Ask a Reactionary

[Borachio]

Matriarchal societies are very thin on the ground these days, though. Pretty much confined to the Tuareg and some Greek villages where all the men are at sea. And even those aren't really matriarchal.

Oh, and maybe the odd nunnery.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think that there have ever been any matriarchal societies, in the sense of a society in which women occupied the position of power held by men in a patriarchal society. Patriarchy has always required a level of physical and spatial domination which I don't really see how women could achieve given how pre-modern distributions of labour tended to work out.

There were certainly non-patriarchal societies, which you could reasonably describe as having had a matriarchal dimension in that older women could wield considerable authority, and that's really enough to leave Kaiserguard's speculations as to the natural superiority of men, but let's not overstate the case.

 

[Tahuti]

So you're saying that someone who is born biologically male, but who knows inside that they are female, should just deny who they are deep inside?

The only true option me thinks, is that the issues what causes individuals to feel mentally the other gender. I think that the key to solving such issues may be have to addressed at the level of society at large. Overall, attempting to change the mental status of an individual may be less drastic than modifying the body of that person to effectively render that person genderless.

Gender identity is partly biological but also partly cultural. It seems from what you're saying here that reactionaries are simply unaware of the vast field of gender studies. Is this correct?

Well, it is not well regarded. To be honest, we are partial against it, since we feel that the conclusions have been already made before it is researched, and these conclusions are made against us.

I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first. Why does it concern society as a whole?

Men and women have a different set of talents that have to be built upon from birth. Upon sex change, these talents become lost, and they can no longer be an effective asset to society as they were.

You need to be more specific: What did "female emancipation" triggered that you see as a decline of civilization?

I've tried word it carefully as to make sure I did not say female emancipation did directly cause decline of civilisation, however, what I did say is that it surely coincided. If it can be conclusively proven that it isn't related causually, I will not view such with the same concern or order of magnitude as I do know.

There were certainly non-patriarchal societies, which you could reasonably describe as having had a matriarchal dimension in that older women could wield considerable authority, and that's really enough to leave Kaiserguard's speculations as to the natural superiority of men, but let's not overstate the case.

I would actively deny that I am saying men are superior to women. Rather, I say they are a benefit to society in vastly different ways and this is a valid reason to treat them uniquely.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not sure what the practical difference is between "men are superior" and "men should be in charge of everything", but I'll take your word for it.

 

[Tahuti]

I'm not sure what the practical difference is between "men are superior" and "men should be in charge of everything", but I'll take your word for it.

Being in charge of everything is not the same as superiority. Being in charge also is a handicap in many aspects.

 

[Plotinus]

The only true option me thinks, is that the issues what causes individuals to feel mentally the other gender. I think that the key to solving such issues may be have to addressed at the level of society at large. Overall, attempting to change the mental status of an individual may be less drastic than modifying the body of that person to effectively render that person genderless.

But many researchers think there's good evidence that transsexuality is caused, or certainly part-caused, by biological factors, including genetics and prenatal circumstances. These aren't things that can be addressed at the level of society.

Well, it is not well regarded. To be honest, we are partial against it, since we feel that the conclusions have been already made before it is researched, and these conclusions are made against us.

What evidence is there that its conclusions are pre-judged in this way? Is it simply that reactionaries want them to be prejudged so they can dismiss them? Is this, in other words, a matter of just ignoring science when it doesn't fit one's own worldview?

Men and women have a different set of talents that have to be built upon from birth. Upon sex change, these talents become lost, and they can no longer be an effective asset to society as they were.

There are several issues here:

First, you're working with an extremely rigid notion of gender identity which places a vast gulf between men's abilities and women's, with apparently no possibility of overlap. This is obviously a misrepresentation of the truth, which is that while men and women may have - in general - different abilities, tendencies, personalities, and so on, the overlap between them is huge. It may be, for example, that in general men are better at political leadership and women are better at looking after children. (I stress the word "may" here.) But even if that's true, it obviously doesn't follow that any given man is superior in political leadership, and inferior in childcare, to any given woman.

That means that if somebody were to change from one sex to the other, they wouldn't simply lose their entire skill set and transform their personality, because there's so much that men and women share.

Second, you're working with, I think, a very odd understanding of what transgender people are. As I said before, they are not people who start off straightforwardly as men, decide they would prefer to be women, and have an operation to make it so (or the other way around). They are people who already identify, inside, as the preferred gender. They already have whatever skills, talents, personality tendencies, and so on that are particularly associated with the preferred gender. They undergo rigorous psychological counselling and testing to ensure that this is the case before any medical procedures take place.

It puzzles me that you don't realise this, given that this is consistent with your own very rigid demarcation between the sexes. If it were really true that men and women think in different ways and have different brain chemistry, then an operation on your genitals and a course of hormones would be unlikely to make much difference. But if for some reason your brain was more like that of the other gender than that of your own, obviously you would feel disconnected from your gender and from your own body and regard yourself as the other gender in reality. And that's exactly how transgender people do feel.

Third, even if it were true (and it isn't) that undergoing gender reassignment surgery somehow changed a person's personality such that they lost key traits associated with the birth gender and acquired key traits associated with the target gender, how would this inconvenience society? Society would lose an individual with one set of traits and gain one with the other.

Fourth, even if it were true (and it even more clearly isn't) that undergoing gender reassignment surgery somehow changed a person's personality so that they lost key traits, that person would also gain the self-esteem and confidence associated with identifying, for the first time, with their body and their role in society. They would thus become a more productive member of society, not less.

So to put this in question form: do you really think that (say) a person who has the body of a man but who knows, deep down, that he is really a woman, who instinctively thinks like a woman and has a fundamental desire to play a female role in society, is better off being forced to look and act like a man? Do you think that that individual will be happier? Do you think society will be better off? Do you think, for example, that his wife and children will be happy, or that a family can flourish if one of its members is effectively forced to live his whole life as a lie? And do you have evidence for your answers to any of those questions?

 

[Tahuti]

What evidence is there that its conclusions are pre-judged in this way? Is it simply that reactionaries want them to be prejudged so they can dismiss them?

Name a couple of researchers of gender. Chances are, they sound familiar and they have already voiced in opposition against values reactionaries hold dear.

Is this, in other words, a matter of just ignoring science when it doesn't fit one's own worldview?

First of all, gender studies is not a full science. Its claims are not empirically falsifiable. This may be true for my views as well, yet I make no pretense that I am advancing science here.

Second, as much as I disagree with Karl Popper on pretty much his entire political philosophy, my views on science are pretty much Popperian. Science is about disproving things. Science is not on record of disproving claims of reactionaries that make reactionaries reactionary. The earth is obviously not just 6000 year old, since that notion is scientifically disproven by the existence of objects that are clearly older. However, the earth may be older than 6 billion years. As per the Hindu counterpart of creationism, it may be much and much older than that. This claim hasn't disproven yet. As a scientific 'fact', that we know the earth is probably 6 billion years old is because we have exhausted most of the other possibilities, not all of them. Nor is science like maths where 'proofs' are here to stay, as these can be disproven once proof of the contrary has been found.

So yes, I think we - and any political ideology and life attitude for that matter - has a right to question science as long as its doesn't cling to notions that are disproven.

So to put this in question form: do you really think that (say) a person who has the body of a man but who knows, deep down, that he is really a woman, who instinctively thinks like a woman and has a fundamental desire to play a female role in society, is better off being forced to look and act like a man? Do you think that that individual will be happier? Do you think society will be better off? Do you think, for example, that his wife and children will be happy, or that a family can flourish if one of its members is effectively forced to live his whole life as a lie? And do you have evidence for your answers to any of those questions?

I do not envy the position of such individuals. A male would-be transgender may never become as male as naturally born males, but I maintain this would be even more so compared to the sex he would change to. Transexualism may be an understandable for those that have an atypical gender at birth (hermaphrodites for instance), where sex change could bring a more definitive sexual identity, but I otherwise see it as an unnecessary and socially destructive degrading of an otherwise perfectly fine body.

 

[Senethro]

I do not envy the position of such individuals. A male would-be transgender may never become as male as naturally born males, but I maintain this would be even more so compared to the sex he would change to. Transexualism may be an understandable for those that have an atypical gender at birth (hermaphrodites for instance), where sex change could bring a more definitive sexual identity, but I otherwise see it as an unnecessary and socially destructive degrading of an otherwise perfectly fine body.

Why do you think you know better than doctors? What has your ideology got to do with medical treatment?

 

[Tahuti]

Why do you think you know better than doctors? What has your ideology got to do with medical treatment?

I do not consider this to be medical treatment, nor do I claim to know better than doctors.

 

[Senethro]

I do not consider this to be medical treatment, nor do I claim to know better than doctors.

Many doctors think it an appropriate treatment in some circumstances. What business does your reactionary society have interfering between doctor and patient? What evidence do you have access to about harm caused that you are not sharing with the medical profession?

 

[Tahuti]

Many doctors think it an appropriate treatment in some circumstances. What business does your reactionary society have interfering between doctor and patient? What evidence do you have access to about harm caused that you are not sharing with the medical profession?

I do not claim to offer evidence, though I offer an perspective. Psychiatry is not 100% scientific either, nor are the criticisms against it, yet it doesn't prevent from giving insights that can be significant.

 

[Senethro]

The practice of psychiatry is most definitely an applied science, its just unfortunate to be a field that is still waiting for better diagnostic and investigative methods.

So are you openly admitting that your "perspective" is as evidence based as the Jehovah's Witness aversion to blood transfusions?

 

[Tahuti]

So are you openly admitting that your "perspective" is as evidence based as the Jehovah's Witness aversion to blood transfusions?

Jehovah's Witness believe that blood contains the soul and that blood transfusions risk changing the fundamental character of that person. I personally do not believe this, but it is based on spirituality, whereas my views on transexuality and psychiatry are not religiously inspired and rather based on naturalistic arguments. That said, that this opinion is echoed by religions rather feels as a vindication.

 

[Senethro]

Stop being a miser with your knowledge. If you know harm is being caused then say how or acknowledge that you are an awful misanthrope for keeping it secret.

 

[luiz]

Being in charge of everything is not the same as superiority. Being in charge also is a handicap in many aspects.

Even if you believe men are in average more fit to "be in charge", to make this an absolute position is silly. Individuals show an enormous level of variance, so even assuming that your premise is true, some women are bound to be more fit to "be in charge". I don't see how anyone could question the leadership credentials of say Golda Meier or Margaret Thatcher, whatever their politics may be.

 

[luiz]

Stop being a miser with your knowledge. If you know harm is being caused then say how or acknowledge that you are an awful misanthrope for keeping it secret.

Even if you feel that his positions are odious just insulting him will hardly contribute to debate...

 

[Tahuti]

Even if you believe men are in average more fit to "be in charge", to make this an absolute position is silly. Individuals show an enormous level of variance, so even assuming that your premise is true, some women are bound to be more fit to "be in charge". I don't see how anyone could question the leadership credentials of say Golda Meier or Margaret Thatcher, whatever their politics may be.

In the case of supreme political leadership - as unexpected as you may find it - I'd say this isn't an absolute proposition. Supreme leadership often requires to people be skillfull diplomatic negotiators, and this is definitely more a women's thing, at least quite often.

However, supreme leadership often requires military skill and is intimately tied to is as well and female warriors are extremely rare, let alone female commanders. There is a reason why the position of hunters in hunter-gatherers were exclusively male, and male dominance in the military and politics is a result of that.

 

[luiz]

In the case of supreme political leadership - as unexpected as you may find it - I'd say this isn't an absolute proposition. Supreme leadership often requires to people be skillfull diplomatic negotiators, and this is definitely more a women's thing, at least quite often.

However, supreme leadership often requires military skill and is intimately tied to is as well and female warriors are extremely rare, let alone female commanders. There is a reason why the position of hunters in hunter-gatherers were exclusively male, and male dominance in the military and politics is a result of that.

Even if 99% of the best military commanders were male, there's no good reason to exclude the 1% of females.

And anyway, a modern President-PM-King doesn't really have to understand military tactics.

 

[Tahuti]

Even if 99% of the best military commanders were male, there's no good reason to exclude the 1% of females.

I agree. However, one has to note that most succesful historical female military commanders often were entrusted to such positions by persuasion or by noble birth, which does not necessarily make them inferior commanders.

And anyway, a modern President-PM-King doesn't really have to understand military tactics.

I agree here as well.

 

[Traitorfish]

However, supreme leadership often requires military skill and is intimately tied to is as well and female warriors are extremely rare, let alone female commanders.

Male warriors are rare in agrarian society. Most men don't come anywhere near a war, and if they do, it's as conscript soldiers or at most volunteers, not as "warriors" in any meaningful sense. Settled societies in which the typical adult male has any substantial degree of military skill or experience are very rare, and generally found in contested frontier regions, not the sort of place which tends to give rise to today's political leadership.