[RD] Gender is a social construct.

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

As for what actually pertains to sex and gender, let me say. Human beings are not machines, they're not causally constricted by some necessity dictated by impersonal laws. There's actually big paper on this, because human beings have freedom while machines do not, materialism is false.

Human beings are not computers or machines. This debate then slides into what really "nature" is about, according to Plato and Aristotle: ontology. Ontology. Ontology. What is the fundamental ontology of man and woman. That's the question. Without it, you're simply left with nothing. Even theological assumptions and arguments can get in, provided we get rid of the biggest theological assumption which is "hey we're just a machine". No we're not. That's not our real nature. And biology can only go as far, but it cannot answer ontological questions.

So the answer is: can we simply reprogram ourselves. Well I denied that. We cannot simply assume that by "reprogramming" ourselves, we've changed ourselves. That's my original argument. If you just rearrange a man to look like a woman, it's a man that looks like a woman and nothing else, but that's another, deeper, harder debate.

 

[NinjaCow64]

There's actually big paper [sic] on this,

By whom? Link?

This debate then slides into what really "nature" is about, according to Plato and Aristotle: ontology. Ontology. Ontology. What is the fundamental ontology of man and woman. That's the question. Without it, you're simply left with nothing. Even theological assumptions and arguments can get in, provided we get rid of the biggest theological assumption which is "hey we're just a machine". No we're not. That's not our real nature. And biology can only go as far, but it cannot answer ontological questions.

Okay, lets assume for a moment that your ontological framework is true.

Can you disprove that I am ontologically a nonbinary person? How can you disprove the existence of ontological genders that don’t conform to the simple binary? Likewise, if this ontology is not connected to gender then why can’t people who aren’t ontologically connected to their biology and wish to change it exist?

I’m going to bed so I won’t have the chance to try and remind you to stay on topic. I would appreciate it if you could answer this directly so I can respond to it in the morning.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

"By whom? Link?"

Here: https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/conseqs-of-materialism

"
Note that humans do not normally seem to be random systems. If they were, their limbs and head would move randomly in all directions; in addition, there could be no concentration of thinking, for instance when doing some arithmetic calculation. Not even plants are random: there is clearly a developmental sequence of each one. Locally, it may seem that a plant presents randomness, e.g. the choice of where a new branch or a new leaf will appear on a branch with many leaves.

A nondeterministic biological system is self-determined if, being in a state, something non-physical inherent to the system can choose a certain transition among various nondeterministic transitions that can be made from that state."

That's what I always told when I said "read Brentano". There's no way to prove that intentionality and the mind are physical. There's absolutely no proof of it. This paper actually instantiates that yet again, it is precisely the fact that we're nondeterministic that is abudant evidence that we have a non-material nature.

As for proving and disproving stuff in the ontological ground, lemme first think of this: all truths are in principle ontological truths. So the way you define "binary" and "nonbinary" ontologically determines the way you view gender, but lemme say this: by defining stuff in the classic mould, as "man" or "woman", you're also at the same level without the same contamination brought about by the philosophical confusions of gender studies, post-modernism and so on.

But let's get to the final, most important remark: by studing ontology according to classical philosophy, or even theologically, you're essentially doing stuff at the same level that gender theorists do when they posit silly stuff like "nonbinarity" and so on. It's the level of ontological speculation. We have not moved an inch since the Greeks on this stuff. So according to my own mind, it's better to stick with the tried and tested, than with the sily stuff that po-mo theorists concoct out of their navels.

Lemme also conclude that's there's some secondary, important, peripheral biological evidence to what I mean. The XY cromossome never changes and stays the same. But that's just secondary evidence. What I'm saying is that on the many grounds before we even reach biology, it's intelligent to conclude that most gender theorists are talking fantasies and speculation. That they have no way to tell if gender changes, for instance, occur.

It's enough that we discredit them, without trying to explain or actually do what they're trying to do ourselves.

 

[Gorbles]

So according to my own mind, it's better to stick with the tried and tested, than with the sily stuff that po-mo theorists concoct out of their navels.

So you're essentially admitting this is a preference-based argument r.e. what you choose and don't choose to entertain?

I have to say, I appreciate cutting to the heart of the matter like this. Most folks spend a lot longer than a page or two dancing around it.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Okay I lied about going to bed

post-modernism

As I have repeatedly stated, I am not a post modernist because from my understanding post modernism and Marxism are incompatible.

Do you even understand what post-modernism is? You keep using that word incorrectly.

So the way you define "binary" and "nonbinary" ontologically determines the way you view gender, but lemme say this: by defining stuff in the classic mould, as "man" or "woman", you're also at the same level without the same contamination brought about by the philosophical confusions of gender studies,

You can’t just dismiss gender studies out of hand like that. You have to refute it first.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

So you're essentially admitting this is a preference-based argument r.e. what you choose and don't choose to entertain?

I have to say, I appreciate cutting to the heart of the matter like this. Most folks spend a lot longer than a page or two dancing around it.

There are ways of defining man and woman objectively according to philosophy. And nothing else. Simply pretending we have advanced on this stuff by reducing everything to simplistic mechanistic, "computer", analogies and reductions is wrong. It is just theology in another face.

So what you're saying is that some folks, prefer what is trendy and fashionable, while others prefer a more philosophically rigid, concrete, tried and tested, "conservative" approach. Yeah, but hey, just because you prefer what is trendy, fashionable and recent does not mean you're intellectually more sound. On the contrary.

 

[NinjaCow64]

But let's get to the final, most important remark: by studing ontology according to classical philosophy, or even theologically, you're essentially doing stuff at the same level that gender theorists do when they posit silly stuff like "nonbinarity" and so on. It's the level of ontological speculation. We have not moved an inch since the Greeks on this stuff. So according to my own mind, it's better to stick with the tried and tested, than with the sily stuff that po-mo theorists concoct out of their navels.

If you aren’t going to even attempt to engage with the subject matter of this thread seriously then why even post? I think that refusing to entertain challenges to your moral framework is far more pretentious than anything a post-modernist has ever done.

Why do you want to turn this thread into a thread on your pet topic instead of making your own thread?

And besides there have been many cultures that have existed longer than western civilisation that have accepted third genders. Perhaps we should look to them if time is the only thing that matters, no?

There are ways of defining man and woman objectively according to philosophy.

Oh really? Do it then. Define man and woman objectively according to philosophy.

And you better not refer to biology in your explanation, as you said that that didn’t matter for the definition of gender earlier in this post here:

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.

I find the idea that you can define man and woman objectively according to philosophy laughable but hey you said you could do it. So you should do it.

Now I am really going to bed!

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Yeah I'm going to the heart of the matter.

Gender studies is not a "science". I refuse to believe that. It's just speculation.

As for post-modernism, well, even though Marxism still tries to stick with 19th century view of things, many Marxists today slide into post-modernism. Intersecting with gender studies is one of the semi-unconscious ways.

The point is, I'm not attempting to be post-modern. I could play a Heidegger, and say everything is just ontotheology or whatever, but cutting to the essentials, there's problem of those who think they have left the Middle Ages behind only to fall into a new sort of theology.

Progressivism is just as much a theology as high Church Catholicism and whatever so there's no difference. There's no difference. Like I said, we haven't moved a lot since the Greeks.

But yeah that's all. Let people believe in their own theologies. lol

That's not a question of off topic deviation, but simply saying that's it's important to know where truth is before we begin debating it. And many people who're into the po-mo cannabis simply miss the point.

 

[Gorbles]

Yeah, but hey, just because you prefer what is trendy, fashionable and recent does not mean you're intellectually more sound.

Of course.

On the contrary.

But likewise, this is also bunk. Just because something is old or established in some distant era, doesn't mean it holds true forever.

I refuse to believe that.

And we're back to non-objective, non-philosophical preference again.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Lol mmkay.

But yeah gender studies is still a fantasy. So I'm off now. Mission accomplished lol.

 

[Narz]

And many people who're into the po-mo cannabis simply miss the point.

I never heard of that strain

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Well I'm just gonna say this: some trendy people will try to deny it, but when people start to debate gender studies and take conclusions off of it, it just looks a lot like people studying and arguing theology in the first place.

I know the philosophical debate sounds a bit off-topic, but nonetheless I think it was important. It was stated here that you cannot prove anything philosophically, when on the contrary I showed that everything that everybody takes for granted here is philosophical. But let's settle on that.

Gender studies can be considered a "science" inasmuch as you consider theology a "science". In the end, it's all about the theology you choose to believe.

 

[TruePurple]

If trans people enforced gender norms then then those most deeply invested in upholding gender norms would not be violently trying to suppress trans people.

Just because the words of two sides rhyme, doesn't mean they aren't bitter enemies. Protestants and Catholics or Sunni and Shai are two examples where groups of people have positions similar to each other than most of the rest of the world yet long history of conflict. A atheist might still have issue with such groups imposing their religion of whatever flavor.

There are places in the world where homosexuality and acting outside gender norms can get you jailed or killed. But do have some allowance(not general social acceptance, just less bigotry and illegality) for people transitioning to the gender they behave as, since the important thing to them is the gender norm traditions. A "male" acting like a "female" should, is a serious problem to some. If you can declare yourself and "transition" to "female" and act like a "female", you are much less of a challenge to gender norms. I even watched a YT by a trans person on this very topic though I was generally aware of this kind of thing before.

I missed making this reply/point earlier. I'm not going to read other posts or reply for awhile so this post isn't buried in my own replies to other people or conversations about other aspects of this. Don't worry, I'll eventually read and reply to your post, probably.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Human beings are not computers or machines. This debate then slides into what really "nature" is about, according to Plato and Aristotle: ontology. Ontology. Ontology. What is the fundamental ontology of man and woman. That's the question. Without it, you're simply left with nothing. Even theological assumptions and arguments can get in, provided we get rid of the biggest theological assumption which is "hey we're just a machine". No we're not. That's not our real nature. And biology can only go as far, but it cannot answer ontological questions.

Do we get to include cats, dogs, dolphins, crows and hyenas into this? Sex, sexuality, gender and choice seem abundant almost everywhere we look.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

Actually I got into this thread incidentally. Yeah sure I presented my view strongly, but then I veered off then tried to get on topic and justify myself later.

I don't hold much interest in this. And like 75% of people esp. outside the US and its ultra-liberal spaces, I think Gender Studies is garbage.

"Choice" is an interesting word. Not always making a choice is moral, and besides morality is not a social construct or some projection of the mind; actually, I'm pretty much conservative, and I believe that morality has an objective existence.

We do not base ourselves and our morality on just individual pragmatism alone. But rather, we must ask ourselves if what we do is objectively moral? I'm religious, is this moral according to my own religion? Is this in tandem w/ natural law?

But I'm a radical, an anti-liberal, and so on. I think the US is contaminated with a certain ultra-liberal infantility, which results in a sort of narcissistic individualism and an utilitarian hedonist mentality trumping everything else and dominating people's perspectives too much. As in, we've fallen too much into the naturalistic fallacy, and we've forgotten anything besides our own convenience when deciding what's moral and what's not. But then I'm not interested in debating this or preaching some sort of social gospel on the internet, and like I said I pretty much entered here incidentally but now I'm leaving.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Actually I got into this thread incidentally. Yeah sure I presented my view strongly, but then I veered off then tried to get on topic and justify myself later.

I don't hold much interest in this. And like 75% of people esp. outside the US and its ultra-liberal spaces, I think Gender Studies is garbage.

"Choice" is an interesting word. Not always making a choice is moral, and besides morality is not a social construct or some projection of the mind; actually, I'm pretty much conservative, and I believe that morality has an objective existence.

We do not base ourselves and our morality on just individual pragmatism alone. But rather, we must ask ourselves if what we do is objectively moral? I'm religious, is this moral according to my own religion? Is this in tandem w/ natural law?

But I'm a radical, an anti-liberal, and so on. I think the US is contaminated with a certain ultra-liberal infantility, which results in a sort of narcissistic individualism and an utilitarian hedonist mentality trumping everything else and dominating people's perspectives too much. As in, we've fallen too much into the naturalistic fallacy, and we've forgotten anything besides our own convenience when deciding what's moral and what's not. But then I'm not interested in debating this or preaching some sort of social gospel on the internet, and like I said I pretty much entered here incidentally but now I'm leaving.

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

 

[Birdjaguar]

@MPorciusCatoCivver Thanks for participating and do join into other less provocative threads.

 

[Zardnaar]

You get that the examples you provided are infinitely more nuanced than the “If you can trans your gender than why can’t you trans your race? Checkmate liberals.” bull that reactionaries like to give out yeah?

I'm not making that argument but the liberals opened the door to that argument. Social construct is just a way to say how society functions.

We don't use that term here but functionally we already have trans race here. We just don't use stupid American culture war BS and legally race isn't about skin colour. Ratherthan argue about 1 drop rule 1% or ancestry it's more or less up to you what you identify as.

What until you meet a Maori Scottish nationalist who supports the SNP. Don't abuse it don't be an ******* fairly simple concept.

 

[TruePurple]

Maybe we should avoid the word "liberal" as it has a very wide diverse interpretation spectrum. Especially with how mericans take the meaning compared to the rest of the world.

Like my take of the biggest meaning of "liberal" is pro-capitalist. If people don't have anything close to a mutual understanding of what a word means, it becomes problematic to use it.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don’t really get why trans racial is so verboten. I can see cases where someone has lived among a group of people for a long time and accepted as a member. And race is more of a social construct than gender and certainly than sex.

Happened here in 19th century various people here "went native" joined a Maori iwi, got moko and lived in their culture and lifestyle took Maori wives.

Maybe we should avoid the word "liberal" as it has a very wide diverse interpretation spectrum. Especially with how mericans take the meaning compared to the rest of the world.

Like my take of the biggest meaning of "liberal" is pro-capitalist. If people don't have anything close to a mutual understanding of what a word means, it becomes problematic to use it.

We get told words are constantly evolving though and can mean different things. Once again liberal argument.

American liberal basically means progressive anywhere else.