- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,858
Theoretically I could be elected as the Pope.
Please refrain from engaging in absurd and insulting hypotheticals.
[RD] Gender is a social construct.
- Thread starter TruePurple
- Start date
- Status
Theoretically I could be elected as the Pope.
Please refrain from engaging in absurd and insulting hypotheticals.
Physics is anthropomorphic, so in that regard also not "an inherent truth of the universe". It's a very tall order to seek something in human thought or picked up through the senses, which can be said to be universal - as in transcending the merely human.
I think the OP is also about the various issues rising from having a need to secure some distinctions as more important than others, when they are made of literally the same material. It can happen in some orders of thought, but only if those are set axiomatically (eg math), and certainly cannot be established in sociology or general reflections on society and constructions there.
One may well be of the view that their belief system or way of thinking about x, is preferable to the one some other has. They can even be right, in some cases. But it's not enough if they expect it to be replacing the other due to inner value, since it remains a belief system and view - just one about things very dear to the person.
Zardnaar
Deity
It's not that much of a leak. Legally here you can identify as whatever races there no "blood" requirement.
So philosophically transracially is similar to trans sequel legally here there's very little difference.
Socially you might get laughed at though. You can get adopted into a Maori iwi their hapu becomes yours afaik. Self identifying as Maori may matter for college admissions for example has few other benefits.
White Maori and American Maori exist though. Went to school with both so it's not that hypothetical.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,858
No that is blatantly and insultingly untrue. You even contradict yourself in your own post.
There are legal requirements in order to be legally recognised as Maori - either an ancestry requirement or general acceptance in the community (that other Maori people recognise you as Maori). I know this because we have similar requirements in Australia.
Do you know why our governments have these policies, Zardnaar? Because our government tried to exterminate the indigenous peoples of Australia and New Zealand by forcibly moving their children to white families and not telling them about their ancestry! Demanding that indigenous people have proof of their ancestry when said proof was gleefully destroyed by Australian and New Zealand governments would be a continuation of said genocidal policy.
So sure, if Cloud_Strife migrated to New Zealand and somehow gained acceptance as Maori despite having (as far as I am aware) no Maori ancestors she would legally be recognised as Maori. But it would never happen! It is a frankly a deeply racist and offensive hypothetical to engage in, one that makes light of the incredible crimes committed by our people against the indigenous peoples of our nations. You should feel ashamed for making light of these things.
I cannot imagine that your former colleague would appreciate being described as a "white Maori".
Narz
keeping it real
Gender is. Sex isn't. My dick might be a mental construct in the mind of my lover but its really there.
Zardnaar
Deity
Ethnically he was white. Illegitimate, his mother married a Maori Ngai Tahu iwi. His stepfather adopted him.
He didn't self identify as Maori earlier in life legally he was one. Last I heard he married into money and was involved in some sort of Ngai Tahu business stuff, millionaire, details elude me (mum died 5 years ago no more gossip).
PM: People Can Self-identify As Māori
“According to the Prime Minister, whether someone is Māori or another ethnicity is up to them”, says ACT Leader David Seymour. “I asked Chris Hipkins in Parliament whether I would be considered Māori for the purposes of receiving healthcare. He ...
www.scoop.co.nz
So basically on the census you can identify as Maori or whatever.
Then later you refer back to the census for proof.
It doesn't get you tribal grants but could get you access to Healthcare etc. You do not have to provide proof nor do they ask for it.
My wife technically has Maori ancestry she doesn't identify as Maori. Great great grandfather or something similar.
I might have Maori ancestry or Polynesian. Father claimed Polynesian, I can't prove it and don't know that side of family nor identify with it.
Census asks if I'm European I don't identify as European so tick the other box. I can't remember and missed previous census.
How to tell if you’re Māori
Let us hook you up to this machine and we’ll have your results in no time...
thespinoff.co.nz
Stuff
i.stuff.co.nz
Barbarian northern hemisphere types.
One of my D&D players today is white Maori. Passes as white, Mother is Maori and he is registered Ngai Tahu and qualifies for tribal benefits as well.
In America he would be white, he identifies as Maori and legally is one.
Been friends coming up 20 years
.
Last edited:
MPorciusCatoCivver
Chief Windbag
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2023
- Messages
- 311
At the risk of sounding excessively reactionary, but let me give you first these spoilers: a) I'm not an American b) I'm not a liberal, but decidedly anti-liberal c) I'm against the Enlightenment.
I am a fan of Alexander's Dugin's take on his regard and like his theories. Even if you think the Russian state is overdoing itself in Ukraine, the Russians are not perfect but they have produced plenty of geniuses. But Dugin said that the state of Western postmodernism inevitably leads to moral, intellectual, social self disintegration. And that it represents the most infantile, degraded state of cosmology and ontology since man's beginning.
Take Plato and Aristotle, who were once at the root, the pillar of Western philosophy: man has a fundamental physical nature, but he has also a deeper ontological, "spiritual" nature. As in "spiritual", is closely tied to the way his beigness, his objective functioning as a being who also possess a nature that is fundamentally irreducible to his mechanical parts, functions. Aristotle call this "being qua being" or "to on", while Plato calls this the "nous". Both of them posited that the science of being - or ontology, metaphysics - is an objective, rigid science.
When you destroy that, when you disfigure that, when you change that, you limit yourself to destroying man's physical nature, but his being remains unchanged. What he "is", as opposed to the superficial aggregate of the mechanical parts that make up for his physical body, remains the same. Because you cannot fundamentally reduce him to his mechanical parts, or even posit that things like his mind, his intentionality (Brentano would say the same), or even other things are fundamentally reducible or even capable of being explaned down to mere mechanical interactions in his brain, as opposed to being a fundamentally less known aspect of his own reality.
Thus by simply reassigning man's gender physically, or a woman's gender physically, you have not changed the way he is, only the makeup of his body. The result is varying, but what you have is perhaps a man clothed in a woman's body, but I am still a pragmatist and am not going to say that such gender re-assignment does not occur in specific circumstances.
But this pertain exclusively to sex, as to what pertains to "gender", in postmodern parlance, first of all reality is objective. Men and women have been created so, and they manifest themselves as man and woman with different natures, different roles, different essences and natures. You cannot mix up both.
I am a fan of Alexander's Dugin's take on his regard and like his theories. Even if you think the Russian state is overdoing itself in Ukraine, the Russians are not perfect but they have produced plenty of geniuses. But Dugin said that the state of Western postmodernism inevitably leads to moral, intellectual, social self disintegration. And that it represents the most infantile, degraded state of cosmology and ontology since man's beginning.
Take Plato and Aristotle, who were once at the root, the pillar of Western philosophy: man has a fundamental physical nature, but he has also a deeper ontological, "spiritual" nature. As in "spiritual", is closely tied to the way his beigness, his objective functioning as a being who also possess a nature that is fundamentally irreducible to his mechanical parts, functions. Aristotle call this "being qua being" or "to on", while Plato calls this the "nous". Both of them posited that the science of being - or ontology, metaphysics - is an objective, rigid science.
When you destroy that, when you disfigure that, when you change that, you limit yourself to destroying man's physical nature, but his being remains unchanged. What he "is", as opposed to the superficial aggregate of the mechanical parts that make up for his physical body, remains the same. Because you cannot fundamentally reduce him to his mechanical parts, or even posit that things like his mind, his intentionality (Brentano would say the same), or even other things are fundamentally reducible or even capable of being explaned down to mere mechanical interactions in his brain, as opposed to being a fundamentally less known aspect of his own reality.
Thus by simply reassigning man's gender physically, or a woman's gender physically, you have not changed the way he is, only the makeup of his body. The result is varying, but what you have is perhaps a man clothed in a woman's body, but I am still a pragmatist and am not going to say that such gender re-assignment does not occur in specific circumstances.
But this pertain exclusively to sex, as to what pertains to "gender", in postmodern parlance, first of all reality is objective. Men and women have been created so, and they manifest themselves as man and woman with different natures, different roles, different essences and natures. You cannot mix up both.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Cool so we're at the "trans women are just men" stage of bigotry itt
MPorciusCatoCivver
Chief Windbag
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2023
- Messages
- 311
Postmodernism has a nice way of calling stuff, though, and I know it. When you want to bury your head in the sand and destroy 3000 years of Western and non-Western ontological discourse, you just call it "bigotry", lol.
You forget that outside the realm of the Westernized horsehockylib, to apply such labels is itself "bigoted" and wrong. It's a form of liberal reductionism, in which you seek to apply liberal postmodern forcefully by a subtle, self-victimizing form of cultural imperialism. The Chinese call it "baizuo".
You forget that outside the realm of the Westernized horsehockylib, to apply such labels is itself "bigoted" and wrong. It's a form of liberal reductionism, in which you seek to apply liberal postmodern forcefully by a subtle, self-victimizing form of cultural imperialism. The Chinese call it "baizuo".
Narz
keeping it real
I think the Buddhists have a better grasp on reality when they deny a consistent self exists entirely.
The me that is at the gym participating in this sad modern excuse for social interaction between sets, and high off caffeine is not the same self that I'll be at 7pm tonight.
If you alter your body physically and your brain chemistry via hormones you will become a different person (both internally and in the way others see you). Biologically you are the same sex but you certainly won't be the same person. Your brain and body will likely still be closer to your original state than if they'd be if your fetus had developed as the opposite gender but I support people's right to do whatever tf they want w their bodies and minds as long as they aren't hurting others.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
I don't care how you try to justify or repackage your anti trans views, im telling you what it is, if you can't handle your beliefs put into practice then you shouldn't enter the conversation
Narz
keeping it real
You speaking to me or different post? I just said I supported your rights so must be cross post
Cloud_Strife
Deity
X post
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Forgot to address this, dude the existence of trans people, or what we understand trans people to be, predates this, but keep burying your head and pretending like you aren't advocating harmful rhetoric against us when you equate trans women to men
amadeus
burning out his fuse out here alone
I didn’t say social constructs weren’t real, I would just be wary of how we classifying things as natural as opposed to artificial, which seems to be the inference I make from the term “social construct.”
MPorciusCatoCivver
Chief Windbag
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2023
- Messages
- 311
I'm going to avoid giving value judgments. I'm not here to judge who you are personally, but rather to express my views in a broad, impersonal, generalistic way.
No on the next objections:
"If you alter your body physically and your brain chemistry via hormones you will become a different person (both internally and in the way others see you). Biologically you are the same sex but you certainly won't be the same person. Your brain and body will likely still be closer to your original state than if they'd be if your fetus had developed as the opposite gender "
I'm not a Buddhist, and I don't care.
For one, post-Enlightenment discourse has fundamentally obliterated itself first by postulating matter as a sort of sine qua non of objectivity first, then going beyond this and reducing itself to a massive, infantile solipsism of Homeric proportions, as in "you do what you want so long as you want it". It's a natural broad state of dissolution.
Ontological facts have an objective grounding.
And for the same reason, your materialistic arguments are void and shallow if I just throw in a bit of Brentano in the mix. But Brentano was just quoting Aristotle and his disciples who said the same thing for 2000 years:
a) intentionality is a process that fundamentally grounds the mind, and cannot be reduced to any sort of mechanical interaction between its parts.
That's why a machine is not a man. That's why most robots need human interaction, and most AI is dumb, dumb dumb and also needs humans firing it up. Because such constructions, even when they try to mimic the superficial physical aspects of man's intellect, fall short of having any intentionality. They're therefore like dolls, or strawmen, but not real human beings.
No on the next objections:
"If you alter your body physically and your brain chemistry via hormones you will become a different person (both internally and in the way others see you). Biologically you are the same sex but you certainly won't be the same person. Your brain and body will likely still be closer to your original state than if they'd be if your fetus had developed as the opposite gender "
I'm not a Buddhist, and I don't care.
For one, post-Enlightenment discourse has fundamentally obliterated itself first by postulating matter as a sort of sine qua non of objectivity first, then going beyond this and reducing itself to a massive, infantile solipsism of Homeric proportions, as in "you do what you want so long as you want it". It's a natural broad state of dissolution.
Ontological facts have an objective grounding.
And for the same reason, your materialistic arguments are void and shallow if I just throw in a bit of Brentano in the mix. But Brentano was just quoting Aristotle and his disciples who said the same thing for 2000 years:
a) intentionality is a process that fundamentally grounds the mind, and cannot be reduced to any sort of mechanical interaction between its parts.
That's why a machine is not a man. That's why most robots need human interaction, and most AI is dumb, dumb dumb and also needs humans firing it up. Because such constructions, even when they try to mimic the superficial physical aspects of man's intellect, fall short of having any intentionality. They're therefore like dolls, or strawmen, but not real human beings.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
That doesn't change the fact that you still see me essentially as a deluded man in women’s clothing, a position entirely at odds with treating trans people with any sort of decency or dignity, that you've written a nice little philosophical spiel to justify your internal anti trans rhetoric is neither here nor there
Narz
keeping it real
Doesn't matter whether you're Buddhist, the point is that their view is a more accurate view of reality than some fundamental unchanging self/soul
Cloud_Strife
Deity
He genuinely thinks he knows better about trans people's identities than they do, it's breathtaking arrogance
Narz
keeping it real
We're all subject to cause and effect.
You're as much as a doll as an AI program just w different wiring (as is everyone). To think otherwise is just a defense mechanism based on religion (superstition/philosophy). Your thoughts process is like the rain falling or wind blowing.
- Status
Similar threads
