WritersBeat.com
 

Go Back   WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table

The Intellectual Table Discussions on political topics, social issues, current affairs, etc.


Gender Fluidity and Linguistic Grounding

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 10-20-2017, 03:42 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Online)
Profusive Denizen
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 284
Thanks: 3
Thanks 34
Default Gender Fluidity and Linguistic Grounding


Contraindications of Gender Fluidity Via Linguistic Grounding



Of late it has become fashionable to opine that gender is a social construct and that it is in reality an infinite gray scale referent to the infallible individual claim. Biologically gender refers to whether or not an animate object displays male or female physical characteristics. The fad today however has replaced that definition with the grammatical definition, where classifications of gender are arbitrary.

The inherent supposition in this is that meaning is not prelingual. But this falls apart in countenance of the mute.

Gender in its traditional (or if that word is taboo then its biological) sense is not to be thought a bias when it occurs worldwide, sporadic acknowledgments of more than the binary subsets notwithstanding, and have been dominant in all history.

The spectrum itself is fallacious in that its referent is subjective. A cathedral upon a takyr. It leans on hearsay, that say of the individual claimant without evidence and contrary to evidence. Here the mind is totally disassociated of the body yet paradoxically it is the mind making a claim upon the body. Even subjective matters refer to objective objects. A person who dislikes turmeric does not negate another's fondness for the spice, a person who dislikes cumin cannot dislike cumin without acknowledging its existence.

It may do well at this point to compare different biological systems so as to shed light on the gender spectrum as it is understood today by the activist community where it concerns transgenderism. I believe it would be beneficial to contrast the emotional spectrum to the biological spectrum, binary though it may be. Preempting instantiations of deceit, we can broadly categorize the universal emotions: Happiness, fear, disgust, anger, sadness. All recognizable on sight, barring any impairment upon the perceiver, our ability to identify them has developed concurrently with them since the evolution of sight in the Cambrian. Certainly there are permutations of each, hence ambivalence, but it would be a satanic hubris to designate an individual so special as they can lay exclusive claim to an emotional state. This would either elevate the individual above the rest or lower all others. Egality would be abolished in that single experience and the individual would be bestowed carta blanche in action as his reasons would be to the vast majority inexplicable. He would be god.

The members of each dichomatic division within a species have developed, as emotions developed, the means to identify the opposite sex. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if this very second we all lost the ability to differentiate between male and female. Think of all the fruitless attempts at procreation (enjoyable though it may be) but which would create true distress upon those who wished to procreate but could not understand the reason for their sterility. This is not an extreme either. Extreme in the scenario but not in the underlying and explicit presuppositions of a gender spectrum predicated upon the individual exclusive to all other factors. If a world where men cannot tell a man from a woman or women a man from a giraffe seems ludicrous it is because on some level we all have an innate, instinctual understanding of biology instantiating itself, if not in consciousness, then in impulse and the evidence of this is the continual propagation of all species.

This is not an argument against those who suffer gender dysphoria. Its a real enough disorder but one cannot pretend that it is so prevalent as to warrant linguistic disruption or even review. High concentrations of the disorder on college campuses leads one to believe that either the water is tainted or that this is a fad.


Last edited by bluewpc; 10-20-2017 at 08:02 PM.. Reason: Edit 1: removed 'an' before 'objective'
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-20-2017, 06:27 PM
Gaines's Avatar
Gaines (Offline)
Samuel Johnson, obviously!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tidepool
Posts: 6,944
Thanks: 1,454
Thanks 864
Default

To extrapolate out the above premise one could ask the question does this theory of gender dysmorphia explain the sudden change of Bruce into Kaitlyn Jenner or is it a knee jerk reaction to him having been stuck in that mansion surrounded by all that estrogen and designer womens wear?
__________________
"Show me a hero and I will write you a tragedy." Fitzgerald
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-20-2017, 06:29 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Online)
Profusive Denizen
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 284
Thanks: 3
Thanks 34
Default

Flip a coin and roll some ox bones your guess is as good as the haruspice's
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-20-2017, 07:54 PM
eripiomundus (Online)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 421
Thanks: 29
Thanks 111
Default

There are three different terms to consider when we talk male and female: sex, gender, and sexuality. I think you are confusing two of them Blue - sex and gender.

Sex is biological. Gender is constructive. The gender spectrum has been recognised throughout most recorded history. The Australian aboriginals, for example, used to believe transgender-inclined persons possessed shamanic power, and they went so far as stealing these people from other tribes. North American Indians referred to gays and transgendered people as "two spirit", and they were fully accepted as the gender they identified as.

Where the issue becomes complicated is the role of sex (biology) in shaping gender. Certain regions of the brain are sexually dimorphic. There are countless studies showing regions of, for instance, gay males' brains being similar in size and structure to the corresponding regions in hetero-normative females rather than males (more commonly the regions are somewhere between the two sexes).

An example of where gender fluidity comes from is the growing evidence that suggests prenatal stress can influence the way your brain develops. We all start out developmentally as females by default until, for males, the y chromosome instigates testosterone production and masculinizes certain regions. When a mother is stressed during gestation her body uses her hormonal building blocks to build stress hormones as opposed to testosterone, and whatever brain regions are developing at that time (for a male baby) are to some degree deprived of the testosterone that aught to have altered the region from default female. After the stress abates, or post-natally, testosterone production resumes and development continues as masculine, but the regions that grew without testosterone remain female even into adulthood.

Since different regions develop at different times the timing of a prenatal stress can have decidedly different effects. Some might have their sexuality altered. Some might be heterosexual but with, say, navigational characteristics more commonly attributable to the other sex.

What this means is that some people can "feel" like a different gender depending on what they're engaged in because different activities alter the activity ratios of different brain regions, shifting consciousness into alternate primary functional states. So gender fluidity is not merely politically correct nonsense. It's a biologically explicable phenomenon.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-20-2017, 08:11 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Online)
Profusive Denizen
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 284
Thanks: 3
Thanks 34
Default

@eri Im aware of other culture's acknowledgment and acknowledged it myself:

"Gender in its traditional (or if that word is taboo then its biological) sense is not to be thought a bias when it occurs worldwide, sporadic acknowledgments of more than the binary subsets notwithstanding, and have been dominant in all history."

But I venture you missed I think a significant point in the opening. Gender insofar as it is anent to animate beings is concerned with biological sex. The grammatical definition is arbitrary and this adoption and repurposing by an ideology is extremely recent and I contest for the reasons stated above that it has no grounding in objective reality.

Now I dont see the relevancy of fetal development to the argument and the reason is is that life evolved without knowledge of its own creation and I mean by that that it was up until recorded history, a splinter of time, wholly unconscious and so language developed in that light.

Maybe try and emphasize the point in your argument because I dont think I understand what point youre trying to make in detailing the inwomb sexual forking.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-20-2017, 08:42 PM
eripiomundus (Online)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 421
Thanks: 29
Thanks 111
Default

I get that linguistic development post-dates the instinct to which it was applied, but our instinctive appreciation of a gender (new sense of the word) spectrum pre-dates linguistics in just the same way as our innate appreciation of biological-sex distinction (as mentioned before, Indians and Aboriginals, and many others, had an appreciation of gender diversity that predates written records).

The reason I mention neuro-developmental sex-dimorphism and stress-related aberrations in same is to illustrate that gender (again, using the term in the modern sense) is not merely a modern construct with no biological grounding. Neuro-anatomical and functional phenomena not only root gender-spectrum linguistic forms in biology, but also pre-date linguistics itself.

I accept that you're reluctant to employ the term gender in the current sense, but language changes. The definition you're trying to use is now labelled "sex". Gender refers to psychological identification. You're talking "hardware", which is sex, whereas gender has come to mean software.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-20-2017, 09:04 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Online)
Profusive Denizen
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 284
Thanks: 3
Thanks 34
Default

I disagree that gender appreciation predates linguistics. From purely deductive logic the concept has to arrive after the instantiation even if its only by a nanosecond. Language is naming. You cannot name what does not exist.

Philosophical tangent: can you name what cannot exist. How could you conceive of that which does not have possibility? Perhaps as a category of things which are not possible but then what would be those things?

Sorry about that As to your second point. I firmly disagree with that and that is something i believe i can prove. In the same way that things precede names precede concepts functional phenomena, in this case genitalia, dictates a dichomatic physical response. Inclinations, proclivities exist certainly but that leeway does not exist in the architecture of the body.

A man may be born with a small penis, or a woman with an enlarged clitoris but their functions are exclusive. Anatomy, postnatal, is dichomatic, and since a fetus is not even guaranteed life in our system it might be unreasonable to enter that into the discussion. In the same way that we resemble lizards at certain stages we certainly wouldnt claim affinity with them.

Gender in its historical definition in the realm of biology was synonymous with sex. Etymologically it first acquired its reference to sex in the 15th century. Now while language does evolve it is a wholly new phenomenon to have language reference things (and i say things because i dont know that there is any other word to describe the recursive subjective cum objective) which have no objective presence in the world.

Logically it doesnt follow that this knowledge of gender spectrum would be lost only to be suddenly rediscovered in the 1980s. Put it like this. If transgenderism were a prolific phenomenon would you not expect to see it more widely represented among populations?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-20-2017, 11:35 PM
eripiomundus (Online)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 421
Thanks: 29
Thanks 111
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
I disagree that gender appreciation predates linguistics. From purely deductive logic the concept has to arrive after the instantiation even if its only by a nanosecond. Language is naming. You cannot name what does not exist.
Sure, and I'll take it a step further and say you can only name what has already been conceptually circumscribed. The naming of something does not create a conscious conception of the subject/object being named. The name is applied to an already conceptualised category. For instance, the experiential (sensual) distinction between a leaf and it's veins existed in consciousness, and was therefore a concept, long before the nomenclature for describing the distinction arose. Words are only attributable to extant conceptual phenomena.

If we don't agree to a common meaning for "gender" we're never going to get anywhere. As I said, I accept that you reject the alteration of meaning, but we don't have another word that describes psychic dimorphism between the sexes, whereas we do have a word that describes biological distinctions, so I tend to think accepting the new meaning of gender is both fair and useful.

Philosophical tangent: can you name what cannot exist. How could you conceive of that which does not have possibility? Perhaps as a category of things which are not possible but then what would be those things?
Unicorns have names. Fairies. Hobgoblins. "Spacetime"... But, in fairness, these are all extrapolated by combining/manipulating the possible.

Sorry about that As to your second point. I firmly disagree with that and that is something i believe i can prove. In the same way that things precede names precede concepts functional phenomena, in this case genitalia, dictates a dichomatic physical response. Inclinations, proclivities exist certainly but that leeway does not exist in the architecture of the body.
Would you please clarify this paragraph? I think there are some typos or you altered part of the sentence and forgot to fix what came after it to make it coherent or something. I think I know what you mean, but I want to be sure.

A man may be born with a small penis, or a woman with an enlarged clitoris but their functions are exclusive. Anatomy, postnatal, is dichomatic, and since a fetus is not even guaranteed life in our system it might be unreasonable to enter that into the discussion. In the same way that we resemble lizards at certain stages we certainly wouldnt claim affinity with them.
I mentioned prenatal development only to demonstrate the origins and existence of neuro-anatomical structures that (can) deviate from the biological sex otherwise expressed by an individual, displaying neurophysiological evidence that, for instance, a biological male can have feminised brain regions that result in a psycho-experiential identification with the opposite sex. If you want a relevant study search for transsexuals and hypothalamus size. The hypothalamus is sexually dimorphic, with men having a larger ratio of hypothalamus to brain volume than women, but transsexuals have been shown to have hypothalami of a size closer to women than men. There is therefore physical evidence that part of these biologically male's brains are feminine. There are babies born with both sets of genitalia, so even by your own standard of genital dimorphism there are transition stages between the sexes. All I'm saying is that the same can occur in the brain, and since the brain gives rise to the mind, and gender in the modern sense is conceptual, I think there's ample evidence for the existence of a gender spectrum.

Gender in its historical definition in the realm of biology was synonymous with sex. Etymologically it first acquired its reference to sex in the 15th century. Now while language does evolve it is a wholly new phenomenon to have language reference things (and i say things because i dont know that there is any other word to describe the recursive subjective cum objective) which have no objective presence in the world.

Logically it doesnt follow that this knowledge of gender spectrum would be lost only to be suddenly rediscovered in the 1980s. Put it like this. If transgenderism were a prolific phenomenon would you not expect to see it more widely represented among populations?
It was never lost. Only oppressed. Throughout all of history there have been men who wanted to be women and women who pined to be men. It happens even in the animal kingdom. I read a study in which male rats were deprived testosterone at a key time in their development and they behaved female for the rest of their lives. Then they gave testosterone to female rats at a certain period as well, and just a single dose was enough to permanently change their behaviour to that of the opposite gender. Yes the rats were still biologically male and female respectively, but their internal experience of the world had changed as well as the outward expression of their natural impulses to the point where their gender identity was clinically observable by scientists. The rats never chose to switch their experience of the world. It was just chemistry and genetic expression.

Edit: realised I got the hypothalamus dimorphism around the wrong way, saying women had bigger hypothalami than men - other way around. Have fixed it. Sorry.

Last edited by eripiomundus; 10-25-2017 at 04:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-21-2017, 12:28 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Online)
Profusive Denizen
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 284
Thanks: 3
Thanks 34
Default

Quick ere bed. Per gender its not an alteration because its not a modification or even adoption of terminology. Its a novel form of hyper specialized categorization based wholly upon the subjectivity of the individual and is restricted to the individual. Language is by its very nature unifying, even in the worst of conflict, but when language is purposed towards divorcing the individual from the masses it loses all meaning.

I know this is a different tract from what i was coming from before but it is an unavoidable implication of an infinitely graded spectrum.

And with that sleep. Ill get to the rest tomorrow. im drunk on cuervo and modelo i reckon it was mexican night
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-21-2017, 01:36 AM
eripiomundus (Online)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 421
Thanks: 29
Thanks 111
Default

No worries. Have a good sleep.

I'm waiting for someone to come out of a collector's show, and I've nothing better to do, so I'll reply to what you said anyways.

I don't think it's reasonable to call biology non-subjective
whilst claiming psychic experience is entirely subjective. For a start, psychic phenomena cannot be divorced from the neural structures that give rise to them, and any talk of psychic phenomena simultaneously implicates biological phenomena. In any event, all experience is subjective. That much is 100% inevitable.

Language is both unifying and divisive. In order to name something it must first have been divided from the remainder of existence (with the exception of all-encompassing words such as "everything"). You cannot name what has not been distinguished, and the process of distinction entails division of otherwise unified phenomena.

I once asked myself the question "what is knowledge?". The results of trying to answer it took me straight into this topic. Knowledge is the conscious apprehension of categories. Before you immediately dismiss this (I know it sounds unlikely at first), try to think of a piece of knowledge that isn't categorical in nature. Even the relationships between categories are 'types' of relationships, and are therefore categories in their own right.

Still wanting to get to the bottom of knowledge I asked "so what is a category then?". It's the result of a division. When we categorise something we isolate it from all else, distinguish it as different. So I asked "what is a division?". It's a judgement based on comparison. It's when you deem two things disparate based on the different experiences you derive from them. But that distinction is a division within the self, not an external one, which is key.

The incredible thing about that realisation is that it means knowledge is entirely subjective. In every conceivable way. Why? If knowledge is comprised of categories and categories arise from divisions and divisions arise from judgement, that means judgement is the engine of knowledge, and since judgement is subjective so too must be the fruits extrapolated therefrom.

There is a semblance of interpersonal consistency with regard to knowledge, but no true universal knowledge exists.

Language is required for there to be knowledge also, because knowledge existing in one mind alone is not knowledge, but personal experience. When personal experience is communicated to someone whose experience agrees with the communicated information you have "knowledge". Hence a word, being a vehicle upon which a thought takes carriage, is integral to the formation of knowledge.

I'll give you an example of how so-called knowledge is subjective. Adam and Bill look at a ball. Owing to differences in the way their brains interpret incoming spectral information, Adam sees green, Bill sees red. Their mother, who is teaching them to name colours, points to the ball and says "blue", and each boy forever after associates the colour they see with the word "blue", considering it 'knowledge" to name what they see thusly: When Adam sees a green object he calls it blue, and Bill does the same thing whenever he sees red. They both think they are talking about the same experience because the label they use is the same, but in reality their experiences are far from the same. No two experiences can ever be perfectly the same, if only because two beings capable of experience cannot occupy the same spatial position simultaneously.

Knowledge demands majority apprehension for legitimacy. If one man sees a demon where ten others don't we conclude that the ten are correct. If ten see an ant where another sees none we conclude the ten are correct, and the ant is "known" to be there.

I think this is the point at which we are disagreeing with regard to gender spectrums: for you the experience of a transgender person is sensual - you see a man's body, hear a man's voice etc even if they behave feminine, and so for you the consensus-requirement necessary for you to accept the person's gender-identity as "knowledge" is not met.

But for them the experience is subjective. They "feel" female. They want others to accept it as knowledge, but that's difficult because there's a disparity between what people's senses are perceiving (that the transperson has the body of a man) and the psychic affect the person has adopted.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-21-2017, 05:52 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Online)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,750
Thanks: 338
Thanks 355
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
This is not an argument against those who suffer gender dysphoria. Its a real enough disorder but one cannot pretend that it is so prevalent as to warrant linguistic disruption or even review. High concentrations of the disorder on college campuses leads one to believe that either the water is tainted or that this is a fad.
All that huffing and puffing to get to this.

It's hard to say if any number of people coming out as transgender are doing it because they have gender dysphoria and it's more socially acceptable -- or if they're really jumping on the bandwagon.

If it's the latter, I'd be more concerned about the individual than any long-term effects on society -- bathroom controversies aside -- especially when it's about children and teenagers and even college students whose identities and brains are still developing.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that some of these people coming out as transgender might be dealing with potentially serious issues like depression or past abuse. At the least, maybe they just want attention or they want to fit in -- even it's within some smaller group. I'm also betting that for some it will be a phase and in the long run, short of reassignment surgery, no real harm done.

With teens and children, when does automatic acceptance become harmful and when could it even be considered a form of abuse?

Okay, so the terminology is changing -- not so much that we can't keep up. Nitpicking the meaning and usage of gender is a distraction and a side issue at best when you consider how all this might affect individual human beings.

Otherwise, I think we'll somehow continue to identify who we should have sex with in order to procreate -- and mankind will survive the "fad."

So if the linguistics are your biggest concern, and unless you have someone close to you who is struggling with this issue, if you mind your own business, you should be all right.

Last edited by Myers; 10-22-2017 at 02:32 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-21-2017, 05:55 AM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Online)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,750
Thanks: 338
Thanks 355
Default

Originally Posted by eripiomundus View Post
There are three different terms to consider when we talk male and female: sex, gender, and sexuality. I think you are confusing two of them Blue - sex and gender.
Makes sense to me. Maybe why they call it sex reassignment surgery.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-22-2017, 07:50 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Online)
Profusive Denizen
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 284
Thanks: 3
Thanks 34
Default

Edit: Sorry for the late reply. I am exhausted. Im renovating my house in Baltimore getting ready to rent it out and it takes a toll.


Sure, and I'll take it a step further and say you can only name what has already been conceptually circumscribed. The naming of something does not create a conscious conception of the subject/object being named. The name is applied to an already conceptualised category. For instance, the experiential (sensual) distinction between a leaf and it's veins existed in consciousness, and was therefore a concept, long before the nomenclature for describing the distinction arose. Words are only attributable to extant conceptual phenomena.

Small quibble: Things not fully understood do not go nameless. We name plenty of things before we have their full grasp. I would also argue that in the naming a claim is staked about the nature of the thing. In demonology its thought that to know the name of a demon is to hold power over it. I do believe this is not simply superstition but a description of the power of the Logos as it is understood in the biblical explications.
If Im understanding what youre saying in the analogy of the vein and the leaf then youre saying that framing, say seeing a house and then dividing it into studs and doors and windows, is a matter of conscious discrimination but I dont know that thats true. Consider predatory cats who in hunting gazelle always go for the throat dispalying some ability to divide a whole into its constituent parts.




If we don't agree to a common meaning for "gender" we're never going to get anywhere. As I said, I accept that you reject the alteration of meaning, but we don't have another word that describes psychic dimorphism between the sexes, whereas we do have a word that describes biological distinctions, so I tend to think accepting the new meaning of gender is both fair and useful.
Maybe there needs to be a new word to describe it. In the interim Ill say ok lets go with that definition but would ask to keep the traditional definition in mind as well. May it be the shadow overhanging.


Philosophical tangent: can you name what cannot exist. How could you conceive of that which does not have possibility? Perhaps as a category of things which are not possible but then what would be those things?
Unicorns have names. Fairies. Hobgoblins. "Spacetime"... But, in fairness, these are all extrapolated by combining/manipulating the possible.

Aye so the question remains can you name what exists outside the extant latitudes of the universe? Ha maybe if we talk ten thousand years we might have an answer.





Sorry about that**As to your second point. I firmly disagree with that and that is something i believe i can prove. In the same way that things precede names precede concepts functional phenomena, in this case genitalia, dictates a dichomatic physical response. Inclinations, proclivities exist certainly but that leeway does not exist in the architecture of the body.
Would you please clarify this paragraph? I think there are some typos or you altered part of the sentence and forgot to fix what came after it to make it coherent or something. I think I know what you mean, but I want to be sure.

Sure. What Im saying is that physical phenomena begets concrete language which then can beget abstract thought. The bifurcated nature of most species led to the male/female dichomaty you see in all languages. Now in abstract thought there are gradations but this doesnt alter the architecture of the body. I read your later post that talks about differences in the brains between male and female and how some people who suffer from gender dysphoria have brain structures that are more closely related to the opposite sex however this does not alter the physical expression. I do see where youre coming from where there is a structural difference in the brain and maybe theres a bias on my part that emphasizes the empircal, if I cant see it it doesnt exist, and yes its a measurable and correlative diferrence but at the same time the body itself displays concretely and unambigously what it is. I guess the problem is, is that there is doubt when it comes to opinions, but there can be no doubt to physical instantiations.

I mentioned prenatal development only to demonstrate the origins and existence of neuro-anatomical structures that (can) deviate from the biological sex otherwise expressed by an individual, displaying neurophysiological evidence that, for instance, a biological male can have feminised brain regions that result in a psycho-experiential identification with the opposite sex. If you want a relevant study search for transsexuals and hypothalamus size. The hypothalamus is sexually dimorphic, with women having a larger ratio of hypothalamus to brain volume than men, but transsexuals have been shown to have hypothalami of a size closer to women than men. There is therefore physical evidence that part of these biologically male's brains are feminine. There are babies born with both sets of genitalia, so even by your own standard of genital dimorphism there are transition stages between the sexes. All I'm saying is that the same can occur in the brain, and since the brain gives rise to the mind, and gender in the modern sense is conceptual, I think there's ample evidence for the existence of a gender spectrum.

I was thinking through this and I want to write what I had begun to write and decided to discard:

Building on from what I sad before I suppose I dont accept gradation in physical phenomena. And maybe thats too rigid, maybe I need to rethink that. What Im

Those two lines and a start are not exactly what I meant. Heres as best as I can say it. I dont think that there are enough trans people to warrant the disruption of our language. I said that before in the other post but Ill elaborate a little more here. If we allow the proliferation of individualized gender and then litigate it we are not only disrupting language itself (Imagine if you tried to write a book in a society that has over a hundred types of genders, how impossible woudl that be, because remember with language there is the principle of least time) but we are also dissolving all categories. If everything is its own category then there can be said to be no categories because category would then take on the definition of entity.






Gender in its historical definition in the realm of biology was synonymous with sex. Etymologically it first acquired its reference to sex in the 15th century. Now while language does evolve it is a wholly new phenomenon to have language reference things (and i say things because i dont know that there is any other word to describe the recursive subjective cum objective) which have no objective presence in the world.*

Logically it doesnt follow that this knowledge of gender spectrum would be lost only to be suddenly rediscovered in the 1980s. Put it like this. If transgenderism were a prolific phenomenon would you not expect to see it more widely represented among populations?
It was never lost. Only oppressed. Throughout all of history there have been men who wanted to be women and women who pined to be men. It happens even in the animal kingdom. I read a study in which male rats were deprived testosterone at a key time in their development and they behaved female for the rest of their lives. Then they gave testosterone to female rats at a certain period as well, and just a single dose was enough to permanently change their behaviour to that of the opposite gender. Yes the rats were still biologically male and female respectively, but their internal experience of the world had changed as well as the outward expression of their natural impulses to the point where their gender identity was clinically observable by scientists. The rats never chose to switch their experience of the world. It was just chemistry and genetic expression.

Well Im not sure we should be going with manipulation of animals. I see where youre going but I can see maybe unintentionally that jumping to eugenics (or maybe Im just jumping there) Actually Id love to have a talk about eugenics, I have some unorthodox views on it.

My problem with that example is that people are not rats. Certainly not manipulated rats. We presuppose we have agency. Our legal system is based on that. You can argue whether or not we live in a deterministic world and thats another good conversation we could have but for the moment were not altering our children in the womb. Thats another thing we will be talking about in the next fifty years so Ill ask what are your thoughts on that?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-23-2017, 11:29 PM
eripiomundus (Online)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 421
Thanks: 29
Thanks 111
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
Small quibble: Things not fully understood do not go nameless. We name plenty of things before we have their full grasp. I would also argue that in the naming a claim is staked about the nature of the thing. In demonology its thought that to know the name of a demon is to hold power over it. I do believe this is not simply superstition but a description of the power of the Logos as it is understood in the biblical explications.
While it's true that things don't need to be understood to be named - you can call an unknown "unknown" after all - they do have to be circumscribed (unless, as mentioned earlier, we're talking about all-encompassing terms such as "everything"). You cannot name something unless you've separated it from "else". This separation occurs at a conceptual level (at the point when we mentally divide and thus create a category or categories), so a concept always comes before the naming of the concept.

It's interesting you bring up the bible. I tend to think Genesis is a metaphor for the birth of consciousness. Prior to attaining consciousness man was as some animals are: unaware of their own existence as an entity distinct from the remainder of existence – they had no sense of self. Such animals follow instinct alone and have no capacity for comparison, which requires the simultaneous apprehension of two separate realities, which in turn requires memory.

Memory affords the capacity to hold two alternate realities simultaneously in mind, and caused the first psychic divide: we could attend to the external world through the senses or an internal one comprised of memory. An unconscious animal has no such choice and attends only to sensory data (including internal system data such as nociception and hunger) in an automatic way. They are not aware that they are experiencing the world, but are immediately and absolutely involved in the moment without distinguishing themselves from the remainder of reality.

So memory gave us the first division. Further divisions required emotion. When we gained the ability to entertain two separate realities (sensation and memory, or even memory and memory) we could have two distinct emotional, and therefore subjective, experiences of the world. We could then compare emotions and pursue whatever was more amenable to life. This gave rise to the ability to compare and prefer/judge: one can be experiencing cold weather while simultaneously wishing it were otherwise. Before consciousness we would have experienced the cold without having the capacity to pine for something else, for no other reality except the current one could be entertained. When we attained to consciousness we attained also to suffering – I consider suffering to be the experience of pain whilst wishing it were otherwise. This mirrors the Biblical story of Adam and Eve in that the knowledge of good and evil (the capacity to judge/prefer) invited suffering into life.

When we divide our internal experience of external reality we make the information we attend to simpler. We can only hold one conscious thing at a time, and a smaller bite is easier to chew, so the more finely we separate our internalisation of the external world, the simpler it becomes to manipulate the small parcels according to our needs: If something is heavily interconnected it is harder to alter any part without having to alter all the parts to maintain rational structure, whereas if something is isolated you can move it without having to alter a whole lot of things connected to it. In this way imagination becomes available - if we never conceptually divided the world into parcels amenable to manipulation we could not imagine, since the entire universe would be experienced monadically and altering one thing would necessitate the alteration of all things to retain consistency.

Back to Genesis: "And God said 'let there be light’, and He divided the light from the darkness, and saw that it was good". This is the Biblical process of “creation”, and the exact process I'm talking about. You take an infinite scale from perfect light to perfect darkness and divide it into light and dark. In the bible they believed the act of naming gave rise to the instance of division, just as (I think) you were saying, but I go one step back and call the conception of the category the instance of division. When you name something you've already divided it from everything else, otherwise you'd have nothing to name. The Bible takes the word as the means by which the internal world is divided, which is close, but not quite right. So creation (imagination – which is the source of all human creation) is conferred by naming a thing (“And God said ‘let there be light’”), and thus dividing it from everything else (“and he separated the darkness from the light”). Once we have the division we gain the opportunity to compare things (the light with the dark, for instance), and therefore to judge them - “and He saw that it was Good”.

To my mind Genesis (rather eloquently given the tersness) describes the birth of consciousness, and I think it is, and was always meant to be, an allegory for it. Otherwise why not just have God create things – And God created the light. Why have him specifically create the world by way of words and divisions and judgements? Consciousness allows for imagination, and imagination is creation. Supposing this hypothesis were right, it would mean the God referred to in the passages was consciousness itself.

Have some other ideas on the evolutionary roots of consciousness, but I’ve already departed from the topic far enough I think.

If Im understanding what youre saying in the analogy of the vein and the leaf then youre saying that framing, say seeing a house and then dividing it into studs and doors and windows, is a matter of conscious discrimination but I dont know that thats true. Consider predatory cats who in hunting gazelle always go for the throat dispalying some ability to divide a whole into its constituent parts.
I’m saying that the conception, that is to say the conscious apprehension, of a thing necessarily predicates the attribution to it of a linguistic form. In the case of a cat going for the jugular there is no linguistic element involved. I’m pretty clumsy at accurately describing things so that others can understand what I’m saying, so I’ll try again: before we can name the veins on a leaf “veins” we first have to form a conceptual category for them – we have to have decided that the vein is distinct from (although in this case part of) the leaf, and only then can we apply a linguistic term to it. You are trying to say that the naming can presuppose the category, but that’s logically impossible. Sure we can have a phonetic utterance prior to conceptualising something and then associatively marry the concept to the sound, and then the sound would predate the concept, but the actual naming occurs at the instance of marriage, and the concept must exist prior to it.

Aye so the question remains can you name what exists outside the extant latitudes of the universe? Ha maybe if we talk ten thousand years we might have an answer.
.
You can name not only things that don’t exist, like dodos (they did exist, but don’t now), but things that can’t exist, like particles that are able to escape from within the event horizon of a black hole. The latter would represent something that defies the laws of nature, and is therefore beyond the universe’s capacity to produce, and yet, owing to the human capacity for irrationality, we can still conceptualise and name it.

Sure. What Im saying is that physical phenomena begets concrete language which then can beget abstract thought. The bifurcated nature of most species led to the male/female dichomaty you see in all languages. Now in abstract thought there are gradations but this doesnt alter the architecture of the body. I read your later post that talks about differences in the brains between male and female and how some people who suffer from gender dysphoria have brain structures that are more closely related to the opposite sex however this does not alter the physical expression. I do see where youre coming from where there is a structural difference in the brain and maybe theres a bias on my part that emphasizes the empircal, if I cant see it it doesnt exist, and yes its a measurable and correlative diferrence but at the same time the body itself displays concretely and unambigously what it is. I guess the problem is, is that there is doubt when it comes to opinions, but there can be no doubt to physical instantiations.
I agree that in the beginning physical phenomena provided for language, but I disagree that language begot abstract thought – you can form abstract thoughts without words, as when you visually imagine something you’ve never encountered like a fence post made of carefully glued together egg-plant skins (for instance). I could only describe that fence post after having conceived of it prior to my description. All the rest of what you said I agree with.

I was thinking through this and I want to write what I had begun to write and decided to discard:

Building on from what I sad before I suppose I dont accept gradation in physical phenomena. And maybe thats too rigid, maybe I need to rethink that. What Im

Those two lines and a start are not exactly what I meant. Heres as best as I can say it. I dont think that there are enough trans people to warrant the disruption of our language. I said that before in the other post but Ill elaborate a little more here. If we allow the proliferation of individualized gender and then litigate it we are not only disrupting language itself (Imagine if you tried to write a book in a society that has over a hundred types of genders, how impossible woudl that be, because remember with language there is the principle of least time) but we are also dissolving all categories. If everything is its own category then there can be said to be no categories because category would then take on the definition of entity.
This is an excellent point, and one I’ve thought about a bit in the past: if we continue making ever-finer categorical distinctions we will end up eventually at a semblance of the place from which we began when we had no categories at all. The point of having a category is so you can deal with similar things in similar ways, meaning you can standardise your responses and thereby simplify life. If you have to deal with every individual thing because they all have their own category then you are essentially back where you began before you started to make categories in the first place - having to deal with each thing as a unique entity.

You have a point that there probably aren’t enough people who fall into certain gender spectra to warrant altering our language to cater for them all, but then again we find new species of animals/insects/etc every day in tiny enclaves and then name them, and we name new technologies, create new buzz-words to describe things in new ways (like “hashtag” or using “facebook” as a verb), and so on. So the language is inexorably going to expand, and just like those who resist changes in technology, those who resist the changes in language will be left behind.

Gender in its historical definition in the realm of biology was synonymous with sex. Etymologically it first acquired its reference to sex in the 15th century. Now while language does evolve it is a wholly new phenomenon to have language reference things (and i say things because i dont know that there is any other word to describe the recursive subjective cum objective) which have no objective presence in the world.*
But gender does have an objective presence: most people would be able to recognise one gender from another even if we could somehow equalise the physical aspects. Say we put two people of random sex behind a screen so they couldn’t see each other and then run their voices through pitch equalising technology and ask them to have a conversation. I bet it would still be apparent to each one whether they’re speaking to a man or woman. The things they talk about. The way they say them. Patterns in voice modulation. Interests, and so on. If you go to a random piece of non-academic writing somewhere (and it is of a decent length) I bet you can tell whether the author is male or female more often than not. Physical differences between the brains of males and females give rise to these functional differences, so gender absolutely does have an objective presence.



Well Im not sure we should be going with manipulation of animals. I see where youre going but I can see maybe unintentionally that jumping to eugenics (or maybe Im just jumping there) Actually Id love to have a talk about eugenics, I have some unorthodox views on it.
I mentioned the animal study to demonstrate that gender-deviant behaviour is not (in most cases) a choice or an affectation, but is extant, and even capable of being intentionally produced, in animals. The neuro-biological structures that give rise to gender dimorphism are not only extant in human beings, but in animals also. We better start a new thread if you want to talk eugenics.

My problem with that example is that people are not rats. Certainly not manipulated rats. We presuppose we have agency. Our legal system is based on that. You can argue whether or not we live in a deterministic world and thats another good conversation we could have but for the moment were not altering our children in the womb. Thats another thing we will be talking about in the next fifty years so Ill ask what are your thoughts on that?
It’s a good thing in my opinion. Imagine the suffering that would be saved if we could rectify genetic anomalies before they affect normal development. There is one issue: suppose sometimes, not very often I tend to think, a person is born with an abnormality that forces them to become better at certain things to offset their disability, and that skewed development leads to greatness or especial giftedness in some form or another.

I still don’t know exactly where I stand on the issue, but if you look back through history at the number of very gifted people who also lived pretty tortured lives, you have to ask “was it worth it?” Yes we get to enjoy the fruits of their endeavours, but that’s a pretty selfish stance really. It’s saying “My enjoyment is worth more than your peace” and I don’t think that’s a very good reason not to try for the best possible life for each person by whatever means are available to us. There are plenty of geniuses, by far the majority, who are not genetic oddities, so I think the trade-off between losing the occasional Van Gogh and gaining better health and sanity for the majority is a reasonable one.

People will claim that we aught not meddle with nature, but that’s being a little ignorant I think. Nature is not some benevolent thing with only good intentions. As far as life is concerned nature is just a simple program that says: change everything and let whatever endures be life. It will change our genetics indiscriminately for better or worse, and it doesn’t care if you have a good or bad life as a result, if you’re prone to disease or good health. Nature has no sympathy, compassion, or empathy. But we are gaining the ability to make changes that aren’t left to chance, that are compassionate, sympathetic, empathetic… Why not?

I guess I ended up talking eugenics anyhow haha. Sorry for the long post.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-24-2017, 01:33 AM
fleamailman's Avatar
fleamailman (Offline)
Samuel Johnson, obviously!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,326
Thanks: 2,366
Thanks 3,782
Default

("...coincidence perhaps..." started the goblin explaining on "...just that those inside constantinople at the time of its fall were hotly discussing the gender of angels, while today too it would seem that those in america are hotly discussing the gender of humans now...", in fact, the goblin wondered what would happen if this very same stupidity would seep into the european languages too, smiling "...when your tongue is tied by what you can or cannot say is when your brain is also tied up too I guess...")

Last edited by fleamailman; 10-25-2017 at 01:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-24-2017, 04:17 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,636
Thanks: 198
Thanks 693
Default

It's cool to be oppressed and everyone wants in.

I don't really think the concept of gender has been modernised -- it's still a very fringe thing to think of it as anything much more than the reality of being a male or a female.

There isn't really a biological or scientific basis for creating a heap of new pronouns and demanding (by law) that others address you according to whichever one pops into your head at the time. The basis is purely cultural and theoretical.

The distinction for me is simply, biology isn't based on choice. Fluidity in this context is a choice, choose whatever pronoun you like, not like there's gonna be a test for whether you're just fantasising or not... If people want to try and square that circle then fair enough but I don't think it should be legally enforceable.

What might also be in interesting question to ask is... why are male to female transexuals three times more common than female to male? Especially since it's so much more privileged to be a man
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-24-2017, 08:43 AM
eripiomundus (Online)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 421
Thanks: 29
Thanks 111
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
It's cool to be oppressed and everyone wants in.
Do you honestly believe people would "choose" to be oppressed? Choose to be a transsexual, for instance, when the vast majority of males, females, and even gays hate them? That seems a little far fetched to say the least. The suicide rate for transsexuals is amongst the highest of any demographic, so can you really imagine someone choosing that life to be "cool"?

I don't really think the concept of gender has been modernised -- it's still a very fringe thing to think of it as anything much more than the reality of being a male or a female.

There isn't really a biological or scientific basis for creating a heap of new pronouns and demanding (by law) that others address you according to whichever one pops into your head at the time. The basis is purely cultural and theoretical.
I tend to agree that the proliferation of gender-related pronouns has gone beyond what's reasonably needed, but I disagree about whether gender dysphoria has no scientific basis. There absolutely is a very clear scientific basis: https://academic.oup.com/cercor/arti...w-Sex-Atypical ; http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/02/us...sexuality.html ; https://www.newscientist.com/article...on-brain-scan/ and so on.

The bio-physical evidence is there. The idea that someone would "choose" to be gay or transgender out of a desire to be oppressed or cool, or whatever other arbitrary reason, comes off as resoundingly ignorant. If you google the brains of gays you'll find even more scientific evidence for biological causation than you can for transsexuals, and who is going to argue that gay males aren't to some extent "girly"?

The distinction for me is simply, biology isn't based on choice. Fluidity in this context is a choice, choose whatever pronoun you like, not like there's gonna be a test for whether you're just fantasising or not... If people want to try and square that circle then fair enough but I don't think it should be legally enforceable.

What might also be in interesting question to ask is... why are male to female transexuals three times more common than female to male? Especially since it's so much more privileged to be a man
The reason, I'm guessing, there are more male to female transsexuals is because the default development of a human brain is female, and prenatal stressors during pregnancy with a male infant can force the mother's body to cannibalise hormonal precursors that aught to have been used to make testosterone and masculinise the brain. Whatever brain regions are developing during the absence of testosterone will remain female, so males whose mothers were stressed during pregnancy can have regions of their brain, or their entire brain, feminised. Since stress is a fairly common thing these days...

For a female infant this wouldn't occur in the same way. Something else would have to cause it. I'm not sure we know the various causes of female to male transsexualism yet.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-24-2017, 10:12 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Online)
Profusive Denizen
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 284
Thanks: 3
Thanks 34
Default

@Johnconstantine Ill reply to your comment later today, the thread is growing



While it's true that things don't need to be understood to be named - you can call an unknown "unknown" after all - they do have to be circumscribed (unless, as mentioned earlier, we're talking about all-encompassing terms such as "everything"). You cannot name something unless you've separated it from "else". This separation occurs at a conceptual level (at the point when we mentally divide and thus create a category or categories), so a concept always comes before the naming of the concept.


Yes naming is an act of divorcement and I think the danger of language is the infinite reduction that its capable of. Because when you reduce things to words or substitute a word for a thing (the word is always at a remove from the object) you empty it of meaning. It ceases to be sui generis. Not that Im accusing you of reductionalism and not that Im even saying that reductionalism isnt a valid interpretation of reality because it definitely is but it also leads down some very dark paths. We (I think) mostly hold to the stance that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and thats why we value life. I mean commodity prices are based on things having value in and of themselves because at the atomic level theres little difference in say an ivory horn and an ant. Why do people spend a $100000 on a homerunning baseball when they can just as easily go to a store and pick up a bushel for $5.

My concern is that were going too far down the rabbit hole too fast without considering the potential repercussions of our presuppositions, what they undermine, what they imply. In a hundred years gender fluidity I think will be a nonissue. Cybernetics, genetics will more than likely allow people to be whatever they want and Im absolutely fine with that, that causes me no concern, my concern is grounded in the now and the disruption of language because if we destroy language's foundation now we may never even reach that stage.









It's interesting you bring up the bible. I tend to think Genesis is a metaphor for the birth of consciousness. Prior to attaining consciousness man was as some animals are: unaware of their own existence as an entity distinct from the remainder of existence – they had no sense of self. Such animals follow instinct alone and have no capacity for comparison, which requires the simultaneous apprehension of two separate realities, which in turn requires memory.

Memory affords the capacity to hold two alternate realities simultaneously in mind, and caused the first psychic divide: we could attend to the external world through the senses or an internal one comprised of memory. An unconscious animal has no such choice and attends only to sensory data (including internal system data such as nociception and hunger) in an automatic way. They are not aware that they are experiencing the world, but are immediately and absolutely involved in the moment without distinguishing themselves from the remainder of reality.

So memory gave us the first division. Further divisions required emotion. When we gained the ability to entertain two separate realities (sensation and memory, or even memory and memory) we could have two distinct emotional, and therefore subjective, experiences of the world. We could then compare emotions and pursue whatever was more amenable to life. This gave rise to the ability to compare and prefer/judge: one can be experiencing cold weather while simultaneously wishing it were otherwise. Before consciousness we would have experienced the cold without having the capacity to pine for something else, for no other reality except the current one could be entertained. When we attained to consciousness we attained also to suffering – I consider suffering to be the experience of pain whilst wishing it were otherwise. This mirrors the Biblical story of Adam and Eve in that the knowledge of good and evil (the capacity to judge/prefer) invited suffering into life.

When we divide our internal experience of external reality we make the information we attend to simpler. We can only hold one conscious thing at a time, and a smaller bite is easier to chew, so the more finely we separate our internalisation of the external world, the simpler it becomes to manipulate the small parcels according to our needs: If something is heavily interconnected it is harder to alter any part without having to alter all the parts to maintain rational structure, whereas if something is isolated you can move it without having to alter a whole lot of things connected to it. In this way imagination becomes available - if we never conceptually divided the world into parcels amenable to manipulation we could not imagine, since the entire universe would be experienced monadically and altering one thing would necessitate the alteration of all things to retain consistency.

Quick reply:

I agree that genesis is a metaphor for the dawn of consciousness (among other things, a metaphor for the child's ejection from the womb is one theory that is well supported) but memory does not seem to be the dividing factor between human and animal consciousness. I think it has much more to do with the level of abstraction with which were capable of. Crows who are presented with box problems improve as experiments are run, mice who run mazes get better and animals who hunt other animals improve with time.

A lion who hunts has to have an understanding of the behavior of the animals it is hunting. It cant hunt gazelle the way it hunts a zebra or a buffalo or a giraffe or a hippo. Its not that the end is different but the methodology is. They have to be able to predict (abstract) the reaction of each type of prey.

In any case with every hunt they improve. Muscle memory is involved, instincts are involved, but it is not simply those. You take a mature lion who lived in captivity and put him in the wild he is going to have difficulties until he learns how to hunt. Most animals do this by observation and there is bewrayed the ability to abstract. If A hunts and B is like A then B can also hunt in like manner. Now this probably isnt a linear thought stream, theres a host of instincts that primes the lion for this behavior, but nevertheless there is the substituting of another for the self.

All of these skills requires a level of abstraction beyond mere reaction to the point where Id say that predation necessitates abstraction.

I think what divides us from the animals is the extent to which we can abstract. Animals do have memory but whether or not they can dwell in them the way we do is questionable. Because the thing is man is so far as we know the only animal that can live so to speak in the past and the future. Eventually once you abstract far enough into the future or past you reach the life's brackets in the form of death and that is what divides us from the animals.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-24-2017, 10:48 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,636
Thanks: 198
Thanks 693
Default

Originally Posted by eripiomundus View Post
Do you honestly believe people would "choose" to be oppressed? Choose to be a transsexual, for instance, when the vast majority of males, females, and even gays hate them? That seems a little far fetched to say the least. The suicide rate for transsexuals is amongst the highest of any demographic, so can you really imagine someone choosing that life to be "cool"?
Being non-binary is cool yeah for sure.

I don't have the time to trawl through all the links dude, but give me some hard facts if you like. The first thing I look at seems to be a study of twelve people which is nuts.

Really for me to substantiate any neurological trend which links trans people to the brain of the opposite sex here's what I want.

First define the trend and what it means. I think we probably have a very shaky trend here which might mean something. You might find though, that some people's brains have more in common with a donkey's than others... does that mean these people are secretly donkeys deep down?

Then show how this trend is exclusively in trans people (men and women, be pretty weird if it only existed on one side of the gender divide, y'know if we're talking about a spectrum here) or people who have gender dysmorphia. We're going to need a few hundred subjects, and we're going to need to know that this anomaly isn't present amongst straight 'binary' people if you will.

In any case it doesn't invalidate my statement. I said there was no scientific basis for the pronouns. It's not like you have to prove through some kind of neurological test that you have gender dysmorphia. It's a self diagnosis based on whatever the subject decides at the time and can be changed on whim, which is then imposed as though it's just some scientific fact and anyone who questions it is committing an act of violence.

As for being oppressed being 'in' I mean yeah 100%. I listened to a podcast featuring an ex Antifa member who illustrated the mindset very well and I come across it all the time. It's very hierarchical, with an inner circle of the cool powerful crowd whose underlings try to impress to move up the ladder. It's basically schoolyard politics but the background is always the same in terms of the oppressed and the oppressors (who are often exaggerated or fictional I mean where are all these Nazis REALLY?).

Who wants to be the oppressors, or the Nazis, or the male chauvinist pigs, or the racists? No it's so cool being the oppressed that people will display their moral indignation at every opportunity to make sure everyone knows which crowd they're in... not saying there aren't serious people out there, but for the culture of SJW-ism for which gender fluidity is en-vogue it's often not much more than a popularity contest. You can usually tell that whenever they're confronted with a serious thinker.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-24-2017, 11:25 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Online)
Profusive Denizen
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 284
Thanks: 3
Thanks 34
Default

And another quick jump in:

Im with John on this. Paradoxically being oppressed today does appear to bestow carta blanche to oppress others in turn depending on the region. I would point you to the evergreen college debacle and also to NY's laws concerning pronoun use:

http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-ma...sgender-gender

By dictating what people must call you you are given power over them. If I decide I want to be called X today and Y tomorrow you are legally obligated to call me Y.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-24-2017, 03:53 PM
eripiomundus (Online)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 421
Thanks: 29
Thanks 111
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
My concern is that were going too far down the rabbit hole too fast without considering the potential repercussions of our presuppositions, what they undermine, what they imply. In a hundred years gender fluidity I think will be a nonissue. Cybernetics, genetics will more than likely allow people to be whatever they want and Im absolutely fine with that, that causes me no concern, my concern is grounded in the now and the disruption of language because if we destroy language's foundation now we may never even reach that stage.
As I've said already, I tend to agree that gender terms are proliferating to an unwarranted and excessive degree. My objection throughout this thread isn't against that, but against the claim that someone would choose to be transsexual as an affectation with the expectation of being "cool" (as JohnConstantine believes), when the reverse is very obviously true: the vast majority of people dislike and outspokenly denigrate transsexuals, and as a result (amongst other factors) they have one of the highest suicide rates of any demographic. For anyone to "choose" that life to be "cool" seems irrational to say the least. There is scientific neurological evidence to substantiate their claims (perhaps not all of them - there would no doubt be a few who are just massively confused and perhaps even a tiny number who are affecting it to be "cool", but the majority would have no real choice because their brains are wired differently to their physical self).

I don't think there's any linguistically supported evidence that adding in extra pronouns is necessarily going to "destroy language's foundation". Seems like a bit of a stretch. Look around the languages of the world as they stand today: you've got languages that use two genders with regard to inanimate objects; languages that use one; languages that use three (with neutral being the third), and all those languages work just fine. Language adapts.

I agree that genesis is a metaphor for the dawn of consciousness (among other things, a metaphor for the child's ejection from the womb is one theory that is well supported) but memory does not seem to be the dividing factor between human and animal consciousness. I think it has much more to do with the level of abstraction with which were capable of. Crows who are presented with box problems improve as experiments are run, mice who run mazes get better and animals who hunt other animals improve with time.
Memory is the first stepping stone to consciousness. I never claimed it was the sole cause, and the distinction I made between man and animal was with "unconscious animals", not things like lions that have some small degree of consciousness. I agree that abstraction is the difference between our level of consciousness and that of a lion. Abstraction is facilitated primarily by the prefrontal cortex, and ours is much more developed than a lion's.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-24-2017, 04:29 PM
eripiomundus (Online)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 421
Thanks: 29
Thanks 111
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Being non-binary is cool yeah for sure.

I don't have the time to trawl through all the links dude, but give me some hard facts if you like. The first thing I look at seems to be a study of twelve people which is nuts.
As Bluewpc has mentioned, and I agree: transsexuals aren't that numerous. It's not easy finding enough of them to participate in a quantitatively substantial study, so you get lots of studies with ten to twenty participants, but there are lots of those studies.

Really for me to substantiate any neurological trend which links trans people to the brain of the opposite sex here's what I want.

First define the trend and what it means. I think we probably have a very shaky trend here which might mean something. You might find though, that some people's brains have more in common with a donkey's than others... does that mean these people are secretly donkeys deep down?
I think we have something of a double standard going on here. I assume you don't consider heterosexual sexuality to be an affectation in expectation of "coolness", and yet can you prove that a heterosexual really is heterosexual? Where's the physical evidence? The biological evidence? Can you prove that a normal biological heterosexual man is what he says he is? "By his actions" you might say, but if we judge according to this standard then acting as the opposite gender aught to be enough. How are you going to "prove" what any of us say we are? I've given you three links, which you didn't bother to read, that suggest there is a neurobiological basis for transsexual identification. If I asked for evidence to support the existence of heterosexual male gender the only place you could genuinely seek the evidence is through neurobiological dimorphism between the sexes, which is the exact type of evidence I've given you with regard to transsexuals.

The double standard here is that you don't require physical/biological "proof" that transsexuals are pretending to be transsexual only to be "cool" - where is your proof for that? It's your own subjective opinion, and you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever to support it, and yet you claim to know with certainty the internal state of people you've never met, and demand of them proof that, when offered, you conveniently choose not to read.

In any case it doesn't invalidate my statement. I said there was no scientific basis for the pronouns. It's not like you have to prove through some kind of neurological test that you have gender dysmorphia. It's a self diagnosis based on whatever the subject decides at the time and can be changed on whim, which is then imposed as though it's just some scientific fact and anyone who questions it is committing an act of violence.
How does providing scientific evidence that supports the self-identification of transsexuals as the opposite gender not invalidate your claim that there is no scientific evidence for it? Even without the science to support it, it's not exactly a self-diagnosis as you say. No one can have sex reassignment surgery without two supporting diagnoses by medical professionals (psychiatrists) together with living a year in the role of their gender identity. I think that would weed out the wheat from the chaff fairly readily.

As for being oppressed being 'in' I mean yeah 100%. I listened to a podcast featuring an ex Antifa member who illustrated the mindset very well and I come across it all the time. It's very hierarchical, with an inner circle of the cool powerful crowd whose underlings try to impress to move up the ladder. It's basically schoolyard politics but the background is always the same in terms of the oppressed and the oppressors (who are often exaggerated or fictional I mean where are all these Nazis REALLY?).

Who wants to be the oppressors, or the Nazis, or the male chauvinist pigs, or the racists? No it's so cool being the oppressed that people will display their moral indignation at every opportunity to make sure everyone knows which crowd they're in... not saying there aren't serious people out there, but for the culture of SJW-ism for which gender fluidity is en-vogue it's often not much more than a popularity contest. You can usually tell that whenever they're confronted with a serious thinker.
The difference you're neglecting to observe is that it might be cool to make out that you are oppressed, but it is another thing entirely to actually be oppressed. Transsexuals are widely and deeply disliked for no other reason than that they're transsexuals. People refuse to even believe they are what they say they are. Would a life walking around with people questioning your identity every single day be cool? Or would it be a painful ordeal?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-24-2017, 04:38 PM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

Originally Posted by eripiomundus View Post
There are three different terms to consider when we talk male and female: sex, gender, and sexuality. I think you are confusing two of them Blue - sex and gender.

Sex is biological. Gender is constructive. The gender spectrum has been recognised throughout most recorded history. The Australian aboriginals, for example, used to believe transgender-inclined persons possessed shamanic power, and they went so far as stealing these people from other tribes. North American Indians referred to gays and transgendered people as "two spirit", and they were fully accepted as the gender they identified as.

Where the issue becomes complicated is the role of sex (biology) in shaping gender. Certain regions of the brain are sexually dimorphic. There are countless studies showing regions of, for instance, gay males' brains being similar in size and structure to the corresponding regions in hetero-normative females rather than males (more commonly the regions are somewhere between the two sexes).

An example of where gender fluidity comes from is the growing evidence that suggests prenatal stress can influence the way your brain develops. We all start out developmentally as females by default until, for males, the y chromosome instigates testosterone production and masculinizes certain regions. When a mother is stressed during gestation her body uses her hormonal building blocks to build stress hormones as opposed to testosterone, and whatever brain regions are developing at that time (for a male baby) are to some degree deprived of the testosterone that aught to have altered the region from default female. After the stress abates, or post-natally, testosterone production resumes and development continues as masculine, but the regions that grew without testosterone remain female even into adulthood.

Since different regions develop at different times the timing of a prenatal stress can have decidedly different effects. Some might have their sexuality altered. Some might be heterosexual but with, say, navigational characteristics more commonly attributable to the other sex.

What this means is that some people can "feel" like a different gender depending on what they're engaged in because different activities alter the activity ratios of different brain regions, shifting consciousness into alternate primary functional states. So gender fluidity is not merely politically correct nonsense. It's a biologically explicable phenomenon.
Not only do you covey your ideas in a concise way that is a joy to read, everything you are saying is correct. A lot of people confuse sex with gender, it's cringeworthy when you are a bisexual woman. My sex is female but my gender is only a notion subject to change from time to time. I will wear a dress and feel feminine but I have no qualms about putting on a strap on and being called sir either.
__________________
My words are edible
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-24-2017, 04:45 PM
eripiomundus (Online)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 421
Thanks: 29
Thanks 111
Default

Thanks for the compliment. The frankness of what you said at the end of your post was so refreshing and unexpected it made me chuckle.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-24-2017, 04:53 PM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

Do you think if taking it up the rear became more acceptable less men would transition? Maybe if more men decided to wear dresses just for the sake of it, and being gay wasn't a topic people cared to judge anymore transgender males would stop assuming they are actually women in the wrong body.
__________________
My words are edible
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-24-2017, 04:54 PM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

Originally Posted by eripiomundus View Post
Thanks for the compliment. The frankness of what you said at the end of your post was so refreshing and unexpected it made me chuckle.
The world needs more open books.
__________________
My words are edible
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-24-2017, 05:19 PM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
It's cool to be oppressed and everyone wants in.
)
I got called a fucking nigger by some white guys driving by me one day and know plenty of other black people with similar stories. It's something I fear happening again so I usually wear headphones when I am out alone. The experience embarrasses me. I don't want pity, I don't feel cool, and I am not a victim. Some people are just assholes and I happen across them from time to time- we all do.

I love black metal music, a ton of that culture caters to neo nazis; going to a black metal show could be a risk for me so I rarely go. Where are all the nazis you ask? For every antifa liberal nutjob there is a right wing lunatic , these people thrive off each other. What's your address?
Let me mail you a shovel so you can dig your head out of the sand.

Your comment made me want to puke and I was able to finish 2 girls one cup without doing so. Blanket statements make you sound ignorant.
__________________
My words are edible
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-24-2017, 05:32 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Online)
Profusive Denizen
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 284
Thanks: 3
Thanks 34
Default

@l&l Lets keep it civil. If you want to refute John's comments do it in a polite way.

@eri John has a point about people gravitating towards ideological fads that give a sense of belonging and I think whats getting in the way of understanding on both sides is the terminology. Now heres the thing thats important to keep in mind. Oppression as its understood in this debate is regional. A trans person in Seattle is not oppressed. They have access to hormonal treatment, sex change surgery is not frowned upon, they are insulated from criticism and have numerous social support options. A trans person in Texas will have a different story to tell.

Now keeping that in mind a fundamentalist Christian might feel very well at home in Houston but put them in Portland and theyre going to feel out of place.

So what I see is when the left says theyre oppressed the right says theyre persecuted. And how many times have you seen Christians bemoan the ever ongoing war on Christmas or the erosion of Christian values? In the same way that they try to portray themselves as martyrs for a cause the SJWs and the activist trans seek to be identified as victims and oppressed. Now when John says he thinks its cool what I think he may mean (and correct me if Im wrong John, sing us a song John, let us begin John, let the Satan flow through you John ) is that there is solidarity and purpose in suffering and people desire both.

There was also something I had read long ago and forgot because Im an idiot but Rene Girard wrote a series of fascinating books Sacred Violence and Violence and The Sacred. And it he notes that the dissolution of categories is always accompanied by or caused by a dissolution of boundaries. He recounts at the beginning of SV the black plague in Spain I think it was and how as it progressed the social fabric evaporated. He talked about the various pogroms committed against the Jews in the early stages of the plague and how the idea was to reestablish identity boundaries by removing unclean elements from society. Another really interesting thing he notes is that despite the failure of the pogrom to fend off the plague the historians who survived did not cast any negative moral attribute to the pogrom despite the fact the Jews were retroactively proved innocent of sorts.

He later pointed out an African tribe wherein it was the greatest taboo to say that one person resembled another family member.

I bring this up because (and forgive me I know Im beating a dead horse but Im hoping this adds a little to my point) is that people require boundaries and groups with which to affiliate themselves and that the violation of those boundaries is cause for violence whether rational or irrational.

Last edited by bluewpc; 10-24-2017 at 05:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-24-2017, 05:54 PM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
@l&l Lets keep it civil. If you want to refute John's comments do it in a polite way.

Oppression as its understood in this debate is regional. A trans person in Seattle is not oppressed. They have access to hormonal treatment, sex change surgery is not frowned upon, they are insulated from criticism and have numerous social support options. A trans person in Texas will have a different story to tell.
My apologies if I am too harsh, I am a passionate woman.

I live in Canada, do you think when I hear stories about black people getting shot by cops in the states it doesn't affect me because I live far away?

If I felt I had to make my vagina into a dick but knew there are only some places in the world where it was okay should it make me feel better just because I don't live where they don't allow it?

Feeling empathy makes that hard.
__________________
My words are edible

Last edited by Loser&Loner; 10-24-2017 at 06:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-24-2017, 05:57 PM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

Also, having the privilege to live in any State would be nice.
__________________
My words are edible
Reply With Quote
Reply

  WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:44 PM.

vBulletin, Copyright 2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.