Philosophy Now Forum

Skip wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:Real men only think with their penises, so I guess women do think differently.

Define "real men", please.
More interestingly, could you define "unreal men", show how they differ from the genuine article, and tell us with which organ they think?
(I have a vested interest in the answer.)

"Real men" don't actually exist; they only 'exist' in the fantasies of women.

ForCruxSake wrote:

ken wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:I think therefore I am... but am I a man or a woman?

The 'I' is not gendered.

Clearly, I know what I am... but I'm left wondering what gender others have attributed to me?

You meant to say, I think I know what I am... unless of course you are already able to answer the question, Who am I?

ForCruxSake wrote:I think it may have been clearer if I had said, "Clearly I know what sex AND gender I am."

I knew what you were getting at. BUT as I clearly stipulated, the 'I' is not gendered AND thus also does not have a sex. I know you have been continually conditioned to say you know what sex AND gender 'I am ...' BUT I suggest that you do not presume what I am until you can answer the question, Who am I? So, until then you do NOT clearly know what sex AND gender I am.

The I in every body is not gendered specific. The body may have a specific set of sexual organs but the I in each and every body is not them.

The I needs to be looked at objectively, instead of subjectively, for this to be better and fully understood.

ForCruxSake wrote:There being a difference. (One cannot argue with the sex they are born into, though gender might present a problem. A boy might feel himself to identify with girls,or vice versa, and an individual later choose to change sex.)

Did you just argue for or against yourself here?

Also, did you consciously notice how you used the non gender specific word of 'individual' here instead of the gendered specific word of 'boy' or 'girl' to be able to finish your last sentence.

ForCruxSake wrote:

ken wrote: There is nothing in the way you express that makes you a "man".

It is not what, or how, you express but rather what others place on what, and how, you express. People's previous experiences will influence how they choose to look at what is written. Generally people will not look from the truly open Mind at what is expressed, but rather they look only from preconceptions.

Good to know. People have presupposed that I'm a man and, even when I've brought up the fact I might not be, one of them has justified the thinking by suggesting that the likelihood on such a forum, where there is a prevalence of men, suggests, in the absence of its being stated, that I must be a man. This means little, if I'm not actually a man.

I am not sure if that person already knew that the body that you reside in was female or not, so I am unsure if that person was actually trying to justify the thinking that you were not. When I read what they wrote I just read it as an explanation as to why some people, maybe them self (I am unsure) thought you were a man. Are you yourself not to the fact that some people may just presume others are male for the simple fact that the majority of a group are made up of males? This kind of presumption making is a totally foolish and stupid thing to do. But that is what human beings do. In this day and age anyway.

ForCruxSake wrote:No one even thought to clarify if I was, or not.

I, for one, never did clarify because it made no difference whatever to Me.

Have you ever thought to clarify with Me my gender, or have you already presumed and decided what I am?

ForCruxSake wrote: A child would just ask. Adults just seem to know, when they don't actually know... and few ask. Things are just taken for granted. The onus is on me to correct it, if they address me incorrectly.

Exactly.

ForCruxSake wrote:

ken wrote: No, unless of course it is obviously stipulated.

By whom?

By the one expressing of course. You asked, "Is there a gender specific way of expressing oneself?"

I say there is not, unless of coyrse the one who is expressing oneself expressly stipulates that they are expressing in a gendered specific way.

ForCruxSake wrote:How?

By stipulating that.

ForCruxSake wrote: Why?

I do not know. I guess because they want to.

ForCruxSake wrote:Can you provide an example of what you mean?

What I mean is, unless within what is being expressed it is clearly stipulated that 'this is coming from a gendered specific person', then to presume one way or the other is just that, an assumption, which obviously could be right, wrong, or partly right and wrong.

ForCruxSake wrote:

ken wrote:Something else to ponder over, besides the physical sexual organs on the human body what other clearly defined thing makes a man a man and a woman a woman?

Learned habits?

Unless one has learned what is exactly right, and wrong, and has learbes everything and thus is not confused about anything and they also do not need to learn anything more, then those learned habits may just be totally wrong and incorrect.

ForCruxSake wrote:Watching how grown ups behave in a gender specific way, as a child, and seeking to emulate them?

Do you know and can you clearly explain what gender specific way "grown ups" are supposed to behave, and is this the exact same for ALL peoples in ALL countries?

ForCruxSake wrote:Watching how grown ups treat genders themselves?

Does any one of them know the truly right and proper way.

ForCruxSake wrote:By two, children have learned to differentiate between the sexes. I'm assuming the rest is learned, too.

[/quote]

Seeing and questioning the obviously different specific sexual organs on the body children learn the differences. Besides the sexual organs what real differences are there really?

"the 'I' is not gendered AND thus also does not have a sex."

'I' always has a context, is always situated, always issues from 'one' who is most defintely male or female.

That is: 'I' has no meaning outside its use by one who will be one or the other.

That is: you may not know the sex/gender of 'Joe' (on-line) but absolutely you know 'Joe' is male or female. So, when 'Joe' sez 'I' this is not a neutral or neutered pronoun therefore 'I' is always gendered/sexed.

A_Seagull wrote: "Real men" don't actually exist; they only 'exist' in the fantasies of women.

You mean, women want men to think with their penises?

That still begs the question of what unreal men think with.

ForCruxSake wrote:Gary, I may be overstepping the mark,

You're aways overstepping the mark, wading in inappropriately. I say good on VT for bursting your bubble and bringing you down a peg or two.

Re: OP

Who cares? Can you make a good point is the point on a philosophy forum I'd have thought.

ForCruxSake wrote:I don't think it's consciously deliberate or judgemental. I think it might be an ingrained response, removed when gender identification is removed.

The same thing happened in classical music auditions for orchestras, so some of them introduced 'blind' auditions.

Skip wrote:... So are avatars... ...

This response to avatars is interesting and amusing as they do appear to be used by many to express something about themselves or can be read by others as doing such. I find it amusing as others do try to attack one through one's avatar. So for example, I've got the Foghorn as mine and many have tried to use it to attack/insult/deride, etc, me and still do even after I've told them that it was accidental that I use it and had previously have never bothered with such a thing as an avatar. The irony is that now I keep it just because it appears to annoy the type who I tend to clash with in the first place, that and that I noticed that there was a slight resemblance to the 'thinker' statue which is funny(to me) given the Foghorn's persona.

Arising_uk wrote:The same thing happened in classical music auditions for orchestras, so some of them introduced 'blind' auditions.

I believe it also happens quite a lot with piano tuners.

Arising_uk wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:I don't think it's consciously deliberate or judgemental. I think it might be an ingrained response, removed when gender identification is removed.

The same thing happened in classical music auditions for orchestras, so some of them introduced 'blind' auditions.

What about deaf ones? Your example sounds ridiculous to me and about as 'true' as FCS's one. They do need to see the musicians as well. They don't want someone who is flinging wildly disheveled hair around in the faces of other orchestra members, or who hasn't showered in years. Orchestras want the best players they can get. They don't give a damn about gender.

ForCruxSake wrote:...
Last week, I heard that how the GCSE examination system changed the way it undertook marking. It attributed examinees with numbers, which is what is written on papers, instead of names, to identify those taking the exam. Examiners could not identify gender. Its been noticed that girls have consistently performed better since the change. Who'd have thought that?

Another interesting example was the change in how GCSE's as opposed to 'O' levels were assessed and graded, i.e. coursework counted to the end result rather than just exam results. This appears to have led to girls doing better and, maybe, some boys doing worse since it was introduced. Although this may change over here in the near future as the Tories seem to be going back to the old exam-pass system so we'll see if the result holds.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:What about deaf ones? Your example sounds ridiculous to me and about as 'true' as FCS's one. They do need to see the musicians as well. They don't want someone who is flinging wildly disheveled hair around in the faces of other orchestra members, or who hasn't showered in years. Orchestras want the best players they can get. They don't give a damn about gender.

It may sound ridiculous to you but it's just a fact about gender bias in selection processes and was addressed in the 70's and 80's by some of the symphony orchestras .
https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-le ... ender-bias

A_Seagull wrote:Real men only think with their penises, so I guess women do think differently.

Not really, they just think with a smaller one at times.

Arising_uk wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:What about deaf ones? Your example sounds ridiculous to me and about as 'true' as FCS's one. They do need to see the musicians as well. They don't want someone who is flinging wildly disheveled hair around in the faces of other orchestra members, or who hasn't showered in years. Orchestras want the best players they can get. They don't give a damn about gender.

It may sound ridiculous to you but it's just a fact about gender bias in selection processes and was addressed in the 70's and 80's by some of the symphony orchestras .
https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-le ... ender-bias

Ok. Nothing there whatsoever about any studies being done on it. The example you were commenting about was the opposite of what the research found to be true. PC strikes again. By all means get rid of bias where it's proven to be actually happening, but don't assume it is when it isn't.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Ok. Nothing there whatsoever about any studies being done on it. If orchestras practiced gender bias they would only be shooting themselves in the foot. Did you read the thread? The example you were commenting about was the opposite of what the research found to be true. PC strikes again. By all means get rid of bias where it's proven to be actually happening, but don't assume it is when it isn't.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w5903

The point is no-one is 'practicing' it, it's subconscious.