Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Gay Tony

Gender & Sexuality

Recommended Posts

sivispacem

Gender has got nothing to do with the biological sex of your partner, though. That's a ridiculous assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

He's getting at the heart of the issue there. Not being able to conform to gender norms or expectations doesn't really make you a different gender (or it shouldn't). I always thought that being transgender was more about your inner identity and less about gender roles.

I don't agree with a lot of these norms but I am perfectly comfortable identifying as male. Some people aren't and I don't think that we've been able to explain exactly why that is (medically).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Gender identity is a social and cultural construct. It is indeed a personal identity thing, but it has nothing to do with the sex or gender identity of your parter- the entire notion of it being anything to do with sexuslity is completely absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

I don't agree with a lot of these norms but I am perfectly comfortable identifying as male. Some people aren't and I don't think that we've been able to explain exactly why that is (medically).

 

There is a lot of science into the biology of gendered atributes, and there is a whole lot known about it. Noone who actually takes seriously scientific research thinks gender is entirely a social construct. Those who claim gender is entirely a social construct do so purely out of ideology. If gender is a social construct, then why do transgenders take hormones? It's just completely ridiculous.

 

The issue is that people don't like to see biological aspects and causes of gender identity. That's not a fashionable idea, and to work on that idea is incredibly taboo. In the 1970's there was a lot of controversy about a scientist of the university of Leiden who theorized about the biological causes of crime, and there was a vast amount of outrage and threats aimed at him until he was eventually forced to quit. Apart from that, those at the gender department are open about their postmodern contempt for science.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

If gender is a social construct, then why do transgenders take hormones?

Not all of them do. The requirement to boil down questions of gender identity into wholly incorrect categorical statements like this simply reinforces the notion of it being a subjective construct.

 

 

In the 1970's there was a lot of controversy about a scientist of the university of Leiden who theorized about the biological causes of crime

This, and the wider assertions about the veracity of what is often simply scientific racism, are entirely untenable. There's been a huge amount of entirely uncontroversial research into biological drivers behind certain kinds of behaviour. Usually, scientific research is controversial amongst scientific peers because it's laughable sh*te, not because it's taboo. Especially in the 1970s, when systemic racism was still rife across much of Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

You see when you say stuff like this its clear where your criticisms come from. What does this have to do with feminism? Feminists are the ones baring the brunt of PC gone mad, and the ones with the clearest criticisms of it. You blame women specifically for this trend even though it's primarily used to silence them.

 

Where I live, the important feminists in academia actually publicly claim they consider veiling women a symbol of emancipation, which is a completely insincere and idiotic PC thing to say. If they really thought veiling was emancipation, they would wear one. But it is just pandering to and paternalizing another culture out of the idea that the more you believe in collective guilt, the more morally enlightened you are. And really, you should stop the rhetoric that these fundamentalists represent all women, and that me opposing specifically them reflects what I believe about women in general. These ideologues don't represent all women, but they are radicalizing a lot of young women into their ideology, sure. Exactly with the type of collectivist rhetoric you use in almost every post. The idea that radfems represent women as a monolith as another example of that.

It would have made more sense for you to say 'leftists' since this doesn't come specifically from feminism. You would have really been correct if you'd said 'liberals.' So you are blaming women. You view this as a problem created by women.

 

Those same liberals also argue that prostitution and BDSM are empowering, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. It's PC gone mad, but again, its used primarily to attack women, not to help them so it's completely ridiculous to frame this as feminists forcing postmodernism on the rest of us.

 

 

 

Well, maybe if we wouldn't be taught to hate ourselves and our culture so much, we wouldn't feel as much a need to steel from other cultures.

This goes right back to orientalism. It isn't a recent thing.

 

 

 

But I don't think you are arguing that we should rebuild a strong pride for the history of Western culture and civilization. Which is really what we should do. The current political climate and the election of Trump can be seen as a crisis in Western culture.

The idea that we hate our own culture is based on literally nothing. I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

 

 

I think if you are so thin skinned that you can be deeply offended by some white kids being silly, that you should really get your priorities, and your feelings, in check. Apart from that, I think people really tend not to give a sh*t about it, and that these are mainstream media fabricated bullsh*t narratives to distract people from that which is meaningful.

When white-only clubs designed for rich kids to garner business connections throw regular 'border patrol' parties, that is something to take them to task on. When a bus full of frat boys chant 'there will never be a ni**er in A&E' that is something to take them to task on. Fraternities are pretty sinister organisations, honestly. White, boogie rape clubs.

 

 

 

They are generally the younger generation, which should worry us all. It's worrisome that there is a political polarization and radicalization going on.

I've already conceded that this is partially responsible for the alt-right. It's not responsible for Trump though, or the rise of the likes of Pegida. It is laughable to claim otherwise.

 

 

 

I can only say what I believe, and that is not that I think that "one social class should collectively adapt to service another". What I think is that our intent should be to provide equality of opportunity, and not equality of outcome. People should be rewarded based on merit.

That is not how the system operates in any way shape or form. When you say 'equality of opportunity' what you mean is 'the chance for social mobility' hence social classes, hence one collectively adapting to service another. Liberalism is a rationalisation for Capitalism.

 

 

 

But jealousy of those who are successful corrupts your soul as well.

The rich are not 'successful' they are the hugest f*ck ups in human history. Literally everything they do is an unmitigated disaster. I am not 'jealous' so much as I am utterly failed by the institutions which govern me.

 

 

 

My issue is really when the analysis of power becomes psychology, and then becomes hatred and bias against every single individual based on their skin colour. You won't end bigotry by being one. And you won't end bigotry by parading with how much you hate yourself either.

Yeah no you literally just consider any cultural analysis to be PC gone mad. I don't need to relearn how to love my white skin. I also still don't see how I hate my own culture. If anything I consider Western culture to be highly advanced, obviously.

 

 

 

 

 

But apart from that, you are confused. Identity politics is exactly a collectivist psychology of hatred.

No it is you who is confused. You are literally trying to argue that postmodernism is not inherently liberal. Then what does the term liberal feminism mean?

 

Noone who actually takes seriously scientific research thinks gender is entirely a social construct. Those who claim gender is entirely a social construct do so purely out of ideology.

Yeah I mean the famous study by Smith and Brown 1992 totally proved once and for all that women wear make up because of the pink glittery part of their brain. If you take science seriously you will not point out the magical thinking involved in all of this.

 

If anyone operates out of ideology, it is gender essentialists, trans activists included. It goes beyond ideology and becomes a religion.

 

If gender is a social construct, then why do transgenders take hormones? It's just completely ridiculous.

Because that is how society responds to their gender non-conformity. They are a nail that sticks out, and so we hammer it flat. Better to alter peoples' bodies than accept that men can be sensitive and women can be assertive, lest we have to question our religious devotion to patriarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dyspoid

How do you guys define gender? Do you conceptualise it as the collective roles and ideas surrounding the identity of a man or a woman, or do you see it as the self-concept of a person?

 

The assertion that it is purely a social construct may not be a suggestion taken lightly by those in the trans community - those who believe that despite being born with a certain appendage, that they are truly a man or a woman. The flip side of this idea is that the child is born and is subsequently conditioned to become a male or female as defined by the world around them.

 

Were they born into the wrong body, or were they placed into the wrong box?

 

My understanding is that it is a little bit of both. There are trans people who were born as men but are undoubtedly women.

 

A more complex argument, in my opinion, is the existence of other genders - those purported to fit outside of male, female and trans (even though this, technically, fits into m/f).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Sex is the defined, unequivocal physical characteristics, effectively defining whether an individual is male or female.

 

Gender is the social and cultural parallel to this; it is subjective and individual. It's a question of identity separated from the physical aspects of sex; the "truly" that you refer to in relation to transgendered individuals isn't one of biology but of identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

If gender is a social construct, then why do transgenders take hormones?

 

Not all of them do. The requirement to boil down questions of gender identity into wholly incorrect categorical statements like this simply reinforces the notion of it being a subjective construct.

 

 

But a lot of them do, and if you knew any transgender personally who is taking hormones, they could personally tell you it affects personality and identity. If they had no effect, people would not take them, or be advised to take them. The fact that we can't completely reduce the subjective life experiences of individuals to scientific categorical truths, doesn't 'reinforce the notion of it entirely being a subjective construct'. The world is complex, and the absolute notion of the social construct and humans as tabula rasas is a reductionist notion to simplify the world. But human beings are not tabula rasas. That is scientifically false, no matter how inconvenient this falsity is to the political ideals and wishes some people have.

 

This, and the wider assertions about the veracity of what is often simply scientific racism, are entirely untenable. There's been a huge amount of entirely uncontroversial research into biological drivers behind certain kinds of behaviour. Usually, scientific research is controversial amongst scientific peers because it's laughable sh*te, not because it's taboo. Especially in the 1970s, when systemic racism was still rife across much of Europe.

 

You contradict yourself within the first two sentences. In the first sentence you claim looking into the biological aspects of criminal behaviour is 'untenable and scientific racism'. Then you go on to assert there is 'uncontroversial research into biological drivers of behaviour'. Maybe you should clarify.

 

So you are blaming women.

 

No, I'm not. But you are an ideologue who thinks criticizing feminists or ideas entertained by feminists is hate speech and heresy, so I wouldn't expect you to understand that I'm criticizing ideas and not genders.

 

This goes right back to orientalism. It isn't a recent thing.

 

Which indicates how you think kids dressing up in silly costumes is related to systemic oppression and colonialism, which it is not. But the fact that you think those acts are strongly related is because of a totally deranged ideological lense.

 

The idea that we hate our own culture is based on literally nothing. I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Well, the issue in my opinion arises due to the fact that people at the gender department think you can't speak highly of the cultural and material wealth Western philosophy and science have provided us with, without asserting Western culture to be 'superior' and without legitimizing colonialism or other forms of oppression. And because of that, they think the moral thing to do is characterizing the entire history of Western thought as sinful, shameful, racist, sexist, etc.. And to an extent this is reasonable, because we've made a lot of moral progress over time, and a lot of horrible acts have been comitted on the basis of bad ideas originating from Western culture. But what is lacking is a degree of respect for the thinkers and scientists who have made our lives so much better, in stead of just hating on them as shameful people who perpetuated oppression. There's a lack of respect for the objectivity of empirical scientific research, or the ability it has had to improve our living standards. It's a lack of balance, and it is an overly aggressive self hatred and sense of shame.

 

That is not how the system operates in any way shape or form. When you say 'equality of opportunity' what you mean is 'the chance for social mobility' hence social classes, hence one collectively adapting to service another.

 

We currently live in sort of an aristocracy, where success to a large degree is based on unearned wealth and privilege. I think that is where we'll find common ground. What I'm going to disagree with you on, is that the idea of those with good work ethics and talent being rewarded for that is fundamentally oppressive and sinful, and that everyone has to be rewarded equally regardless of what they contribute. I think that's a very bad idea.

 

Yeah no you literally just consider any cultural analysis to be PC gone mad.

 

No, not at all. And Western thought probably needed the extreme self criticism it has received to revitalize and improve. What I think is 'PC gone mad', is when you only care about how what is said makes other people feel, in stead of the actual intention and meaning of what was said. 'PC gone mad' is the idea that we should shield people from controversial, or possibly immoral, ideas, to protect their fragile psychological health, which is the opposite of what cognitive behavioural psychology advises. It is the intention to censor ideas you do not find desirable, without being willing to consider whether they are truthful. It's a type of closed minded fascism that rates feelings as more important than truth.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

if you knew any transgender personally who is taking hormones

What makes you think I don't?

 

The fact that we can't completely reduce the subjective life experiences of individuals to scientific categorical truths, doesn't 'reinforce the notion of it entirely being a subjective construct'.

The fact you can't reduce life experiences and emotional viewpoints to categorical scientific truth absolutely makes them subjective constructs. We are, after all, discussing fundamentally personal and subjective concepts here.

 

Maybe you should clarify.

 

Certainly. You asserted that analyses of biological factors and their contribution to phenomena such as crime are controversial as scientific theses, but in actuality they're only actually controversial when they're unmitigated pseudoscientific bollocks, normally racism badly dressed up as science. Do you have any evidence that this alleged 1970s academic was vilified by the scientific community because the subject was taboo, as opposed to his research being utter horsesh*t?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

The fact you can't reduce life experiences and emotional viewpoints to categorical scientific truth absolutely makes them subjective constructs. We are, after all, discussing fundamentally personal and subjective concepts here.

There is scientific knowledge about how hormones actually affect interests. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/

 

There is substantial evidence that exposure to androgens prenatally influences children’s sex-typical toy, activity and playmate preferences. A consistent research finding, for example, is that girls who were exposed to high levels of testosterone prenatally, because of CAH, show increased male-typical toy preferences, playmate preferences and activity interests. These effects have been seen in studies conducted in a number of different countries in North America and Europe and using various methodologies, including interviews, questionnaires and direct observation of behavior (See Table 1). The results of these studies are consistent with the hypothesis that prenatal exposure to androgens influences the development of children’s sex-typical toy, activity and playmate preferences. Evidence from situations where women were prescribed hormones during pregnancy for medical reasons also support a role for androgens prenatally in the development of children’s sex typed interests. Children whose mothers took androgenic progestins during pregnancy show increased male-typical or decreased female-typical behavior, and those whose mothers took anti-androgenic progestins show the opposite outcome.

None of this is scientifically very controversial, except among a new wave of ideologues in the gender university department who disregard science. And none of this is a claim that we can comprehensively understand the subjectivity of individual people on the basis of scientific findings. All it is is proof that human beings like all other animals have strong innate tendencies and instincts. It's just proof that we are not outside the realm of nature, like any reasonable person would accept.

 

 

but in actuality they're only actually controversial when they're unmitigated pseudoscientific bollocks, normally racism badly dressed up as science. Do you have any evidence that this alleged 1970s academic was vilified by the scientific community because the subject was taboo, as opposed to his research being utter horsesh*t?

It wasn't specifically the scientific community threatening and demonizing him (Wouter Buikhuisen). It was a range of politically engaged intellectuals and activists, who were absolutely enraged by the idea that there might be innate factors to criminal behaviour. A few years ago the university actually accepted him again and he lectured once more about biological causes of behaviour. He's not a scientific racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

None of this is scientifically very controversial, except among a new wave of ideologues in the gender university department who disregard science.

I'm really struggling to understand what you're trying to say here. Nobody is arguing that there aren't physical or biological factors which drive or influence emotion, personal identity et cetera. This does not preclude them from being fundamentally subjective.

 

It wasn't specifically the scientific community threatening and demonizing him

Then I'm not really sure what your point is, or was. You were complaining about academia being the driving force behind "anti-scientific" ideas, as an attempt to whitewash legitimate research because it was considered taboo. So is it or isn't it academia?

 

On that subject, I'd like to go back to your earlier assertion that many regarded feminist academics view the veil as a sign of emancipation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr quick

There are two biological genders

 

There's no such thing as biological gender. Would it kill you to read more than the OP(which itself is on the same level of superficial & inaccurate analysis)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

I'm really struggling to understand what you're trying to say here. Nobody is arguing that there aren't physical or biological factors which drive or influence emotion, personal identity et cetera. This does not preclude them from being fundamentally subjective.

 

But it does preclude them from being entirely subjective. We have a scientific understanding of them, which is objective. So a part of our understanding of gender is scientific and objective, and another part can come from cultural analysis which would be less 'objective'.

 

Then I'm not really sure what your point is, or was. You were complaining about academia being the driving force behind "anti-scientific" ideas, as an attempt to whitewash legitimate research because it was considered taboo. So is it or isn't it academia?

 

It's both. Academics are not politically neutral, and especially in the 70's many were highly invested in the idea of human nature as a blank slate. Nowadays we have people like this in academia too:

 

 

 

But decisive in the demonization and ruination of Buikhuisen's career were activists and columnists in leftist magazines.

 

On that subject, I'd like to go back to your earlier assertion that many regarded feminist academics view the veil as a sign of emancipation?

 

I found several written pieces stating that: "we shouldn't view the veil as a symbol of oppression", "women should be allowed emancipation in their own way", "we should ban public displays of the female body like lingerie adds, and the veil is an act of cultural criticism against such adds". I also remember a comment about how we shouldn't criticize the veil in a class I followed from one of the feminists who wrote these pieces. It might be false though that she said it was emancipation, I can't remember exactly, but she did consider it 'an act of cultural criticism' with which she sympathizes. All of these are in Dutch though, so even if I linked these pieces you couldn't really read them. Any Dutch person reading this can easily find them with a google search though. It's just very sad though to see leftists opposing religious criticism these days.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twang.

 

 

 

 

but in actuality they're only actually controversial when they're unmitigated pseudoscientific bollocks, normally racism badly dressed up as science. Do you have any evidence that this alleged 1970s academic was vilified by the scientific community because the subject was taboo, as opposed to his research being utter horsesh*t?

It wasn't specifically the scientific community threatening and demonizing him (Wouter Buikhuisen). It was a range of politically engaged intellectuals and activists, who were absolutely enraged by the idea that there might be innate factors to criminal behaviour. A few years ago the university actually accepted him again and he lectured once more about biological causes of behaviour. He's not a scientific racist.

 

Suppose this guy's theory is correct, and there is a genetic link to crime, and it's linked to a specific racial group. What then? Would there then be exceptions made to the law so that some people are excused from crimes because they're genetically pre-disposed to it? Or would it be used to justify mass hate crimes and, like eugenics before it, lead to atrocities and attempted genocide? Would a person born with this disposition be marked by the government and monitored for their entire life?

 

I don't see any possible positive outcome of such a discovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twang.

 

On that subject, I'd like to go back to your earlier assertion that many regarded feminist academics view the veil as a sign of emancipation?

 

I found several written pieces stating that: "we shouldn't view the veil as a symbol of oppression", "women should be allowed emancipation in their own way", "we should ban public displays of the female body like lingerie adds, and the veil is an act of cultural criticism against such adds". I also remember a comment about how we shouldn't criticize the veil in a class I followed from one of the feminists who wrote these pieces. It might be false though that she said it was emancipation, I can't remember exactly, but she did consider it 'an act of cultural criticism' with which she sympathizes. All of these are in Dutch though, so even if I linked these pieces you couldn't really read them. Any Dutch person reading this can easily find them with a google search though. It's just very sad though to see leftists opposing religious criticism these days.

 

It's not like this would be the first time in history that a symbol of oppression was re-appropriated as a symbol of strength. Like how black people re-appropriated the n-word and made it in to a symbol of racial solidarity. If a Muslim woman should choose to wear one after being liberated, that should be her choice. I'd ask you if those pieces you read were written by Muslim women. If not, yeah that's annoying, but otherwise it's not our place to tell them how to interpret their religious traditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

But it does preclude them from being entirely subjective.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "subjective". It does not come in degrees; something either is or it isn't. The moment anything moves away from pure empiricism and becomes reliant on individual thought, feeling or emotion, it becomes subjective. There being biological factors which allow you to estimate with a reasonable degree of accuracy what the conclusion of this may be does not contradict this, nor has anyone claimed it would.

 

 

I found several written pieces stating that: "we shouldn't view the veil as a symbol of oppression", "women should be allowed emancipation in their own way", "we should ban public displays of the female body like lingerie adds, and the veil is an act of cultural criticism against such adds"

So you (apparently) found several written statements that...don't actually correlate with the claim you made, but you've decided to allude to them anyway?

 

 

It might be false though that she said it was emancipation, I can't remember exactly, but she did consider it 'an act of cultural criticism' with which she sympathizes.

So the whole thing could well just be bunk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

Suppose this guy's theory is correct, and there is a genetic link to crime, and it's linked to a specific racial group. What then? Would there then be exceptions made to the law so that some people are excused from crimes because they're genetically pre-disposed to it? Or would it be used to justify mass hate crimes and, like eugenics before it, lead to atrocities and attempted genocide? Would a person born with this disposition be marked by the government and monitored for their entire life?

 

I don't see any possible positive outcome of such a discovery.

 

It's important for the process of rehabilitation to understand that different people have different innate tendencies. Noone is born a criminal. But psychological malfunctioning can cause different symptoms depending on your innate tendencies. If you want to help people better, it's a good step to start understanding them better. But the fact that you have innate tendencies that make you inclined to certain types of psychological responses, doesn't prove you have no free will or responsibility.

 

I'd ask you if those pieces you read were written by Muslim women.

 

They weren't.

 

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "subjective". It does not come in degrees; something either is or it isn't. The moment anything moves away from pure empiricism and becomes reliant on individual thought, feeling or emotion, it becomes subjective. There being biological factors which allow you to estimate with a reasonable degree of accuracy what the conclusion of this may be does not contradict this, nor has anyone claimed it would.

 

I've never said gender is 'objective in degrees' though that would be accurate. What I said was that we have objective knowledge about gender.

 

But really, objectivity and subjectivity do come in degrees. Psychology is more subjective than physics, but more objective than literary criticism. The discussion originated in my point that gender was not entirely a social construct, but that we have objective empirical knowledge about gender. So gender is not just a social construct, it is also nature, and natural science. So the idea that it is entirely subjective is simply false.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

What I said was that we have objective knowledge about gender.

Which nobody fundamentally disagrees with. This does not preclude gender identity from being g a subjective construct.

 

But really, objectivity and subjectivity do come in degrees. Psychology is more subjective than physics, but more objective than literary criticism.

I think you're conflating two different ideas here. The fact that some disciplines have greater empirical and scientific weight behind fundamental tenets does not make the aspects of these disciplines which are subjective any less so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

 

If gender is a social construct, then why do transgenders take hormones?

 

Not all of them do. The requirement to boil down questions of gender identity into wholly incorrect categorical statements like this simply reinforces the notion of it being a subjective construct.

 

 

But a lot of them do, and if you knew any transgender personally who is taking hormones, they could personally tell you it affects personality and identity. If they had no effect, people would not take them, or be advised to take them. The fact that we can't completely reduce the subjective life experiences of individuals to scientific categorical truths, doesn't 'reinforce the notion of it entirely being a subjective construct'. The world is complex, and the absolute notion of the social construct and humans as tabula rasas is a reductionist notion to simplify the world. But human beings are not tabula rasas. That is scientifically false, no matter how inconvenient this falsity is to the political ideals and wishes some people have.

People are not tabula rasas, this does not mean that social phenomenon- which are specific to systems and circumstances that didn't exist when our brains evolved- are the direct and unavoidable result of specific markers. The reason people tacitly support tabula rasa is because biology is used to explain away our socially constructed conditions.

 

Have you been following Freddie DeBoer on twitter?

 

 

 

No, I'm not. But you are an ideologue who thinks criticizing feminists or ideas entertained by feminists is hate speech and heresy, so I wouldn't expect you to understand that I'm criticizing ideas and not genders.

Its not that you aren't allowed to criticise feminists. Since you are referring to liberal feminists- who I oppose- I'd be inclined to agree if the criticism is true. You are blaming feminists specifically for a broad trend on the left, because everything is women's fault. 'Cultural appropriation' is not a feminist concept.

 

 

 

Which indicates how you think kids dressing up in silly costumes is related to systemic oppression and colonialism, which it is not. But the fact that you think those acts are strongly related is because of a totally deranged ideological lense.

"Will work for beer and weed" are you daft? Organisations famous for excluding PoC regularly hold parties where they dress up as Mexican stereotypes and border patrol agents. This is not something 'white kids' do I would never in a million years be invited to one of those parties because I do not know anybody that mind numbingly stupid. What if they had a ghetto party where they all dressed up in hip hop gear and held signs saying 'will suck dick for crack rock'?

 

Could you see your friends holding such a party?

 

 

 

Well, the issue in my opinion arises due to the fact that people at the gender department think you can't speak highly of the cultural and material wealth Western philosophy and science have provided us with, without asserting Western culture to be 'superior' and without legitimizing colonialism or other forms of oppression. And because of that, they think the moral thing to do is characterizing the entire history of Western thought as sinful, shameful, racist, sexist, etc.. And to an extent this is reasonable, because we've made a lot of moral progress over time, and a lot of horrible acts have been comitted on the basis of bad ideas originating from Western culture. But what is lacking is a degree of respect for the thinkers and scientists who have made our lives so much better, in stead of just hating on them as shameful people who perpetuated oppression. There's a lack of respect for the objectivity of empirical scientific research, or the ability it has had to improve our living standards. It's a lack of balance, and it is an overly aggressive self hatred and sense of shame.

Yeah like just the other day I was praising Karl Marx and someone told me I'm only allowed to praise black people.

 

What you're saying is not a thing, but I will concede is that people attach too much importance to being white. You don't have to 'unlearn racism' the way you have to unlearn liberal and patriarchal logic. I've definitely never seen any evidence that white people have ingrained biases against non-black PoC. You kind of either hate asians or you don't.

 

 

 

We currently live in sort of an aristocracy, where success to a large degree is based on unearned wealth and privilege. I think that is where we'll find common ground. What I'm going to disagree with you on, is that the idea of those with good work ethics and talent being rewarded for that is fundamentally oppressive and sinful, and that everyone has to be rewarded equally regardless of what they contribute. I think that's a very bad idea.

Well, where do these extra rewards come from? The market place? I am not opposed to some people getting more, hence the mantra is 'from each according to ability, to each according to need' and not 'from each the same to each the same.'

 

 

 

No, not at all. And Western thought probably needed the extreme self criticism it has received to revitalize and improve. What I think is 'PC gone mad', is when you only care about how what is said makes other people feel, in stead of the actual intention and meaning of what was said. 'PC gone mad' is the idea that we should shield people from controversial, or possibly immoral, ideas, to protect their fragile psychological health, which is the opposite of what cognitive behavioural psychology advises. It is the intention to censor ideas you do not find desirable, without being willing to consider whether they are truthful. It's a type of closed minded fascism that rates feelings as more important than truth.

Considering I get literal death threats for being insufficiently pro-trans I'd say I agree. But you are casting too wide a net. Honestly if you consider me a perpetrator of this trend rather than a victim, you should take stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dyspoid

Sex is the defined, unequivocal physical characteristics, effectively defining whether an individual is male or female.

 

Gender is the social and cultural parallel to this; it is subjective and individual. It's a question of identity separated from the physical aspects of sex; the "truly" that you refer to in relation to transgendered individuals isn't one of biology but of identity.

So, by this logic, are you suggesting that there are no innate psychological or cognitive constructs that give rise to or influence gender? Most species of organism have different behaviours based upon sex - it is not necessarily learned - its pre loaded.

 

If we were to create a society within a laboratory and populate it with infant boys and girls free from socialised ideas, norms and behaviours - would the social construct of gender differ that wildly to the society we have today?

 

While I do think we would see significant variations to what we conceptualise to be the gender roles and attributes of men and women, I cannot argue that they would be wildly different. My belief is that sex and biology are the primary influence between the construction and reinforcement of gender roles.

 

Tldr; I agree with most of the things you are saying - I just don't know if it is possible for gender identity to be completely removed from sex.

Edited by dyspoid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I'm not saying that biological factors don't influence social and cultural identity, just that gender roles are fundamentally social and cultural constructs. As for your "infant society" question, without the indoctrination of societal gender identities and with no external I don't think you'd see a replication of current social identities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

if we were to create a society within a laboratory and populate it with infant boys and girls free from socialised ideas, norms and behaviours - would the social construct of gender differ that wildly to the society we have today?

 

You would get a laboratory full of psychologically damaged people, but you might not get much useful information out of the result. Many human innate capacities need external stimulation to develop. The fact that they don't develop without stimulation doesn't at all mean they are not innate.

 

I just don't know if it is possible for gender identity to be completely removed from sex.

 

It's not. And for example many people in social science or feminists will tell you that the type of toys kids play with is a social construct, but they ignore the fact that sex-typical toy behaviour is mostly biologically determined, and that isn't very controversial scientifically.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

sex-typical toy behaviour is mostly biologically determined

Care to cite some evidence for this assertion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

That study doesn't even come close saying that sex-typical toy behaviour is mostly biologically turned. "Substantial evidence of influence" is the direct quote. You really should try and avoid misleadingly paraphrasing things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

Yes, and the evidence is so substantial that sex-typical toy behaviour is mostly biologically determined. Hormones have a determining influence on what people are interested in. I don't have to phrase my ideas in a way to please you personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Yes, and the evidence is so substantial that sex-typical toy behaviour is mostly biologically determined.

That's not the conclusion reached in the report you cite. By rewording it to suit your own views, you completely distorted the actual meaning and rendered what would have otherwise been a pretty good response complete nonsense.

 

If you're going to cite academic reports, don't try reinterpreting their conclusions unless you're a subject matter expert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

I'm not reinterpreting anything at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Yes you are.

 

Rather than repeating the handy conclusion present in the first line of the quote, you decided to write your own which is fundamentally different. At this point you're simply arguing white is black; I've quoted the actual conclusion and your "interpretation" of it, so it's plainly obvious to anyone who cares to read that they're different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.