Philosophy Now Forum

nope

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:17 pmnope

No.

But if he thinks he can, then if he had any logic in his head he would have to realize that there would be no such thing as a "woman" anyway. Gender would then be an illusion only and if his male-genderedness is an illusion, so is his potential "womanness." There would be no such thing as either.

All human knowledge is socially constructed. Language is socially constructed. The labels we put on things are socially constructed.
As we gain new knowledge - language evolves. Society changes.

That how it has been since - ever. And humans have resisted uncomfortable change since - ever.

Assuming that by "being a man or a woman" means "having a specific genetic sequence" consider that we are rapidly approaching the era of gene editing/engineering with things like CRISPR, and while the technology can't quite do that today it's not at all unfathomable of future-humans being able to change an XY-pair to XX-pair.

You can't alter the fact that a woman has two 'x' chromosomes, periods, and goes through menopause.
If there is no such thing as a 'woman' or a 'man' then don't call anyone that.
Humans are definitely getting stupider and more shallow and annoying. Find a word for that then. Oh. That's right. Politically Correct.

"All human knowledge is socially constructed. Language is socially constructed. The labels we put on things are socially constructed."

Sure, but the placeholder we apply to 'this' or 'that' doesn't change what is intrinsic to 'this' or 'that'. When a man declares himself 'woman' (or is declared 'woman' by society), what is intrinsic to him doesn't change in response to swapping or changing placeholders.

#

"it's not at all unfathomable of future-humans being able to change an XY-pair to XX-pair."

As I say elsewhere, in-forum, I have no doubt, down the road, a man will be able to pop a pill, or get an injection, and release an army of nano-robots into himself that can trundle from cell to cell recoding him into a woman or a chimpanzee or a kangaroo. I also have no doubt, down the road, a person will be able to record brain states with absolute fidelity and then install those recordings in tailor-made bodies.

An age of monsters (tomorrow, not today).

Yes, just a construct that could be dispensed with, another step down the road to everyone accepting their role as 'resource'.

Soylent Green.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:17 pmnope

But perhaps woman can become a man. Of course this means understanding what a man and a woman are. From the Gospel of Thomas: Was Jesus wrong?

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:19 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:17 pmnope

But perhaps woman can become a man. Of course this means understanding what a man and a woman are. From the Gospel of Thomas: Was Jesus wrong?

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

I reckon God can do as He sees fit in that regard. Note: Mary didn't make the declaration, Jesus did.

Such declarations, at least nowadays, are for deities to make. If Crom had a mind to, I suppose he could make me into a turnip. Thank Crom, my god is an indifferent one.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:00 am Sure, but the placeholder we apply to 'this' or 'that' doesn't change what is intrinsic to 'this' or 'that'.

There are very many things intrinsic in a complex system such as the human body. Which particular aspect of it is the "gender"?

The chromosomes? The organs which have developed because of the chromosomes? The hormonal composition of one's body? The brain structure?

Man, woman, human, evolved animal - is just words.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:00 am An age of monsters (tomorrow, not today).

The cultural change happens precisely because some say "yesterday, not tomorrow". In the end change is happening and will happen and there's no clear cut line in the sand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

Some see no point in keeping up with changes - some do. To me - it's just language. If calling somebody "madam" instead of "sir" puts me in their in-group - I'll do it. It is transactionally beneficial to me when people like me.

"If calling somebody "madam" instead of "sir" puts me in their in-group - I'll do it. It is transactionally beneficial to me when people like me."

Well then, if that works for you: keep doin' that.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:17 pmnope

agreed

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:39 am You can't alter the fact that a woman has two 'x' chromosomes, periods, and goes through menopause.
If there is no such thing as a 'woman' or a 'man' then don't call anyone that.
Humans are definitely getting stupider and more shallow and annoying. Find a word for that then. Oh. That's right. Politically Correct.

one in 500 are XXY or XYY.

so the former may be unsex,

the latter more more male and males of course.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:05 am Yes, just a construct that could be dispensed with, another step down the road to everyone accepting their role as 'resource'.

Soylent Green.

great movie, on bluray now and cheap - FYI.

gaffo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:50 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:39 am You can't alter the fact that a woman has two 'x' chromosomes, periods, and goes through menopause.
If there is no such thing as a 'woman' or a 'man' then don't call anyone that.
Humans are definitely getting stupider and more shallow and annoying. Find a word for that then. Oh. That's right. Politically Correct.

one in 500 are XXY or XYY.

so the former may be unsex,

the latter more more male and males of course.

No women have a y chromosome though.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:53 am

gaffo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:50 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:39 am You can't alter the fact that a woman has two 'x' chromosomes, periods, and goes through menopause.
If there is no such thing as a 'woman' or a 'man' then don't call anyone that.
Humans are definitely getting stupider and more shallow and annoying. Find a word for that then. Oh. That's right. Politically Correct.

one in 500 are XXY or XYY.

so the former may be unsex,

the latter more more male and males of course.

No women have a y chromosome though.

yep.

not sure your point though.

you are fast on the trigger!