sex/gender is simple

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=521627 time=1627786621 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=521616 time=1627784557 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=521411 time=1627650948 user_id=9431]
How would this follow? Are you saying we have reason to think that "gender" is entirely unrelated to biological sex? You'll have to show that argument, because it's not evident.
[/quote]
gender as a social construct[/quote]
Gender [u]isn't[/u] a social construct.

As you say, normal people think biological sex and gender are harmonious, if not quite identical. It's only the manipulators of language who recently have decided to declare that one is negotiable, or that the whole thing's merely "a social construct." But gender and biological sex existed long before society ever "constructed" a thing.

And both are [u]genetic.[/u] You can't get more basic and "non-constructed" than that.
[/quote]

Just because gender was initially based only on biology doesn't mean that's how it has to be, or is, today. The terms have lasted independently because they do not merely do the same work as each other. Sex clearly isn't a social construct. Gender clearly is. The use cases of sex all involve biology. The use cases of gender all involve society. (and by extension, gender identity always revolves around individual psychology)

There was no meaningful distinction until it was discovered how biology led to our social understanding. Our biological and social understandings then began to diverge, as they were Not based entirely on one another.

The nature of all "what is the nature of?" questions is semantic. What work do we use the words to do? Even if the use of sex/gender wasn't already typically divided that way, it should be.
Last edited by Advocate on Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:56 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:03 am Are all people who identify as the opposite gender necessarily "perverts," "predators" or "manipulators"?
No, as I said. They could be sincerely mentally ill, confused, alienated from their own bodies, and out of touch with reality. But let's not let that obscure the whole truth either: it's equally true that they could be -- and there have certainly been noteworthy cases of them being -- perverts, liars, manipulators, fraudsters, exhibitionists, and predators.

But what good, pray tell, would indulging ANY of the above be? :shock: Even if they are sincerely mentally ill, how does indulging their illness help them? At best, you'd be encouraging illness, and at worst, opening the door to abuses.

But if you think that going along with the professed delusion is an appropriate response, I think you have to be assuming there's some normal, healthy state that's possible, wherein somebody who's biologically one gender is deluded that he/she is the opposite gender. That would be the only condition upon which indulging them would make any sense. But what line of reasoning would show that somebody who had no grasp of reality and was driven toward self-mutilation and a life of confusion and misery was in a mentally good condition? :shock:
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:27 pm Just because gender was initially based only on biology doesn't mean that's how it has to be, or is, today.
Yeah, it does. It means it's a biological 'given,' not some sort of option.
Sex clearly isn't a social construct.
Right.
Gender clearly is.
"Clearly"? Bluff. That's not even remotely true. It's a mere figment of the fevered imagination of the politically driven.

What's really clear is that gender is not "constructed," and not defined by "society." It's grounded in genetics, physiology, necessity AND social history. But the latter comes last, because we've got gender before we can even think, let alone participate in social "constructions." And as I said, there was gender long before any society existed. Heck, even animals have gender.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=521716 time=1627822378 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=521712 time=1627820840 user_id=15238]
Just because gender was initially based only on biology doesn't mean that's how it has to be, or is, today. [/quote]
Yeah, it does. It means it's a biological 'given,' not some sort of option.
[quote]
Sex clearly isn't a social construct.[/quote]
Right.
[quote]Gender clearly is.[/quote] "Clearly"? Bluff. That's not even remotely true. It's a mere figment of the fevered imagination of the politically driven.

What's really clear is that gender is not "constructed," and not defined by "society." It's grounded in genetics, physiology, necessity AND social history. But the latter comes last, because we've got gender before we can even think, let alone participate in social "constructions." And as I said, there was gender long before any society existed. Heck, even animals have gender.
[/quote]

a) As usual, i was editing to add a more fleshed out explanation to avoid such trivial backlash, but here it is again; We don't treat each other in society according to sex, because we don't always know each other's sex. We react socially according to gender roles, which may or may not correlate with sex.

b) Your assumption that my motives are political is unfounded. My motivation is epistemological and pragmatic. Moreover, my motivation is nothing to do with the accuracy, or usefulness, of my contention.

c) You are correct about what gender is grounded in, but incorrect in what it is. There are attributes of sex that have nothing to do with gender and vice versa. The words do different work, therefore they are different words. Our ideas of sex and gender have Evolved in different directions over time.. well most of us.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:27 pm ...we don't always know each other's sex. ...
Yeah, actually: we almost always do know it, and we always use very obvious physical cues to tell us. There are almost no people whose gender we actually have trouble detecting.
b) Your assumption that my motives are political is unfounded.
I made no such assumption. I said that the motives of those who invented the fiction that gender and sex are distinct are political. Are you one of them?
The words do different work, therefore they are different words.
Define them. What, according to you, is "sex," and what, according to you, is "gender"?
Our ideas of sex and gender have Evolved in different directions over time.
The fact that some people's ideas have changed does not signal that they have "evolved," let alone "improved" in any way. In this case, they've become more weird, radical, perverse, and out of touch with obvious realities. That's hardly an improvement!
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

It bears repeatin'...

Post by henry quirk »

A man cannot become a woman.

He can pretend to be a woman.

He may actually believe he's a woman.

But, he cannot become a woman.

-----

You do the deluded no favors by bolsterin' the delusion. I get wantin' to avoid conflict but beyond a certain point, retreat becomes complicity. Avoid Josephine as you like and can, but never give in to him.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: It bears repeatin'...

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:03 pm You do the deluded no favors by bolsterin' the delusion. I get wantin' to avoid conflict but beyond a certain point, retreat becomes complicity. Avoid Josephine as you like and can, but never give in to him.
And Josephine has absolutely no right at all to tell anybody what words they're allowed to use, or what they have to believe. Josephine is the one having problems with manifest reality -- nobody else is, and nobody owes Josephine to join the charade.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: It bears repeatin'...

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:38 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:03 pm You do the deluded no favors by bolsterin' the delusion. I get wantin' to avoid conflict but beyond a certain point, retreat becomes complicity. Avoid Josephine as you like and can, but never give in to him.
And Josephine has absolutely no right at all to tell anybody what words they're allowed to use, or what they have to believe. Josephine is the one having problems with manifest reality -- nobody else is, and nobody owes Josephine to join the charade.
There's a video clip from a while back that illustrates it well.

An obvious man gets his panties twisted when the salesclerk (it was a Gamestop, I think) calls him sir.

That's ma'am, he said. As I remember it, the clerk wasn't cowed and the fellow escalated with cursin' and gesticulatin'. It was quite a show. I'm a woman and you will acknowledge that!

No sir: I will not.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

here he is...

Post by henry quirk »

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: It bears repeatin'...

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:52 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:38 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:03 pm You do the deluded no favors by bolsterin' the delusion. I get wantin' to avoid conflict but beyond a certain point, retreat becomes complicity. Avoid Josephine as you like and can, but never give in to him.
And Josephine has absolutely no right at all to tell anybody what words they're allowed to use, or what they have to believe. Josephine is the one having problems with manifest reality -- nobody else is, and nobody owes Josephine to join the charade.
There's a video clip from a while back that illustrates it well.

An obvious man gets his panties twisted when the salesclerk (it was a Gamestop, I think) calls him sir.

That's ma'am, he said. As I remember it, the clerk wasn't cowed and the fellow escalated with cursin' and gesticulatin'. It was quite a show. I'm a woman and you will acknowledge that!

No sir: I will not.
Yes, I saw it. It was a stunning display of refusal to embrace reality. The dude was a disaster, if he believes he is actually a woman. It reminds me of the husky transsexual who once grabbed Ben Shapiro by the back of the neck and threatend to "end" him for not acknowledging that the huge, ugly dude is not a woman.

I still wonder if Bruce Jenner has given back all his medals, now that he's a woman and is no longer qualified for them. And I wonder if he's petitioned to have all his records erased as well. After all, he participated in men's sports under false pretenses, since he says he was a woman in reality all along.

I'm not holding my breath to see it happen. Consistency is not the hallmark of the trans lobby.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:47 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:03 am Are all people who identify as the opposite gender necessarily "perverts," "predators" or "manipulators"?
No, as I said. They could be sincerely mentally ill, confused, alienated from their own bodies, and out of touch with reality. But let's not let that obscure the whole truth either: it's equally true that they could be -- and there have certainly been noteworthy cases of them being -- perverts, liars, manipulators, fraudsters, exhibitionists, and predators.
There are perverts, liars, manipulators, fraudsters, etc in just about every demographic group. Why should it matter more if a transexual person is one than anyone else? You make it sound like they're all that way. Otherwise, I'm not understanding why you bring it up as some sort of special concern toward transexuals.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:47 pmBut what good, pray tell, would indulging ANY of the above be? :shock: Even if they are sincerely mentally ill, how does indulging their illness help them? At best, you'd be encouraging illness, and at worst, opening the door to abuses.

But if you think that going along with the professed delusion is an appropriate response, I think you have to be assuming there's some normal, healthy state that's possible, wherein somebody who's biologically one gender is deluded that he/she is the opposite gender. That would be the only condition upon which indulging them would make any sense. But what line of reasoning would show that somebody who had no grasp of reality and was driven toward self-mutilation and a life of confusion and misery was in a mentally good condition? :shock:
If you want to go around producing arguments and heated debates with mentally ill people over the veracity of their delusions, have at it. Knock yourself out. No one is stopping you. I'm certainly not stopping you.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: It bears repeatin'...

Post by Walker »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:44 pm I'm not holding my breath to see it happen. Consistency is not the hallmark of the trans lobby.
He was never particularly brilliant as Bruce and now he poses for a lot still photos, striking a pose he sees in his mind, and his words are mostly found in print rather than recorded voice. Someone may ask him to say, "Shapshifter," three times fast, and well, he speaks funny now for some reason. Has to speak softly at all times to avoid any Olympic-sized roars. He seems to be counting on positive projections into his new image of still silence taken from the stills.

Interesting, he is the conservative solution to Hair Gel Gavin Newsom, radical D, metrosexual man who still might be recalled.

Crafty politician, this shape-shifter.


(note: feel free to replace/insert any descriptive pronoun that you may think applies to Jenner, to clarify any other meanings that may get overlooked in outrage or hopeful, mirth milord, milady ... Downton has ended but the effects linger.)
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:53 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:47 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:03 am Are all people who identify as the opposite gender necessarily "perverts," "predators" or "manipulators"?
No, as I said. They could be sincerely mentally ill, confused, alienated from their own bodies, and out of touch with reality. But let's not let that obscure the whole truth either: it's equally true that they could be -- and there have certainly been noteworthy cases of them being -- perverts, liars, manipulators, fraudsters, exhibitionists, and predators.
There are perverts, liars, manipulators, fraudsters, etc in just about every demographic group. Why should it matter more if a transexual person is one than anyone else?
It doesn't.
You make it sound like they're all that way.
I don't.
Otherwise, I'm not understanding why you bring it up as some sort of special concern toward transexuals.

Because that's the thing the OP tells us to address.

But there is a special problem here. When somebody says something that flatly defies reality, you have special reason to know he's either delusional or up to something. Perverts, liars and manipulators are not more so for being transgender; they're the same, but focused on that particular issue.
If you want to go around producing arguments and heated debates with mentally ill people over the veracity of their delusions, have at it.
I don't. I want to have sane discussions with sane people about what is the appropriate response to serious mental illness -- or, of course, to lying, manipulation and abuse. Those are reasonable discussions to have.

But you don't "discuss" with the mentally ill: you help them to get the therapy they so urgently need. You can't make sense to people who can't make any sense.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:53 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:47 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:03 am Are all people who identify as the opposite gender necessarily "perverts," "predators" or "manipulators"?
No, as I said. They could be sincerely mentally ill, confused, alienated from their own bodies, and out of touch with reality. But let's not let that obscure the whole truth either: it's equally true that they could be -- and there have certainly been noteworthy cases of them being -- perverts, liars, manipulators, fraudsters, exhibitionists, and predators.
There are perverts, liars, manipulators, fraudsters, etc in just about every demographic group. Why should it matter more if a transexual person is one than anyone else? You make it sound like they're all that way. Otherwise, I'm not understanding why you bring it up as some sort of special concern toward transexuals.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:47 pmBut what good, pray tell, would indulging ANY of the above be? :shock: Even if they are sincerely mentally ill, how does indulging their illness help them? At best, you'd be encouraging illness, and at worst, opening the door to abuses.

But if you think that going along with the professed delusion is an appropriate response, I think you have to be assuming there's some normal, healthy state that's possible, wherein somebody who's biologically one gender is deluded that he/she is the opposite gender. That would be the only condition upon which indulging them would make any sense. But what line of reasoning would show that somebody who had no grasp of reality and was driven toward self-mutilation and a life of confusion and misery was in a mentally good condition? :shock:
If you want to go around producing arguments and heated debates with mentally ill people over the veracity of their delusions, have at it. Knock yourself out. No one is stopping you. I'm certainly not stopping you.
It 'matters' when they can go into women's toilets and changing rooms (penis and all), undress in front of children, or when they end up in women's prisons...

And unless they have also changed all of their internal organs and skeleton and menstruate and can get pregnant, and worry about their own safety walking home from a bus stop at night, change their voice/hands/feet/chromosomes... then they aren't 'trans' anything.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by seeds »

_______

See next post.
_______
Post Reply