the language of postmodernism

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by popeye1945 »

"Postmodernism Definition Postmodernism is a philosophy that says absolute truth does not exist. Supporters of postmodernism deny long-held beliefs and conventions and maintain that all viewpoints are equally valid.quote

The above is just a silly nonsense presentation, all meaning is biologically dependent, and truth when it has a subject is meaning. So, Truth is biological dependent, does that mean that experience/knowledge/meaning is the same for every individual across the board? There is a commonest to this across the board according to species. Within one species humans it would depend on the biological health and thus similarity of the state of health of the individual to the majority. This state of being where one depends upon ones biology for truth/meaning is not infallible there are illusion, delusions, etc..,. When ever ones biology is altered ones experience is altered and again experience is knowledge/meaning/truth. It is by no means full proof but that is the way it is. So, the drunk the unhealthy the dope addict the insane all have altered biologies, altered experiences/knowledge/meanings and truths. If one is in error which can occur even if your are perfectly healthy does not mean that necessarily your judgement is equally valid to any others, this is just nonsense.
Belinda
Posts: 8032
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 3:14 am "Postmodernism Definition Postmodernism is a philosophy that says absolute truth does not exist. Supporters of postmodernism deny long-held beliefs and conventions and maintain that all viewpoints are equally valid.quote

The above is just a silly nonsense presentation, all meaning is biologically dependent, and truth when it has a subject is meaning. So, Truth is biological dependent, does that mean that experience/knowledge/meaning is the same for every individual across the board? There is a commonest to this across the board according to species. Within one species humans it would depend on the biological health and thus similarity of the state of health of the individual to the majority. This state of being where one depends upon ones biology for truth/meaning is not infallible there are illusion, delusions, etc..,. When ever ones biology is altered ones experience is altered and again experience is knowledge/meaning/truth. It is by no means full proof but that is the way it is. So, the drunk the unhealthy the dope addict the insane all have altered biologies, altered experiences/knowledge/meanings and truths. If one is in error which can occur even if your are perfectly healthy does not mean that necessarily your judgement is equally valid to any others, this is just nonsense.
Indeed it's hard to deny how scientists predict outcomes with such a lot of correlation that we can't be extricated from our cultures of scientifically generated technologies. Physics used to be thought of as the hardest science but now biology holds these laurels. One effect of the high status of biology is that health is an acceptable criterion of goodness and truth and even beauty.

Some conversations seem to be better than others. Conversations among posh intellectuals such as scientists are held in high esteem. PoMo claims that social class and the conversations of posh people, such as scientists, or kings, is not a guarantor of virtue if indeed there be any possible guarantor. So-called "disadvantaged" people too have worthy conversations although the rules are different. Please see the discussion I linked to about the language codes of Basil Bernstein.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 11:49 am Indeed it's hard to deny how scientists predict outcomes with such a lot of correlation that we can't be extricated from our cultures of scientifically generated technologies.
It is that what you would like? A world, "extricated," from cultures of scientifically generated technologies, devoid of antibiotics, electric lighting, central heating, sanitary homes, internal plumbing, abundant food in almost endless variety, clothing affordable to almost anyone, and comfortable transportation to almost anywhere for almost anyone. Would you really prefer a world where life was sun-up to sun-down drudgery that lasted at best 30 years, with no time for pleasure and no luxuries, where famine was always a threat and plagues were ubiquitous?
Belinda wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 11:49 am Physics used to be thought of as the hardest science but now biology holds these laurels.
Since when and by whom? Perhaps a bunch of academics who have no idea what science is might say something absurd like that, especially if they happened to be, "evolutionary psychologists."

If there were a, "hardest," science, a science that is most successful and has achieved the most in provided for the technologies that improve human life, it would be chemistry, followed closely by the physics of mechanics and electronics.
Belinda wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 11:49 am One effect of the high status of biology is that health is an acceptable criterion of goodness and truth and even beauty.
Again, by whom? The most vicious hateful person in the world can be both beautiful and healthy. Some of the most vile individuals on the planet are all those brainless, "beautiful atheletes," worshiped by the masses of the ignorant. Is this another academic thing.
Belinda wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 11:49 am Some conversations seem to be better than others. Conversations among posh intellectuals such as scientists are held in high esteem. PoMo claims that social class and the conversations of posh people, such as scientists, or kings, is not a guarantor of virtue if indeed there be any possible guarantor. So-called "disadvantaged" people too have worthy conversations although the rules are different. Please see the discussion I linked to about the language codes of Basil Bernstein.
Paraphrasing Einstein, the difference between conversations between geniuses and idiots is, conversations between geniuses are limited to cogency and reason, conversations between academics and other self-appointed experts and authorities have no rational limits or objective purposes. The latter are, however, often more entertaining, if you like absurd and ironic humor.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 11:49 am
popeye1945 wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 3:14 am "Postmodernism Definition Postmodernism is a philosophy that says absolute truth does not exist. Supporters of postmodernism deny long-held beliefs and conventions and maintain that all viewpoints are equally valid.quote

The above is just a silly nonsense presentation, all meaning is biologically dependent, and truth when it has a subject is meaning. So, Truth is biological dependent, does that mean that experience/knowledge/meaning is the same for every individual across the board? There is a commonest to this across the board according to species. Within one species humans it would depend on the biological health and thus similarity of the state of health of the individual to the majority. This state of being where one depends upon ones biology for truth/meaning is not infallible there are illusion, delusions, etc..,. When ever ones biology is altered ones experience is altered and again experience is knowledge/meaning/truth. It is by no means full proof but that is the way it is. So, the drunk the unhealthy the dope addict the insane all have altered biologies, altered experiences/knowledge/meanings and truths. If one is in error which can occur even if your are perfectly healthy does not mean that necessarily your judgement is equally valid to any others, this is just nonsense.
Indeed it's hard to deny how scientists predict outcomes with such a lot of correlation that we can't be extricated from our cultures of scientifically generated technologies. Physics used to be thought of as the hardest science but now biology holds these laurels. One effect of the high status of biology is that health is an acceptable criterion of goodness and truth and even beauty.

Some conversations seem to be better than others. Conversations among posh intellectuals such as scientists are held in high esteem. PoMo claims that social class and the conversations of posh people, such as scientists, or kings, is not a guarantor of virtue if indeed there be any possible guarantor. So-called "disadvantaged" people too have worthy conversations although the rules are different. Please see the discussion I linked to about the language codes of Basil Bernstein.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by popeye1945 »

["Indeed it's hard to deny how scientists predict outcomes with such a lot of correlation that we can't be extricated from our cultures of scientifically generated technologies. Physics used to be thought of as the hardest science but now biology holds these laurels. One effect of the high status of biology is that health is an acceptable criterion of goodness and truth and even beauty.

Some conversations seem to be better than others. Conversations among posh intellectuals such as scientists are held in high esteem. PoMo claims that social class and the conversations of posh people, such as scientists, or kings, is not a guarantor of virtue if indeed there be any possible guarantor. So-called "disadvantaged" people too have worthy conversations although the rules are different. Please see the discussion I linked to about the language codes of Basil Bernstein.
[/quote]

Hi Belinda.

Indeed biologies' rightful place should be the mother of all sciences in dealing with our apparent reality in that all meaning is relative to it. That is not to say that half of the equation is less a necessity for subject and object can never be separated. Intelligence coupled with critical thinking of a biological subject certainly is the greatest guarantor of greater wisdom, producing the criterion of goodness, truth, and beauty for realities point of reference will always be the biological subject. We stand on the shoulders of giants, those intellects that proceeded us provide great stimulus but even they would wish as mentors that one challenges the pedestal upon which they stand. I don't see a link anywhere but I'll google the name.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by iambiguous »

Postmodern Understandings of Language and Power – Explanations and Refutations
February 1, 2019 Otto King
from The Postil Magazine website
There is a problem with this Postmodern emphasis on Freedom, that makes it impossible to function within a Postmodern framework. To make this point more poignant, I will use a Postmodern argument to refute it.
Postmodern Freedom? How is that not a contradiction in terms? Isn't the whole point of postmodernism to deconstruct words like freedom by reconstructing them into existential contraptions that mean different things to different people out in different worlds understood from different points of view?

Not sure what this means?

Okay, note a context and we'll discuss it.

Here though the closest we come to that is this:
Let us start with Derrida’s idea of dichotomies. Derrida argues language in the West is flawed because it is limited to various dichotomies: Good vs Evil, Presence vs Absence, Male vs Female, Speech vs Writing. Discourse tends to privilege one part of the dichotomy over the other: Good rather than Evil, Presence rather than Absence, Male rather than Female, and Speech over Writing. The argument is that the choice of what to privilege has no basis in objectivity or goodness, and that in reality neither choice within these dichotomies is inherently better than the other.
Of course that's basically my argument too. Only when I seek to explore this or that gender narrative and Evil, this rather than that God and Good, I want to examine it in regard to actual human interactions resulting in conflicts that revolve around things like abortion or gun laws or the role of government.

Freedom then.
In a Postmodern framework, this has to be the case because if language does not refer to anything than truth does not exist. This introduces the problem that all discourses must become equal, meaning that you must believe that all ideas are equally privileged or equally worthless–a truly daunting proposition. The majority of Postmodernists choose to believe in the former: that all meanings, even within dichotomies should be treated as equal.
On the contrary, in regard to the overwhelming preponderance of language that we use in going about the business of living from day to day our words refer precisely to things that are not privileged to any individuals such that what any particular one of them believes is equal to what anyone else believes.

Really, how many here actually believe that?

So, what am I not understanding about the postmodernism debate here?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175006
Belinda
Posts: 8032
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by Belinda »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 5:44 pm Postmodern Understandings of Language and Power – Explanations and Refutations
February 1, 2019 Otto King
from The Postil Magazine website
There is a problem with this Postmodern emphasis on Freedom, that makes it impossible to function within a Postmodern framework. To make this point more poignant, I will use a Postmodern argument to refute it.
Postmodern Freedom? How is that not a contradiction in terms? Isn't the whole point of postmodernism to deconstruct words like freedom by reconstructing them into existential contraptions that mean different things to different people out in different worlds understood from different points of view?

Not sure what this means?

Okay, note a context and we'll discuss it.

Here though the closest we come to that is this:
Let us start with Derrida’s idea of dichotomies. Derrida argues language in the West is flawed because it is limited to various dichotomies: Good vs Evil, Presence vs Absence, Male vs Female, Speech vs Writing. Discourse tends to privilege one part of the dichotomy over the other: Good rather than Evil, Presence rather than Absence, Male rather than Female, and Speech over Writing. The argument is that the choice of what to privilege has no basis in objectivity or goodness, and that in reality neither choice within these dichotomies is inherently better than the other.
Of course that's basically my argument too. Only when I seek to explore this or that gender narrative and Evil, this rather than that God and Good, I want to examine it in regard to actual human interactions resulting in conflicts that revolve around things like abortion or gun laws or the role of government.

Freedom then.
In a Postmodern framework, this has to be the case because if language does not refer to anything than truth does not exist. This introduces the problem that all discourses must become equal, meaning that you must believe that all ideas are equally privileged or equally worthless–a truly daunting proposition. The majority of Postmodernists choose to believe in the former: that all meanings, even within dichotomies should be treated as equal.
On the contrary, in regard to the overwhelming preponderance of language that we use in going about the business of living from day to day our words refer precisely to things that are not privileged to any individuals such that what any particular one of them believes is equal to what anyone else believes.

Really, how many here actually believe that?

So, what am I not understanding about the postmodernism debate here?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175006
Good vs Evil, Presence vs Absence, Male vs Female, Speech vs Writing. Discourse tends to privilege one part of the dichotomy over the other: Good rather than Evil, Presence rather than Absence, Male rather than Female, and Speech over Writing. The argument is that the choice of what to privilege has no basis in objectivity or goodness, and that in reality neither choice within these dichotomies is inherently better than the other.
Of these examples only Good vs Evil transcends dichotomy : evil is absence or depletion of good but good is the eternal default. No matter how anyone defines 'Good', good transcends subjectivity and good is always and everywhere present in the memory or the hope for the future.

The actual dichotomies such as Male vs Female are subjective or intersubjective. Biologically and culturally 'male' and 'female' are arbitrary categories. All apparent dichotomies are arbitrary. You may as well pose Dandelions vs Daisies, Trains vs Canals, and Knitted vs Woven as dichotomies. All so-called 'dichotomies' are features of relativity and dichotomies are therefore inevitable heuristics if we are to cope with change itself. The meaning of a dichotomy is its use.

Freedom does not transcend arbitrary dichotomy and it's quite easy to find antitheses to freedom. Politicians for instance know a lot of antonyms to 'freedom'.

Gun laws can be ethically settled by knowledge of the relative absence of good regarding gun ownership or strict controls of gun ownership. Elective abortion likewise.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by popeye1945 »

Why is postmodernism even given any credibility, its just plan nonsense. In mythology something like this might be considered the work of a joker god/spirit whose purpose is simply to spread turmoil and discontent, with a mixture of the king has no clothes. It's nonsense, who's on first or just plan stirring up shit. The utterly innocent will state, the king has no clothes.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by iambiguous »

Postmodern Understandings of Language and Power – Explanations and Refutations
February 1, 2019 Otto King
from The Postil Magazine website

Conclusion:
Then the question becomes how can the Postmodernist value Freedom over Oppression? How do they discern that Freedom is indeed privileged to oppression? Why are Postmodern thinkers also quick to value the individual over the collective? Even while disparaging the ideas of the Enlightenment and the West, Postmodern thought seems rather happy to take some of it as baseline assumption.
As always: Freedom and Oppression given what set of circumstances? And how is Freedom different from freedom? How is Oppression different from oppression?

Soon, we may well have a headline churning issue to focus on:

From the NYT:

'Leaked Supreme Court Draft Would Overturn Roe v. Wade

'A majority of the court privately voted to strike down the landmark abortion rights decision, according to the document, obtained by Politico.'


Okay, how would those who construe themselves to be postmodernists make a distinction here between Freedom and Oppression and freedom and oppression in regard to the language that they use in reacting to Roe v. Wade being struck down?

Does such a distinction even exist "for all practical purposes"?

The individual fetus or fetuses as a whole? Individual women with an unwanted pregnancy or all of these women as a whole?

What's more vital...the Freedom/freedom of the fetus to live or the Freedom/freedom of the women to choose?
If the Postmodernist seeks to answer these questions, they will fall guilty to using value judgments rooted in language or needing to accept metanarrative.
And there it is. Narratives -- the objective communication of sexual and biological facts -- are there to be shared if you are a doctor who performs abortions. But if you are an ethicist weighing in on the morality of abortion? Where is the objective narrative then?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175006
Belinda
Posts: 8032
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by Belinda »

iambiguous wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 4:39 pm Postmodern Understandings of Language and Power – Explanations and Refutations
February 1, 2019 Otto King
from The Postil Magazine website

Conclusion:
Then the question becomes how can the Postmodernist value Freedom over Oppression? How do they discern that Freedom is indeed privileged to oppression? Why are Postmodern thinkers also quick to value the individual over the collective? Even while disparaging the ideas of the Enlightenment and the West, Postmodern thought seems rather happy to take some of it as baseline assumption.
As always: Freedom and Oppression given what set of circumstances? And how is Freedom different from freedom? How is Oppression different from oppression?

Soon, we may well have a headline churning issue to focus on:

From the NYT:

'Leaked Supreme Court Draft Would Overturn Roe v. Wade

'A majority of the court privately voted to strike down the landmark abortion rights decision, according to the document, obtained by Politico.'


Okay, how would those who construe themselves to be postmodernists make a distinction here between Freedom and Oppression and freedom and oppression in regard to the language that they use in reacting to Roe v. Wade being struck down?

Does such a distinction even exist "for all practical purposes"?

The individual fetus or fetuses as a whole? Individual women with an unwanted pregnancy or all of these women as a whole?

What's more vital...the Freedom/freedom of the fetus to live or the Freedom/freedom of the women to choose?
If the Postmodernist seeks to answer these questions, they will fall guilty to using value judgments rooted in language or needing to accept metanarrative.
And there it is. Narratives -- the objective communication of sexual and biological facts -- are there to be shared if you are a doctor who performs abortions. But if you are an ethicist weighing in on the morality of abortion? Where is the objective narrative then?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175006
PoMos are same as everyone else; Pomos have to choose. Choosing to opt out of choosing is a choice too.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by iambiguous »

The limitations of language
Catherine Hyman at The Patriot
By definition, languages are limiting. We cannot speak about things if the words don’t exist to allow us to do so. Sometimes, this makes us unaware of concepts others are able to discuss, other times, this limitation renders us incapable of speaking about things of which we are aware.
By definition. Good point?

In other words, might there be limitations imposed on language in regard to things that cannot be defined...objectively. In particular when words are combined not to describe things themselves but our reaction to the complex relationship between things. Even when you can look up all the words in a dictionary and get their definitions, when you combine all of those definitions you can still have many conflicting reactions.

And, existentially, the more factors and variables you combine [the past and the present and the projected future] into the description the more things that we attempt to denote become things that we merely connote instead. Given our individual reaction to all of these things combined [as we understand them] the more likely it is that disagreements will arise.
One limitation of the English language is a lack of a genderless pronoun. We have “he” for boys and men and “she” for girls and women but no good pronoun that does not identify gender. English has the word “it,” but this is not used to refer to people because it has been used to dehumanize others.
And of course in today's gender bender world what particular gender does someone wish to be referred to as? Even pronouns become politicized and plunged into the ambiguities of "I" in the is/ought world. Only the objectivists among us "solve" the problem by insisting that all words can be brought into alignment with the one true reality. We are merely obligated to define the meaning of all words wholly in sync with the authoritarian dogmatists themselves.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175006
Belinda
Posts: 8032
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by Belinda »

iambiguous wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 4:33 pm The limitations of language
Catherine Hyman at The Patriot
By definition, languages are limiting. We cannot speak about things if the words don’t exist to allow us to do so. Sometimes, this makes us unaware of concepts others are able to discuss, other times, this limitation renders us incapable of speaking about things of which we are aware.
By definition. Good point?

In other words, might there be limitations imposed on language in regard to things that cannot be defined...objectively. In particular when words are combined not to describe things themselves but our reaction to the complex relationship between things. Even when you can look up all the words in a dictionary and get their definitions, when you combine all of those definitions you can still have many conflicting reactions.

And, existentially, the more factors and variables you combine [the past and the present and the projected future] into the description the more things that we attempt to denote become things that we merely connote instead. Given our individual reaction to all of these things combined [as we understand them] the more likely it is that disagreements will arise.
One limitation of the English language is a lack of a genderless pronoun. We have “he” for boys and men and “she” for girls and women but no good pronoun that does not identify gender. English has the word “it,” but this is not used to refer to people because it has been used to dehumanize others.
And of course in today's gender bender world what particular gender does someone wish to be referred to as? Even pronouns become politicized and plunged into the ambiguities of "I" in the is/ought world. Only the objectivists among us "solve" the problem by insisting that all words can be brought into alignment with the one true reality. We are merely obligated to define the meaning of all words wholly in sync with the authoritarian dogmatists themselves.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175006
Sometimes thinking people have to deliberately engineer language change so that some words that once were decent become indecent, and other words that once were indecent become respectable. Sometimes thinking people deliberately change use of English so that a pronoun may be singular as well as plural.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by Iwannaplato »

There's an interesting essentialism AND at the same time a postmodernism in today's left sexuality politics.
On the one hand, for the latter position, gender is viewed as utterly fluid and made up.
On the other hand the essentialist side.... anyone who says they are of another gender are essentially of another gender. They are right.
And interestingly many people hold both positions, but often in different contexts and never seem to notice that there might be something to reconcile here.
Please don't make any assumptions about who or what I support here. Right now I am looking at an overview.

If we draw in authenticity, trans claims include people asserting that they know they are really or 'really' depending on your outlook not the sex they were born with. For those who think there is no way to determine authenticity, this would mean you view all claims as some kind of objectivity hallucination or simply a hallucination. There would be no way to know this. For those who believe these people in all cases, we have determined that such determinations of authenticity are infallible.

And in the debate out there, we have this false dilemma. No one is deluded vs. they are all deluded.

Perhaps some are deluded and concerns about children are very important. Perhaps.....

There could be a lot of perhaps.

PoMo has seeped into everything and is itself subject to a similar false dilemma. All of its analyses are shit because some POMOists see no differences between epistemologies.

We could look at the same type of tension around gay people.

If one thinks there is no way to determine an athentic self, period. Then one must think people who realize they are gay are actually 'realizing' they are gay. That is hallucinating knowledge that they cannot have. We are just sea of impulses and handmedown ideas with no gps. Or one could think that some or all people who realize they are authentically attracted more to the same sex are right about this. I think the some position is safer since some people change their minds. Others think people simply could not possibly know such a thing, so people who realize they are gay are just fooling themselves.
Belinda
Posts: 8032
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by Belinda »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 8:13 am There's an interesting essentialism AND at the same time a postmodernism in today's left sexuality politics.
On the one hand, for the latter position, gender is viewed as utterly fluid and made up.
On the other hand the essentialist side.... anyone who says they are of another gender are essentially of another gender. They are right.
And interestingly many people hold both positions, but often in different contexts and never seem to notice that there might be something to reconcile here.
Please don't make any assumptions about who or what I support here. Right now I am looking at an overview.

If we draw in authenticity, trans claims include people asserting that they know they are really or 'really' depending on your outlook not the sex they were born with. For those who think there is no way to determine authenticity, this would mean you view all claims as some kind of objectivity hallucination or simply a hallucination. There would be no way to know this. For those who believe these people in all cases, we have determined that such determinations of authenticity are infallible.

And in the debate out there, we have this false dilemma. No one is deluded vs. they are all deluded.

Perhaps some are deluded and concerns about children are very important. Perhaps.....

There could be a lot of perhaps.

PoMo has seeped into everything and is itself subject to a similar false dilemma. All of its analyses are shit because some POMOists see no differences between epistemologies.

We could look at the same type of tension around gay people.

If one thinks there is no way to determine an athentic self, period. Then one must think people who realize they are gay are actually 'realizing' they are gay. That is hallucinating knowledge that they cannot have. We are just sea of impulses and handmedown ideas with no gps. Or one could think that some or all people who realize they are authentically attracted more to the same sex are right about this. I think the some position is safer since some people change their minds. Others think people simply could not possibly know such a thing, so people who realize they are gay are just fooling themselves.
It's when we live as communities we need to label ourselves so others know what to expect of us. Gender used to be important when men regarded women as chattels. Now, it doesn't matter whether an employee or business associate calls themself a man or a woman. A prospective spouse would be interested but less so than in the days when marriage was only between a man and a woman.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: the language of postmodernism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Belinda wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:20 am It's when we live as communities we need to label ourselves so others know what to expect of us.
Though it may be radically misleading.
Gender used to be important when men regarded women as chattels. Now, it doesn't matter whether an employee or business associate calls themself a man or a woman.
In most, but it matters to the person. IOW my post is focused on two very different ideas about sexuality and gender, both of which are on the left. And they don't quite fit together. The trans person, for example, doesn't care that at work it doesn't matter to the place of employment if he or she or they are considered a man or a woman. They consider the difference to of critical significance. That there are distinct genders/sexes and they are over HERE not THERE.

And the left supports them in this. If they say they are a woman, regardless of birth sex, looks, genitalia, reproductive organs, voice, body hair, breast size and look, etc., they are a woman. Sex change operation or no.

But there are other facets of the left, often if not usually embodied in the same left person that say that gender is a myth. A social contruct. A woman can be and feel and be like anything. A man can feel/think/relate/move speak in any matter at all. All gender/sex difference is a social construct. These don't fit together well.

And, again, I am not weighing in here against trans people. I am focused on a contradiction that the left shuffles around in, without wanting to really deal the contradictions.

And it must be radically confusing for children. Who are often being told there are no differences, you can think/feel/do anything regardless of your sex. And then at the same time Johanna feels like she is a woman so she is a woman. And, generally speaking, transpeople work quite hard to fit into gender norms. Not always, but enough so that children must end up with a real mish mash around sex/gender ontology.

POMO plays a role in this, I think, and it would tend to lead one towards indetermination and claims of an authentic or more authentic sex or sexuality for a specific individual cannot be grounded. IOW it is subtely anti-trans.
Post Reply