrome" and leave it at that.
And to the "your point is?" response, figure it the fuck out.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 05, 2015, 10:37:14 AM
I would say the issue is that even she admits that she does not represent the common "SJW" viewpoint and that they find it too far in her opening statement, which is then followed by a short essay attacking "SJW"s for holding her viewpoint. That isn't criticism of "SJW/feminism" any more than "All atheists hate Christians!" is a criticism of atheism.
You are wrong my analysis of their rhetorical tricks apply quite well to many of their arguments on this topic, not just to this girl. It may seem less obvious due to their use of further obfuscation by conflating aspects of sex with gender by playing with the fuzzy limits of nature and nurture when discussin gender vs sex and social construction. But the race thing they say it outright.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 05, 2015, 08:25:59 AM
Failure on her part. Gender is a social construct, not sex. Though race is now commonly held as a social construct as well... for me anyways, not trying to say anything with that other than that is the belief now amongst biologists and anthropologists.
Also do you believe a person with male sex but woman gender exists? who are they? and how is their structure (of their body) ?
My three cents ...
Body, preferred sexual partner, gender are all different.
Your body is male, or female or mixed
You preferred sexual partner is male, female or both (bi)
Your gender (how you see yourself, not necessarily how others see you) is masculine, feminine or both
So there are three variables, each with three possible values. That means there are 3x3x3=27 different kinds of humans, approximately. The vast majority fit into two of those 27 (28 if we add one more for none-of-the-above) ... male/female partner/masculine and female/male partner/feminine.
A drag queen for example is male/male partner/feminine ... but most gays are male/male partner/masculine.
A m-f transexual for example is male/male partner/feminine who wants to be female/male partner/feminine (unless she is lesbian or bi) Drag queens don't seek to transition, or even see themselves or want to be seen as normal females ... they are burlesque.
I defined gender as self defined ... not socially defined. Society is comfortable with the two primary types, and not with the other 26. The normal folks define this as "normal" vs "abnormal". #28 could be the asexual/androgynous/neutral person.
Quote from: dtq123 on November 05, 2015, 08:56:32 AM
Can we cut this off here? Please?
(http://new1.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Dont+fight+it+just+let+it+happen+let+the+hate+_26558147c7b2869494d54581aee7d6e7.png)
Quote from: Baruch on November 05, 2015, 06:42:14 PM
My three cents ...
Body, preferred sexual partner, gender are all different.
Your body is male, or female or mixed
You preferred sexual partner is male, female or both (bi)
Your gender (how you see yourself, not necessarily how others see you) is masculine, feminine or both
So there are three variables, each with three possible values. That means there are 3x3x3=27 different kinds of humans, approximately. The vast majority fit into two of those 27 (28 if we add one more for none-of-the-above) ... male/female partner/masculine and female/male partner/feminine.
A drag queen for example is male/male partner/feminine ... but most gays are male/male partner/masculine.
A m-f transexual for example is male/male partner/feminine who wants to be female/male partner/feminine (unless she is lesbian or bi) Drag queens don't seek to transition, or even see themselves or want to be seen as normal females ... they are burlesque.
I defined gender as self defined ... not socially defined. Society is comfortable with the two primary types, and not with the other 26. The normal folks define this as "normal" vs "abnormal". #28 could be the asexual/androgynous/neutral person.
The thing is that unless you believe in substance dualism and believe in some kind of soul, your body is the one the configures the other two categories, how then does this work? The interesting part is how do they interact with each other.
Quote from: dtq123 on November 05, 2015, 08:56:32 AM
Can we cut this off here? Please?
The only way this thread will be cut off is if it gets increasingly boring/people lose interest and move on.
You do, however have the option to just ignore that this thread exists... like I will probably because I already lost interest.
QuoteAlso do you believe a person with male sex but woman gender exists? who are they? and how is their structure (of their body) ?
Uh, yes. If it wasn't for a social upbringing where that is highly discouraged there is a good chance that is what I would identify as.
They would be a male with a penis who identifies as a woman. As for anything more than that, it would be up to them to determine what they are. I don't believe with something like sexuality and gender you can just put them in a nice little box and say, "They are 100 percent THIS!". Which is where I have to slightly disagree with you, Baruch...
QuoteYour body is male, or female or mixed
You preferred sexual partner is male, female or both (bi)
Your gender (how you see yourself, not necessarily how others see you) is masculine, feminine or both
Straight, gay/lesbian, bi isn't necessarily accurate, since there are people who are of mixed sex... likewise there are pansexuals who the sex doesn't matter one way or another, demisexuals who are attracted to people whom they have deep emotional connections with, regardless of sex, asexuals and so on.
The same can go for gender, there are people who don't identify as male or female...
At the end of the day these titles are just trying to reduce an EXTREMELY complicated and diverse scale into three or four little boxes, and it just doesn't accurately work. And who are we to tell someone, "No, you're not what you claim to be... you most closely fit this box, so you are CLEARLY this box!" even when that box does not accurately describe them?
Why do we need to put people's sexuality or gender into an organized, cut-and-paste box, and why is that a harder idea to get one's head around (I mean that in the most unoffensive way, I promise...) than to believe we can just go around and label such an incredibly complex thing as one's gender or sexuality? When you put these labels on people then you are only limiting them from being who they really are, and that is never a good thing.
That's my two cents on it, anyways.
Quote from: Jack89 on November 05, 2015, 10:00:40 AM
Why are you trying to stop criticism of SJW/Feminism? This is the second thread I've seen you try to stop today. I personally find the debate interesting.
I've had bad experiences with both SJW and MRA. I don't fit anywhere, and I panicked, so don't mind me.
If you want a better reason, ask around. Someone ought to remember the exact thread that hit hard.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 05, 2015, 09:21:27 PM
They would be a male with a penis who identifies as a woman. As for anything more than that, it would be up to them to determine what they are. I don't believe with something like sexuality and gender you can just put them in a nice little box and say, "They are 100 percent THIS!". Which is where I have to slightly disagree with you, Baruch...
But what does it mean to identify as a woman? (actually answer this question if you can please) And by body I was not only talking about genitalia, but the entire body.
Obviously discrete categories can be problematic when aspects of reality tends to be messier or continuous, but categorizing people along what people simply claim they are? that sounds even more useless. That's why I asked about the structure of their bodies. We should base our classifications around that as we do with things like chemicals or other animals in an attempt to objectively describe their properties and differences.
also found this interesting article on the race debate that refutes and defends various arguments about: Is race a biological reality? Or is it a social construction?
https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/why-both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-race-debate/
I like the point at the end
QuoteThe real debate about race is not whether there are any differences between populations, but about the significance of such differences. The fact that a BMW saloon is of a different colour to a Boeing 747 is of little significance to most people. The fact that one has an internal combustion engine and the other a jet engine is of immense consequence if you want to travel from London to New York. But if you are a Yanomamo Indian living in the Amazon forest, even this difference may not be of that great an import, since it is quite possible that you will be unable â€" or will not need â€" to use either form of transport. If we want to understand the significance of any set of differences, in other words, we have to ask ourselves two questions: Significant for what? And in what context? One of the problems of the contemporary debate about race is that these two questions get too rarely asked
QuoteBut what does it mean to identify as a woman? (actually answer this question if you can please) And by body I was not only talking about genitalia, but the entire body.
It depends on how you mean it. You could mean a woman as in having a vagina. You could mean woman as what the particular society you live in defines as a woman and/or her roles. A person with a male sex simply means they have a penis; their body could be skinny, fat, short, tall, bearded, not bearded, long hair, bald, etc. etc. . Sex means you have a penis, vagina or something else... no other statement about one's body, preferences or gender.
Quote... but categorizing people along what people simply claim they are? that sounds even more useless.
Except for medical situations (which could be addressed biologically, as it should be), is there any use in categorizing people? Sex I can see to an extent (though almost all those are at least loosely medically related as well), but gender and orientation have zero reason to HAVE to put people into a box. Who someone else is attracted to, or what gender the identify as, is absolutely none of my business and at best is pointless to know.
QuoteWe should base our classifications around that as we do with things like chemicals or other animals in an attempt to objectively describe their properties and differences.
You are comparing a fluid system to set things though; a moose is a moose is a moose, but gender and sexuality are so fluid you cannot point to one spot and say it defines everything around it perfectly. And again, why must we classify everything? I think it's far more beautiful to look at the diversity and appreciate it rather than try to stifle it... it's like being allowed to paint with only one shade of red, one shade of blue, one shade of green etc. because, "They are more or less all the same thing".
QuoteSignificant for what? And in what context?
I would argue there is no context where it is significant, hence the reason to not use it (especially since, as the article said, science cant "prove it" one way or the other).
Quote from: Shiranu on November 06, 2015, 12:26:38 AM
It depends on how you mean it. You could mean a woman as in having a vagina. You could mean woman as what the particular society you live in defines as a woman and/or her roles. A person with a male sex simply means they have a penis; their body could be skinny, fat, short, tall, bearded, not bearded, long hair, bald, etc. etc. . Sex means you have a penis, vagina or something else... no other statement about one's body, preferences or gender.
To me a woman is a female of the homo sapiens species, this goes beyond having a vagina since the body is organic, each part is integrated with each other. With the vagina you have the ovaries which are connected to the pituitary gland and the hypothalamus and other organs that form the female endocrine system which is very central to what it means to be a woman, due to all the things it influences to create the female homo sapiens. The thing about the body is that your entire body configures who you are, there's no mind/body and neither is there a brain/body dichotomy, they are thoroughly integrated. The nervous system spreads through the entire body, it can affect your body through nervous signals and chemical messengers also your psychological states can affect the rest of the body through psychosomatic effects. There's no such thing as a female brain or mind in a male body or vice versa. There's however individuals with anomalous structures due to epigenetic effects that occur during fetal development which find themselves far from the peaks of the heavily bimodal distribution of human sex.
Except for medical situations (which could be addressed biologically, as it should be), is there any use in categorizing people? Sex I can see to an extent (though almost all those are at least loosely medically related as well), but gender and orientation have zero reason to HAVE to put people into a box. Who someone else is attracted to, or what gender the identify as, is absolutely none of my business and at best is pointless to know.
The pursuit of knowledge and to properly understand our universe and our place in it. From there many pragmatic benefits could be derived. By classifying we can further this goals with much more ease. I could even see that without classification systems we would not be able to communicate or think logically. To classify is to define and contrast, which seems to me to be the basis of language and thought. A=A & A=/=B I think you underestimate the value of understanding sexuality it's definitely not pointless.
You are comparing a fluid system to set things though; a moose is a moose is a moose, but gender and sexuality are so fluid you cannot point to one spot and say it defines everything around it perfectly.
What do you mean by fluid? You mean continuous as opposed to discrete?
By "a moose is a moose is a moose" are you talking about taxonomy? Sadly taxonomy at finer points is continuous too which is problematic for discrete categorization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem)
But as I do with race I would take the position that the categories are non-discrete approximations based on our current understanding for pragmatic purposes including to help further our understanding.
And again, why must we classify everything? I think it's far more beautiful to look at the diversity and appreciate it rather than try to stifle it... it's like being allowed to paint with only one shade of red, one shade of blue, one shade of green etc. because, "They are more or less all the same thing".
You sound like keats here:
Keats lightheartedly said Newton 'has destroyed all the poetry of the rainbow, by reducing it to the prismatic colours.'
And we have the color continuum we do not need to classify everything in discrete non overlapping categories, we can also use continuum models. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_%28measurement%29).
Heading to bed and shouldn't back besides on phone for the next day or two, so I will try to give as best of response I can at 2:30 in the morning.
Bold 1:
You are correct; but again, for the sake of putting people into boxes (not my idea), sex is defined on if you have a penis, vagina or neither. The rest is irrelevant, regardless of if it should or shouldn't be. However I would say that the differences of men's and women's brains (and thus "they" as an individual) is not scientifically agreed on as to how far the variations go. Likewise how one expresses their "masculinity" and "femininity" vary from culture to culture... indicating that it is clearly not wholly a matter of biology. Just look at what was "masculine", what it was to be a "male" 100 years ago, or a "female", and look at it today... it is drastically different. If it was all biological processes, it should not change within one civilization so rapidly and so (relatively) uniformly.
What it means to be a man or woman is completely up to society to decide. There may not be a "female brain in a male's body", but there can certainly be a woman's.
Bold 2:
Yes, but categorizing for the sake for the sake of categorizing, for the sake of putting a little box on a paper, does not have any practical application. Again, in terms of medical reasons... have at categorizing for practical, scientific reasons. And if people want to self-identify as these categories, more power to them. The problem is that these categories go on to become social and cultural phenomenon that a member is obliged to follow unwaveringly lest they be ostracized... or is argued with and told, "No, you ARE ______, not what you say you are!" when they say they do not fit the box fully. That is where my problem lies... we put far too much emphasis on trying to describe what people are and aren't at the cost of ignoring what the individual says they are or aren't, which at the end of the day, only they know what is going on in their mind, no one else.
Bold 3:
By fluid I mean sexuality is a constantly changing beast in humans, and the spectrum basically puts three points on the line... gay-----bi-----straight ... and leaves no room for anything else. Likewise people can go from straight to bi, or gay to bi... or bi to gay, bi to straight, straight to gay, gay to straight. There are guy's who have had children, enjoyed that life... and then out of the blue get a divorce, marry a man and live happily ever after... Are they gay? Bi? Straight? When they were with wife, they enjoyed it... but now they are no longer interested in women and enjoy men. So if one's sexual preferences are able to be changed, then putting it into a concrete category like we do is simply pointless. And it doesn't include groups such as asexuals, demisexuals, and several other's whom's names are escaping me at this hour.
bold 4:
That's the problem; if we are using a continuum, for the purpose of putting people into boxes we have to say, "Close enough". That is one thing with colours to do, but an entirely different thing with living beings. To have practical boxes that moderately accurately define someone, we need to add about 1000 more boxes to get anywhere close to having enough "close enoughs" to justify it (in terms of sexuality or gender).
Closing statement:
I have to agree with Keat's statements in-so-far that, if he was referring to a living being then yes, it destroys both the beauty and makes people try to fit into boxes they aren't built for. At the end of the day people are simply too diverse to try to accurately define them in anything less than a 100,000 different boxes for them to tick... take 100 gay men from a city, you will have 100 different ways of expressing their gayness. Take 1000 women from a country, and you will have 1000 different ways of what it means to be a woman. Take 10,000 black men and you will have 10,000 different definitions of what it "is" to be a black man.
One's sexual preference, gender identification or race (especially race) tells us nearly nothing about an individual. I say especially race because even amongst "race" there are absolutely staggering cultural differences; I am 1/3rd Irish, 1/3rd Sicilian and then a mix of several Mediterranean cultures... I am mostly "white" with a little "brown/black" thrown in, but what does that mean? What does my "whiteness" tell you about me? The English are also of the same race, but vastly different socially from the Irish. I am Sicilian, and the culture (as well as ethnic heritage) is completely different from that of a Roman or Milanese... my background there has more akin to the Greeks and the Levant than Italy.
There is no benefit for me to tell you I am white or brown/black/whatever; at best it is meaninglessly vague and at worse a source to discriminate against me. There is no benefit to me telling you I am bi (unless I am trying to get into your pants or you possibly want in mine). There is no benefit to me telling you that I prefer several of the social constructs that are deemed to be "feminine" or "what it means to be a woman" more appealing and satisfying than the social constructs that, in my society at least, are deemed to be "masculine" and "what it means to be a man".
These are all meaningless and vague attributes used to separate us into "Group A's" and "Group B's" and bypass the individual human experience. And I say this as someone who, by America's highly individualistic standards, considers himself extremely group and community oriented... but I feel these groups should be one's you choose or are created through a shared social relationship, not arbitrary biological attributes that say nothing of a person. To classify someone by their skin colour is as pointless as classifying them by ear lobes, or nostril size, eye colour, hair colour, etc. ... it tells you nothing of the person.
Edit: and I will say this; I realize this is a topic that will be hard for me to come to an agreement with you simply because I'll be the first to admit my personality or brain is wired far more to value emotional and personal thought processes than more purely scientific or logic based thought that tends to be more prevalent. I try to see both Sides and accept them, but it doesn't necessarily click with me.
Quote from: mauricio on November 05, 2015, 08:16:08 PM
The thing is that unless you believe in substance dualism and believe in some kind of soul, your body is the one the configures the other two categories, how then does this work? The interesting part is how do they interact with each other.
I am simplifying. We have to, just that ... we can deal with numbers bigger than two. There are seven billion sexes/genders/orientations/preferences ... there is no such thing as species ... all categories are imposed from above by humans ... to make our life simpler. But as Einstein said ... make everything as simple as possible but no simpler! But your final question is a good one. Your first question tells me that you are a materialist, where the physical presence of a penis determines everything ... that the mind is simply the objective outcome of the body ... a secondary effect as it were. So a male body produces a male mind (but if that term is an over simplification?) aka there are no gay people etc. In effect the subjective doesn't exist? So don't call it mind or soul ... but the subjective, in principle, is separate from the objective. Then we can avoid the endless debate on what "mind" is.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 05, 2015, 09:21:27 PM
Uh, yes. If it wasn't for a social upbringing where that is highly discouraged there is a good chance that is what I would identify as.
They would be a male with a penis who identifies as a woman. As for anything more than that, it would be up to them to determine what they are. I don't believe with something like sexuality and gender you can just put them in a nice little box and say, "They are 100 percent THIS!". Which is where I have to slightly disagree with you, Baruch...
Straight, gay/lesbian, bi isn't necessarily accurate, since there are people who are of mixed sex... likewise there are pansexuals who the sex doesn't matter one way or another, demisexuals who are attracted to people whom they have deep emotional connections with, regardless of sex, asexuals and so on.
The same can go for gender, there are people who don't identify as male or female...
At the end of the day these titles are just trying to reduce an EXTREMELY complicated and diverse scale into three or four little boxes, and it just doesn't accurately work. And who are we to tell someone, "No, you're not what you claim to be... you most closely fit this box, so you are CLEARLY this box!" even when that box does not accurately describe them?
Why do we need to put people's sexuality or gender into an organized, cut-and-paste box, and why is that a harder idea to get one's head around (I mean that in the most unoffensive way, I promise...) than to believe we can just go around and label such an incredibly complex thing as one's gender or sexuality? When you put these labels on people then you are only limiting them from being who they really are, and that is never a good thing.
That's my two cents on it, anyways.
You are working at my post too hard ... and I am not implying hard boundaries (and I certainly didn't say so explicitly). I was simplifying ... just less simplifying than the norm. And yes, if we get into the details of hermaphroditism and gender dysphoria ... the nuances are endless. But I don't have that much time ;-) But to respond ... this is why I included 3 levels not two, in each of three distinctions ... and a final category for anything falling outside all of it. But DSM-5 it is not. Most folks can't stay gray-level ... though one can justify the ... no distinctions ... as a metaphysics ... at least in Buddhism. If we were all Buddhists, I would post differently. But for most, Linneaus is good for botany ... we can't simply say ... there are plants out there ... we want to say what kind of plant.
Objectivists (sometimes same as materialists) deny the existence of the subjective. This would be Behaviorism in psychology. Introspection can't be observed externally, therefore it is not objective, therefore it doesn't exist. This is where I see Mauricio implicating from. He has solved Descartes dualism of mind-matter to simply matter. There is no metaphysics, just physics. But that is another string for another time.
Since you self disclose, I can to. I am not entirely straight, but I am being entirely straight about this ;-) As far as the incomprehension of a person of one type for another, the elephant in the room is always male/female since it is the most common ... and we know how that discussion ends ;-) Basically it takes imagination, and anecdotal info from say ... a gay person, for a non-gay person to get their head around the other person's experience ... so that empathy can happen (on sex or anything really). And for most people, they don't even want to try to go there ... socially and in terms of their personal comfort zone. Know Thyself is ancient but really hard and scary to do. In the end Socrates knew he was a dead man.
Well done Mauricio. The argument in your original post,
Quoteit seems to me they (SJWs) just want to delegitimize certain concepts that are problematic for "equality"
makes perfect sense after reading other arguments in this thread. What clarified it for me was the implication that there are no significant innate behavioral differences between men and women. Muddy the water enough and you don't have to address the facts.
Seriously, well done.
Quote from: dtq123 on November 05, 2015, 10:38:53 PM
I've had bad experiences with both SJW and MRA. I don't fit anywhere, and I panicked, so don't mind me.
If you want a better reason, ask around. Someone ought to remember the exact thread that hit hard.
No worries. I'm not sure what exactly happened with you, but I've developed a dislike of SJWs as well, to include 3rd wave feminists and MRAs. They're divisive, promote a victim mentality within their groups, and push for supremacy of their own particular demographic at the expense of others. But what I dislike most is their obsession with censoring anyone who disagrees with them.
Addenda after having time to read more of the previous responses:
Race is an obsolete anthropological and legal construct. Is is no longer recognized as scientific, by current science, any more than phlogiston is. Advanced societies don't recognize it as a legal construct either, except here in the US we are still required or encouraged to state a self-identified ethnicity. And yes, this leave things open to Ms Dolezal, who identified as Black, regardless of her parents or some ethnicity police in the Black community. I like it when the form has the option "other" ... but I usually put down "white" ... because "jewish" is no longer a category to be listed ;-) A problem arises in the US, because certain ethnicities are categorized for "affirmative action" ... and making a false legal claim could get one into trouble. But then it would be up to a court to decide if you are truly a member of a particular ethnicity ... but this is a legal problem, not a scientific problem. So ultimately this is subject to politics, because it involves the law. In America we have a unique ethnicity problem as well ... to be a Native American ... you have to be recognized as such by the authorities of a legally recognized tribe ... you can't become a Native American by simply putting on feathers. And one can be sued by Native Americans in civil court ... for false representation as well (sort of like trademark infringement) ... no matte how much one may admire Native Americans.
Gender identification is fluid. But regardless of one's self identification, the status of "woman" is also a legal construct ... with legal advantages or disadvantages. This is why in the US a trans-sexual has to be legally declared to be so (pre-op or post-op) ... because all their legal paperwork has to change, though not necessarily their name. So ultimately this is subject to politics, because it involves the law.
Oh look, another argument that will ultimately go nowhere!
(http://i.imgur.com/vV4mtFs.gif)
Quote from: Baruch on November 06, 2015, 07:31:51 AM
Objectivists (sometimes same as materialists) deny the existence of the subjective.
Objectivism is a completely orthogonal philosophy from materialism and does not make the claim that subjectivity does not exist. Materialism also does not deny the existence of the subjective; it denies the existence of all substance but the material, but one of the core assertions of many materialists is that subjectivity is a construct of material beings â€" it exists, just not all on its own.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 06, 2015, 09:52:36 PM
Objectivism is a completely orthogonal philosophy from materialism and does not make the claim that subjectivity does not exist. Materialism also does not deny the existence of the subjective; it denies the existence of all substance but the material, but one of the core assertions of many materialists is that subjectivity is a construct of material beings â€" it exists, just not all on its own.
Yes, there is much overlap. I was struggling for the right synonym.
to shinaru, I got tendinitis can't respond in depth:
You are simply attaching to much baggage that does not necessarily follow. We need honest, unbiased and objective examination of this issues we cannot just try too sweep them away because they are difficult or makes us personally uncomfortable or because they can be hijacked for improper ends and much less should we try to obfuscate with rhetorical tricks like SJW do. That's the only way to understand who we truly are and stop wallowing on shallow assumptions and fuzzy, rhetorical and unscientific theories like some of what gender studies offer, that many times are also prone to being hijacked for political and other improper ends. At least objective theories of gender/sex/race would be more accurate.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 06, 2015, 09:52:36 PM
Objectivism is a completely orthogonal philosophy from materialism and does not make the claim that subjectivity does not exist. Materialism also does not deny the existence of the subjective; it denies the existence of all substance but the material, but one of the core assertions of many materialists is that subjectivity is a construct of material beings â€" it exists, just not all on its own.
this to me the mind emerges from the processes of the brain, but any change to the brain (actually the entire body) affects the mind, with no body there's no mind. That's what I mean by being a substance monist. There's no soulstuff, ectoplasm or super natural substances.
In Biopsychology class, many years ago, I watched a video about how thoughts and behaviors can alter hormone levels. The college may have just been sending us the message, "Don't act gay, and you won't be gay." After all, it was in Oklahoma. I haven't seen the study since.
I know I can pull out my "feminine" side at the drop of a hat. I don't know what would happen if I stayed there for days. I'm sure my GF would get tired of the experiment, despite her social attraction to homosexuals.
This article suggests we can evolve in our lifetime.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/your-thoughts-can-release-abilities-beyond-normal-limits/
Epigenetics suggests that we can pass on some of these changes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
BTW, I don't have a dog in this fight. These are just some observations. But, if you feel a need, come at me bro.
Quote from: mauricio on November 07, 2015, 01:50:46 PM
this to me the mind emerges from the processes of the brain, but any change to the brain (actually the entire body) affects the mind, with no body there's no mind. That's what I mean by being a substance monist. There's no soulstuff, ectoplasm or super natural substances.
Neurology ignores the EM fields in the brain ... but the folks taking the Electroencephalograms are paying attention. There are disjointed areas of expertise. I would say, be careful taking neurology whole ... since it only tells half the story. And one can define EM fields as substance if one wants ... but most people recognize that it is not a substance, even though it exists. Your radio is made up of substances, but the radio waves it taps into are not. One hundred years ago, this was sufficiently loosy-goosy that soulstuff was compared to radio. One has to make the migration from materialism to physicalism ... to exclude all mumbo jumbo. If you define physics to be all inclusive ... then by definition there is nothing outside of physics. But that leaves aside the question of ... what is physics (aka natural philosophy). For some this is QFT ... but I find that a bit fundamentalist ... I think that reality is more than a bubbly Heisenberg vacuum. And not all psychologists reduce psychology to biology, not all biologists reduce biology to chemistry, and not all chemists reduce chemistry to physics ... only the reductionists do.
Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2015, 07:41:01 PM
Neurology ignores the EM fields in the brain ... but the folks taking the Electroencephalograms are paying attention. There are disjointed areas of expertise. I would say, be careful taking neurology whole ... since it only tells half the story. And one can define EM fields as substance if one wants ... but most people recognize that it is not a substance, even though it exists. Your radio is made up of substances, but the radio waves it taps into are not. One hundred years ago, this was sufficiently loosy-goosy that soulstuff was compared to radio. One has to make the migration from materialism to physicalism ... to exclude all mumbo jumbo. If you define physics to be all inclusive ... then by definition there is nothing outside of physics. But that leaves aside the question of ... what is physics (aka natural philosophy). For some this is QFT ... but I find that a bit fundamentalist ... I think that reality is more than a bubbly Heisenberg vacuum. And not all psychologists reduce psychology to biology, not all biologists reduce biology to chemistry, and not all chemists reduce chemistry to physics ... only the reductionists do.
Have this great article that although not directly addressing this it clarifies some issues regarding this topic. For example it addresses the term reductionist and other related things to the mind stuff vs physiological stuff.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01100/full
also this video on why substance dualism fails.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS4PW35-Y00
If you are a Unified Field theorist (Einstein) or just a QFT enthusiast ... then of course there is no such thing as dualism ... there is the attempt of natural philosophy to achieve the monism that India has had for millennia. Reductionism is a bottom up monism. But top down monism is still an option ... and happens to be the one I sometimes take.
A note on metaphysics. Monism, dualism and pluralism are tools, not destinations. There is no one correct view ... one either has or not, the ability to look at things from more than one POV ... or able to empathize with the multiple POVs one will encounter with other folks. In my case I only use monism as a theory, for all practical purposes I am a pluralist (in the context of religious humanism).
Quote from: mauricio on November 04, 2015, 10:22:04 PM
So I was watching this young girl make this painfully stupid argument and it got me thinking. What is she trying to accomplish?
They're just putting their lack of education on display for the world to see. They're essentially Marxists and they're simply taking Marxist theories of class conflict and extending these to biological characteristics like race, sex, etc.
Race, sex, gender, etc are hard biological science backed up by evolutionary biology, so they're coming pretty close to flat out rejecting evolution in everything but name.
Basically they just don't like the perceived conclusions of evolutionary biology (such as innate cross cultural differences in male/female behavior, and minor physiological difference between races) even though conclusions such as racial or sexual "superiority" aren't actually backed by the science itself, so they're just rejecting the science - like a creationist rejecting evolution because he thinks it "explains away God" (even though it's possible to believe in evolutionary biology and still believe in a God to begin with; aka theistic evolution).
"Gender is a social construct... but being gay is genetic" - That right there sums up the stupidity of their arguments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WChwBGf05DA
SJWs are people who learn absolutely nothing from science. They are 100% idealogical, and if science doesn't fit their ideology, then they reject it flat out. If you dare to pick at the "science" in their arguments, they will shout and scream and get all their friends to attack you as well so that you cannot get two sane words across - and how dare you be such a monster for challenging their ideas! The Patheos website has an Atheism Channel, and one of the reasons why I stopped hanging out there was that it was awash with SJWs. They don't argue rationally - they pander, they victimize, they stamp their feet and they shout. Led by the likes of Rebecca Watson and lap-dog PZ Meyers, their association with rational atheism has been devastating for any movement to rationalize America, notably what the media has labeled "New Atheism".
informative response to the OP video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udLKnSDz0mM
Young people have to start somewhere. And it is impossible to start as anything more than ignorant. But there is an up side.
Quote from: Baruch on December 09, 2015, 06:50:12 PM
Young people have to start somewhere. And it is impossible to start as anything more than ignorant. But there is an up side.
indeed we are always partially ignorant, correction and refutation should be about sharing knowledge not demonization or "winning".
Quote from: mauricio on December 09, 2015, 06:55:26 PM
indeed we are always partially ignorant, correction and refutation should be about sharing knowledge not demonization or "winning".
Which is why I must opposed Josephpalazzo's recent denunciation of free speech. We can't get better if we demonize or go paranoid. And if some authority will only allow truth on the Internet ... who shall that be? Let the arguments continue, if some are uncomfortable with that ... they can hide under their beds.