Page 1 of 1

Gender philosophy forum

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:20 pm
by Philosophy Explorer
Could use an update since LGBT often comes up nowadays which doesn't fit into this category, but is closely related.

PhilX πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ

Re: Gender philosophy forum

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:50 am
by tbieter
I don't understand the meaning of your sentence. :?

Re: Gender philosophy forum

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:55 am
by Philosophy Explorer
tbieter wrote: ↑
Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:50 am
I don't understand the meaning of your sentence. :?
Is LGBT the same as gender philosophy?

PhilX πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ

Re: Gender philosophy forum

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 4:19 am
by Dalek Prime
Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑
Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:55 am
tbieter wrote: ↑
Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:50 am
I don't understand the meaning of your sentence. :?
Is LGBT the same as gender philosophy?

PhilX πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ
Gender philosophy can discuss, but is not equivalent to, LGBTQIA (phew!) issues, which can be discussed under as many headings as their are subjects e.g. politics, religion, ethics, etc.

Re: Gender philosophy forum

Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:01 am
by Judaka
LGBTQI (w/e) is probably the dumbest acronym ever invented. Most of these things have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. Some of them relate to gender and some of them don't.

Re: Gender philosophy forum

Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:33 am
by Frank N Stein
Judaka wrote: ↑
Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:01 am
LGBTQI (w/e) is probably the dumbest acronym ever invented. Most of these things have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. Some of them relate to gender and some of them don't.
Exactly.

Re: Gender philosophy forum

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:42 pm
by -1-
Judaka wrote: ↑
Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:01 am
LGBTQI (w/e) is probably the dumbest acronym ever invented. Most of these things have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. Some of them relate to gender and some of them don't.
If we were to accept your argument, then we would be forced to accept that "Jewish" is a thing that has nothing to do with itself. Which is not true.

Most of the things have one thing in common in the the acronym LGBTQI: differentness. Diversity. A behaviour of sexual nature (as per practice, appearance, or appearance in secondary or tertiary sexual characteristics) that had been austricized in the past, on a scale of mild form of discrimination to being excommunicated, to jail terms to being stoned to death or burnt at the stake, YET in the social environment of today, they are tolerated, or outright accepted and embraced as a deviant yet socially or legally normal behaviour from being straight, shoot-from-the-hip breeders.

Re: Gender philosophy forum

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:23 pm
by Scott Mayers
Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑
Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:55 am
tbieter wrote: ↑
Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:50 am
I don't understand the meaning of your sentence. :?
Is LGBT the same as gender philosophy?

PhilX πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ
I believe it is both the discussion topics of gender and sex and how we interpret social and political activity regarding these issues. It is a bit odd to create an acronym that posits specific advocacy in my opinion, similar to -1-'s apparent reflection about one's identity to be "Jewish". The "LBGT..." acronym evolves and grows to be more inclusive than say, the advocacy of a group labeled, "The Anti-defamation League" with its added goal: "to defeat Antisemitism and hate". It begs why have an advocate of a specific interest OR set of interests defend a general class of abuses in society.

I try to argue this often but politics often expects this kind of 'advocacy' approach. To me, it often has an incidental opposite effect: to avenge or counter-advocate against those not specifically labelled but implicitly understood in context. For instance, a "feminist" organization that aims to defeat some general abuse, like "domestic violence", prejudices its intent by implicitly implying either that women are the subject of concerned party to be protected uniquely under the domain of "domestic violence" with the counter-implied enemy class, "male", as a minimum subset of humanity to be the sole perpetrators of domestic violence.

It may not point directly against men as a whole but by its own posited subclass of the whole, it implies that at least women are a 'victim' class with universal agreement to be concerned to prevent violation against uniquely.