A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

[Gary Childress]

But unfortunately you would be condemning your parents to unbearable torture for the rest of their lives. (Normal) parents don't just 'get over' these things, so you might just have to 'stick it out' if you don't want to condemn them to that.

I know. I don't blame my folks for anything. It's not their fault. God (if there is one at all) also made sure that the young are ignorant and seek affection from each other. Indeed, it would equally create a human disaster if people stopped having babies because then there would be no one to take care of the elderly ones that reach an age where they can no longer look after themselves. I'll do what I can of my duty and try to give my mom a sendoff that is free of as much pain and worry as I can. (My dad passed away exactly three weeks ago as of today). But after that, I'm on my own and that's fine. I'll bite the bullet. Maybe someone else's kid will be kind enough to at least see that I'm not left to rot somewhere in the middle of the street or something. Not that it would matter to me at that point anyway. It would just be for their own peace of mind.

EVERYTHING is a catch-22. There is no suitable solution to the problems of living and stopping the cycle isn't going to come without significant problems also. To be honest, whether or not there is a "God" is probably of minimal importance anyway. Either God is as much a sadistic monster as anything else or otherwise, there's no "God" at all. We can take our pick. But either way is not going to change the world as it manifests itself one whit.

Sorry about your Dad. Loneliness is not for the faint hearted.

Thank you.

True. But in the end, there is no one or anything to blame but God (if even a God exists to blame). Or perhaps God has skipped town ahead of meeting his angry creations?

We are deceived into having children. We only learn too late that the world is not our friend. Many people, great thinkers all the way down to ditch diggers, thought they were doing something that would make the world better somewhere along the line. But the powers of this world have been against us all the way. We've done little more than fight and squabble over differences we are not responsible for or over things that for all our limited understanding, we thought were worth struggling for. The world has deceived us or worked against our hopes of peace and prosperity in every way. If there is a creator then, as far as I'm concerned, that creator should be repenting to his helpless suffering creations for the world he threw us in and not us having to "repent" to him. We owe God nothing. We've done nothing wrong that wasn't ingrained in us as instinct or else the "best" thing to do to the best of our feeble knowledge.

QED

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I know. I don't blame my folks for anything. It's not their fault. God (if there is one at all) also made sure that the young are ignorant and seek affection from each other. Indeed, it would equally create a human disaster if people stopped having babies because then there would be no one to take care of the elderly ones that reach an age where they can no longer look after themselves. I'll do what I can of my duty and try to give my mom a sendoff that is free of as much pain and worry as I can. (My dad passed away exactly three weeks ago as of today). But after that, I'm on my own and that's fine. I'll bite the bullet. Maybe someone else's kid will be kind enough to at least see that I'm not left to rot somewhere in the middle of the street or something. Not that it would matter to me at that point anyway. It would just be for their own peace of mind.

EVERYTHING is a catch-22. There is no suitable solution to the problems of living and stopping the cycle isn't going to come without significant problems also. To be honest, whether or not there is a "God" is probably of minimal importance anyway. Either God is as much a sadistic monster as anything else or otherwise, there's no "God" at all. We can take our pick. But either way is not going to change the world as it manifests itself one whit.

Sorry about your Dad. Loneliness is not for the faint hearted.

Thank you.

True. But in the end, there is no one or anything to blame but God (if even a God exists to blame). Or perhaps God has skipped town ahead of meeting his angry creations?

We are deceived into having children. We only learn too late that the world is not our friend. Many people, great thinkers all the way down to ditch diggers, thought they were doing something that would make the world better somewhere along the line. But the powers of this world have been against us all the way. We've done little more than fight and squabble over differences we are not responsible for or over things that for all our limited understanding, we thought were worth struggling for. The world has deceived us or worked against our hopes of peace and prosperity in every way. If there is a creator then, as far as I'm concerned, that creator should be repenting to his helpless suffering creations for the world he threw us in and not us having to "repent" to him. We owe God nothing. We've done nothing wrong that wasn't ingrained in us as instinct or else the "best" thing to do to the best of our feeble knowledge.

QED

You know I'm an atheist right?

[Gary Childress]

Sorry about your Dad. Loneliness is not for the faint hearted.

Thank you.

True. But in the end, there is no one or anything to blame but God (if even a God exists to blame). Or perhaps God has skipped town ahead of meeting his angry creations?

We are deceived into having children. We only learn too late that the world is not our friend. Many people, great thinkers all the way down to ditch diggers, thought they were doing something that would make the world better somewhere along the line. But the powers of this world have been against us all the way. We've done little more than fight and squabble over differences we are not responsible for or over things that for all our limited understanding, we thought were worth struggling for. The world has deceived us or worked against our hopes of peace and prosperity in every way. If there is a creator then, as far as I'm concerned, that creator should be repenting to his helpless suffering creations for the world he threw us in and not us having to "repent" to him. We owe God nothing. We've done nothing wrong that wasn't ingrained in us as instinct or else the "best" thing to do to the best of our feeble knowledge.

QED

You know I'm an atheist right?

I have no problem with that. I figured you probably were, however, I see little reason that I should post differently than I do depending on whether one is an atheist or else theist. I'm agnostic. I doubt anything could qualify as sufficient evidence to change my views in either direction.

As I say, whether there's an absurd god who rules a world that is pretty obviously absurd from my perspective or else no god at all (in what I can only likewise describe as an absurd world), makes little difference to me. I simply see the world for what it appears to be. It's not in my interest to subscribe to any particular transcendental/metaphysical, or extra-real views. I see only what is in my view and what is in my view is not satisfactory. And I don't see any way for humans to do much that is appropriate to fundamentally change that. Of course, we do what we can, but the world is always working against us, even if it's in the most subtle ways. We inflict violence by pruning the hedges to keep them out of our way, but the hedges, through no intrinsic fault of their own, only wish to grow back. (And if we destroy the hedges permanently, then it seems to be an even more violent act, perhaps even one that will ultimately spell the destruction of our own habitat.)

In the words, of Camus, "Sisyphus is happy". Or if I recall the line correctly without googling, I believe Camus stated something like "we can only imagine Sisyphus as happy." (correction after googling, "one must imagine Sisyphus happy" appears as the correct translation or whatever) He says it almost like it's imperative for us to believe, despite whether it's actually true or not, and perhaps it is imperative. Who can either live or survive successfully in a world if we're not "happy" with it? But who can be happy if one is pretty certain ahead of time that one will not be ultimately successful in one's most ambitious endeavors or highest aspirations?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Thank you.

True. But in the end, there is no one or anything to blame but God (if even a God exists to blame). Or perhaps God has skipped town ahead of meeting his angry creations?

We are deceived into having children. We only learn too late that the world is not our friend. Many people, great thinkers all the way down to ditch diggers, thought they were doing something that would make the world better somewhere along the line. But the powers of this world have been against us all the way. We've done little more than fight and squabble over differences we are not responsible for or over things that for all our limited understanding, we thought were worth struggling for. The world has deceived us or worked against our hopes of peace and prosperity in every way. If there is a creator then, as far as I'm concerned, that creator should be repenting to his helpless suffering creations for the world he threw us in and not us having to "repent" to him. We owe God nothing. We've done nothing wrong that wasn't ingrained in us as instinct or else the "best" thing to do to the best of our feeble knowledge.

QED

You know I'm an atheist right?

I have no problem with that. I figured you probably were, however, I see little reason that I should post differently than I do depending on whether one is an atheist or else theist. I'm agnostic. I doubt anything could qualify as sufficient evidence to change my views in either direction.

As I say, whether there's an absurd god who rules a world that is pretty obviously absurd from my perspective or else no god at all (in what I can only likewise describe as an absurd world), makes little difference to me. I simply see the world for what it appears to be. It's not in my interest to subscribe to any particular transcendental/metaphysical, or extra-real views. I see only what is in my view and what is in my view is not satisfactory. And I don't see any way for humans to do much that is appropriate to fundamentally change that. Of course, we do what we can, but the world is always working against us, even if it's in the most subtle ways. We inflict violence by pruning the hedges to keep them out of our way, but the hedges, through no intrinsic fault of their own, only wish to grow back. (And if we destroy the hedges permanently, then it seems to be an even more violent act, perhaps even one that will ultimately spell the destruction of our own habitat.)

In the words, of Camus, "Sisyphus is happy". Or if I recall the line correctly without googling, I believe Camus stated something like "we can only imagine Sisyphus as happy." (correction after googling, "one must imagine Sisyphus happy" appears as the correct translation or whatever) He says it almost like it's imperative for us to believe, despite whether it's actually true or not, and perhaps it is imperative. Who can either live or survive successfully in a world if we're not "happy" with it? But who can be happy if one is pretty certain ahead of time that one will not be ultimately successful in one's most ambitious endeavors or highest aspirations?

Fine. I go blank when anyone starts banging on about a god. I'm just not interested. Just so you know. It's IC you need to be talking to in that respect.

[Gary Childress]

You know I'm an atheist right?

I have no problem with that. I figured you probably were, however, I see little reason that I should post differently than I do depending on whether one is an atheist or else theist. I'm agnostic. I doubt anything could qualify as sufficient evidence to change my views in either direction.

As I say, whether there's an absurd god who rules a world that is pretty obviously absurd from my perspective or else no god at all (in what I can only likewise describe as an absurd world), makes little difference to me. I simply see the world for what it appears to be. It's not in my interest to subscribe to any particular transcendental/metaphysical, or extra-real views. I see only what is in my view and what is in my view is not satisfactory. And I don't see any way for humans to do much that is appropriate to fundamentally change that. Of course, we do what we can, but the world is always working against us, even if it's in the most subtle ways. We inflict violence by pruning the hedges to keep them out of our way, but the hedges, through no intrinsic fault of their own, only wish to grow back. (And if we destroy the hedges permanently, then it seems to be an even more violent act, perhaps even one that will ultimately spell the destruction of our own habitat.)

In the words, of Camus, "Sisyphus is happy". Or if I recall the line correctly without googling, I believe Camus stated something like "we can only imagine Sisyphus as happy." (correction after googling, "one must imagine Sisyphus happy" appears as the correct translation or whatever) He says it almost like it's imperative for us to believe, despite whether it's actually true or not, and perhaps it is imperative. Who can either live or survive successfully in a world if we're not "happy" with it? But who can be happy if one is pretty certain ahead of time that one will not be ultimately successful in one's most ambitious endeavors or highest aspirations?

Fine. I go blank when anyone starts banging on about a god. I'm just not interested. Just so you know. It's IC you need to be talking to in that respect.

OK. That's entirely fair. I couldn't expect you to be interested regardless of how much I wanted you to be. Religion has always been something of great interest to me, so I talk about it quite a bit. I was an atheist when I was younger and was greatly influenced by Carl Sagan. Then I switched to overall agnosticism after studying philosophy in college. Finally, I gave Christianity (a particular religion very common and influential in my society) my first serious try about a year and a half ago. True or false, my experience with Christianity was mostly cringeworthy from whatever "vantage point" I perhaps possess. But I digress in my explanation above concerning my behavior.

If sex or "gender" (or whatever we're supposed to call it) is more along the lines of what you prefer to talk about, then (for whatever it's worth to you) what you have said has made reasonable sense to me so far.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Pretty much 'anything' is what I prefer to talk about over religious godshite crap.

[Gary Childress]

Pretty much 'anything' is what I prefer to talk about over religious godshite crap.

Well, that kinda disappoints me a little, just to be honest. I was hoping you'd be more interested in my favorite topic. But, such is life. I'll try to remember to chime in on topics other than religion when posting a response to one of your posts.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Trajk Logik]

No this is not the case. Most parents find the whole thin confusing and disturbing. You are speaking from ignorance.

If parents found it so confusing and disturbing then why would they just let their kids be operated on - changing their life forever? Again, what makes sex so special that one can claim to be another sex but it they claim to be a different race or species then that is crazy? If your child claimed to be a cat would you then affirm their belief by taking them to a cosmetic surgeon to permanently implant whiskers and pointy ears?

Psychiatry informs us that those that either didn't get much attention or received to much attention during their development ends up doing extreme things for attention, or believing that everyone should give them the same undue attention when they are older.

You are now just bullshitting.

You are now speaking from ignorance. My wife is a teacher and I have coached flag football for years and I see all the time how parents lack of, or over- parenting affects their children. There are those parents who have their face in their phones while their child is playing and the child has self-esteem issues and those parents who constantly talk like their kid's shit doesn't stink and how that kid acts like his shit doesn't stink.
But if you don't believe me then read these articles that are very simple to find with a proper Google search ('cause your too lazy to do it yourself).
https://www.familyeducation.com/kids/de ... evelopment

https://www.healthline.com/health/menta ... g-behavior

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... indulgence

https://www.healthyplace.com/parenting/ ... too-little

What we do is listen and accept. WHy do you think it is up to you to "question"?
WTF do you think you are?

A person with the same rights as you. You're questioning me. Why do you think it is up to you to question me? WTF do you think you are - an authoritarian that believes that they can question others but they cannot be questioned. I'm not the one telling others to not question. You are. I'm fine with people asking me questions so that I can give my answers and have them reasonably criticized. You've been criticizing me, but not reasonably.

If someone came along and tried to tell you, you were mad to thing yourself a boy, you would justifiably feeling exploited and paranoid.
So what is YOUR reason for holding a grudge against trans people?


You are so full of your own invention on this matter.

What are you scared of?

Right, so I identify as a Dark Sith Lord and demand that you address me as "My Master" when you reply to me. If you don't I'm going to feel exploited and paranoid.

Nothing you have linked is relevant.
You are irrelevant

What are you, 10?

[EsotericPhilosophy]

I'm just dropping a post here cause I'm new on this board, posted a thread a few days ago but it still doesn't seem to have been over-viewed by a moderator?
Is a few days a normal time period for thread approval?

[Consul]

A woman is xx.

In humans xx chromosomes are genetic markers of femaleness, but having xx chromosomes is not the defining characteristic of femaleness in humans or any other sexually reproducing species. Biologically speaking, an organism belonging to a sexually reproducing species is female if and only if it contributes only large immobile gametes called egg cells (ova) to sexual reproduction; and an organism is male if and only if it contributes only small mobile gametes called sperm cells (spermia) to sexual reproduction. (Note that this definition doesn't require that all females and males actually produce offspring!) This is the gametic definition of sex, and it's the only one universally applicable to all sexually reproducing species in the biological sphere.

"The chromosomal and phenotypic ‘definitions’ of biological sex that are contested in philosophical discussions of sex are actually operational definitions which track gametic sex more or less effectively in some species or group of species. Neither ‘definition’ can be stated for species in general except by defining them in terms of gametic sex."

"Biological sex certainly cannot be defined by chromosomes. Many species, such as crocodiles, have no sex chromosomes, because their sex is not determined genetically. Chromosomal definitions also fail for species that change sex during their lifecycle, since their chromosomes, of course, remain unchanged. Chromosomal definitions do not work even when restricted to species with genetic sex determination and no sex-switching. In humans and most other mammals males have two different sex chromosomes (XY) and females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX). But in birds it is the other way around: males have two identical and females two different chromosomes. Biologists know which chromosome pairs are 'male' or 'female' because they know which animals are male or female, using the gametic definition."

(Griffiths, Paul E. "What are Biological Sexes?" Preprint, 2021.)

[vegetariantaxidermy]

A woman is xx.

In humans xx chromosomes are genetic markers of femaleness, but having xx chromosomes is not the defining characteristic of femaleness in humans or any other sexually reproducing species. Biologically speaking, an organism belonging to a sexually reproducing species is female if and only if it contributes only large immobile gametes called egg cells (ova) to sexual reproduction; and an organism is male if and only if it contributes only small mobile gametes called sperm cells (spermia) to sexual reproduction. (Note that this definition doesn't require that all females and males actually produce offspring!) This is the gametic definition of sex, and it's the only one universally applicable to all sexually reproducing species in the biological sphere.

"The chromosomal and phenotypic ‘definitions’ of biological sex that are contested in philosophical discussions of sex are actually operational definitions which track gametic sex more or less effectively in some species or group of species. Neither ‘definition’ can be stated for species in general except by defining them in terms of gametic sex."

"Biological sex certainly cannot be defined by chromosomes. Many species, such as crocodiles, have no sex chromosomes, because their sex is not determined genetically. Chromosomal definitions also fail for species that change sex during their lifecycle, since their chromosomes, of course, remain unchanged. Chromosomal definitions do not work even when restricted to species with genetic sex determination and no sex-switching. In humans and most other mammals males have two different sex chromosomes (XY) and females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX). But in birds it is the other way around: males have two identical and females two different chromosomes. Biologists know which chromosome pairs are 'male' or 'female' because they know which animals are male or female, using the gametic definition."

(Griffiths, Paul E. "What are Biological Sexes?" Preprint, 2021.)

Thanks for the (copy pasted) mansplanation

[Gary Childress]

A woman is xx.

In humans xx chromosomes are genetic markers of femaleness, but having xx chromosomes is not the defining characteristic of femaleness in humans or any other sexually reproducing species. Biologically speaking, an organism belonging to a sexually reproducing species is female if and only if it contributes only large immobile gametes called egg cells (ova) to sexual reproduction; and an organism is male if and only if it contributes only small mobile gametes called sperm cells (spermia) to sexual reproduction. (Note that this definition doesn't require that all females and males actually produce offspring!) This is the gametic definition of sex, and it's the only one universally applicable to all sexually reproducing species in the biological sphere.

"The chromosomal and phenotypic ‘definitions’ of biological sex that are contested in philosophical discussions of sex are actually operational definitions which track gametic sex more or less effectively in some species or group of species. Neither ‘definition’ can be stated for species in general except by defining them in terms of gametic sex."

"Biological sex certainly cannot be defined by chromosomes. Many species, such as crocodiles, have no sex chromosomes, because their sex is not determined genetically. Chromosomal definitions also fail for species that change sex during their lifecycle, since their chromosomes, of course, remain unchanged. Chromosomal definitions do not work even when restricted to species with genetic sex determination and no sex-switching. In humans and most other mammals males have two different sex chromosomes (XY) and females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX). But in birds it is the other way around: males have two identical and females two different chromosomes. Biologists know which chromosome pairs are 'male' or 'female' because they know which animals are male or female, using the gametic definition."

(Griffiths, Paul E. "What are Biological Sexes?" Preprint, 2021.)

If "gender" and "sex" are different, then you are obviously not equating sex with gender. It sounds to me like most of what people talk about when they debate "gender" is little more than debating what social role a person can or can't or should or shouldn't adopt. It's certainly true that a male can cook and a female can be the one to go out and hunt for food or whatever, however, what is the need for a male to go into a female restroom? Are females doing it all wrong and need a man to go in and explain it to them how to squat properly? Or are females doing something in there we men desperately need to find out about?

[Consul]

Thanks for the (copy pasted) mansplanation

"to mansplain = to explain something to a woman in a condescending way that assumes she has no knowledge about the topic"

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mansplaining

My and Griffith's explanations are not cases of "mansplanation", because we have no sexist intention of condescension at all!

[Consul]

If "gender" and "sex" are different, then you are obviously not equating sex with gender. It sounds to me like most of what people talk about when they debate "gender" is little more than debating what social role a person can or can't or should or shouldn't adopt. It's certainly true that a male can cook and a female can be the one to go out and hunt for food or whatever, however, what is the need for a male to go into a female restroom? Are females doing it all wrong and need a man to go in and explain it to them how to squat properly? Or are females doing something in there we men desperately need to find out about?

If "sex" and "gender" aren't used synonymously, I need to be told what exactly "gender" means. For example, the American psychologist Madison Bentley was one of the first (if not the first) to use "gender" in the contemporary psychological/sociological sense:

"…gender (which is the socialized obverse of sex) is a fixed line of demarkation, the qualifying terms being 'feminine' and 'masculine'. Many matters in grouping, playing, exercising, reciting, and the like, separate the boys from the girls. That these are social matters of gender may be demonstrated by a reference across to the domestic animals, where there is sex but no gender, sex which has its occasional demonstrations and signals but exerts little other influence upon the cattle, the horses, the cats and the chickens. There can be no doubt that the gendering of the younger child sets a definite stamp upon it and distinctly contributes to its general socialization."

(Bentley, Madison. "Sanity and Hazard in Childhood." The American Journal of Psychology 58/2 (1945): 212–246. p. 228)

A central concept in Pierre Bourdieu's sociology is "habitus". A person's psychosocial habitus in his sense of the term is not just a habit, but a complex of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dispositions, inclinations, or tendencies. If the "qualifying terms" with regard to gender (≠ sex) are "feminine" and "masculine", then we can speak of the feminine or masculine gender in the sense of a feminine or masculine habitus that isn't (solely) determined by biological sex—such that a male person can have a more or less feminine habitus, and a female person can have a more or less masculine habitus.

If "gender" is defined in terms of social roles—the feminine role vs. the masculine role (whatever that is)—, such that it is nothing but a purely functional concept, then men can play the feminine role, and women can play the masculine role.

[Gary Childress]

If "gender" and "sex" are different, then you are obviously not equating sex with gender. It sounds to me like most of what people talk about when they debate "gender" is little more than debating what social role a person can or can't or should or shouldn't adopt. It's certainly true that a male can cook and a female can be the one to go out and hunt for food or whatever, however, what is the need for a male to go into a female restroom? Are females doing it all wrong and need a man to go in and explain it to them how to squat properly? Or are females doing something in there we men desperately need to find out about?

If "sex" and "gender" aren't used synonymously, I need to be told what exactly "gender" means. For example, the American psychologist Madison Bentley is one of the first (if not the first) to use "gender" in the contemporary psychological/sociological sense:

…gender (which is the socialized obverse of sex) is a fixed line of demarkation, the qualifying terms being 'feminine' and 'masculine'. Many matters in grouping, playing, exercising, reciting, and the like, separate the boys from the girls. That these are social matters of gender may be demonstrated by a reference across to the domestic animals, where there is sex but no gender, sex which has its occasional demonstrations and signals but exerts little other influence upon the cattle, the horses, the cats and the chickens. There can be no doubt that the gendering of the younger child sets a definite stamp upon it and distinctly contributes to its general socialization."

(Bentley, Madison. "Sanity and Hazard in Childhood." The American Journal of Psychology 58/2 (1945): 212–246. p. 228)

A central concept in Pierre Bourdieu's sociology is "habitus". A person's psychosocial habitus in his sense of the term is not just a habit, but a complex of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dispositions, inclinations, or tendencies. If the "qualifying terms" with regard to gender (≠ sex) are "feminine" and "masculine", then we can speak of the feminine or masculine gender in the sense of a feminine or masculine habitus that isn't (solely) determined by biological sex—such that a male person can have a more or less feminine habitus, and a female person can have a more or less masculine habitus.

If "gender" is defined in terms of social roles—the feminine role vs. the masculine role (whatever that is)—, such that it is nothing but a purely functional concept, then men can play the feminine role, and women can play the masculine role.

You'd save yourself a lot of unnecessary complexity if you replace all the stuff about (cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dispositions, inclinations, or tendencies) with the simple term "social roles". Sex is a biological constant, social role is not. A person doesn't need to whack off their penis and replace it with a vagina in order to knit a blanket or something. If a person needs to assume the physical qualities of the opposite sex, then there's little going on there that perhaps isn't so different from this: