Philosophy Now Forum

Francisco Javier Camacho Jr asks, what difference does it make?

https://philosophynow.org/issues/150/Gender_as_Biological_Fact_vs_Gender_as_Social_Construction

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgpAxdAk7aM

I'd like to see anyone refute any of this guy's arguments. Oh right, that's what words like 'transphobic' and 'bigot' are for

Sex is a biological term; always has been.

Gender is a social construct based on biology; always has been.

Gender identity is psychological/personal and based on gender; always has been.

--------

In biology there is a semi-domorphism between male and female. Male/female/other is sufficient for biology, society, and personality; always has been.

“Biological sex” is generally conceived of as a binary choice between biological male and biological female (DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32764-3). However, this imposition is inadequate to describe the full nature of variation seen in the biological world. This is evidenced for example through the existence of testosterone insensitive XY human phenotypic females and a variety of forms of intersex individuals. Testosterone-insensitive XY humans “present” as females and can be quite attractive. Their cells simply do not respond to the testosterone that their own testes produce and so they develop the “phenotypically default” path toward presenting as female. They can be quite happy, can enjoy sex, and don’t have to worry about periods or cervical cancer. (Because they have no uterus, they develop no cervix.) AND YET…. variations in phenotypic sex presentation are routinely presented according to a categorization of ‘disorders of sex development.’ And this is just phenotypic sex of the grossly visible body; we have even less insight into the biologically determined sexual characteristics operating within the brain.

What we do know is that many, many, many people report that their sense of their own gender is different than the phenotypic appearance of their body. This is a difference that makes a huge difference.

First, noting the juxtaposition of this article with other articles on Kant in this issue, this article de-values the dignity of any person who asserts “this is my own experience of myself” who is also not fully cisgendered?

Second, misuse of an argument is still use of an argument. The argument that “sex is biological” is often incorrectly continued in the following ways: “Sex is biologically determined, as God made them Man and Woman. Anyone who varies from this path is an abomination and has made a choice to live outside God’s mandates. Therefore they shall be treated as an abomination.” This argument is used over and over and over in the United States, at least, for things as horrid as violence against trans individuals and as mundane but insulting as failing to provide private restroom facilities for non-cis individuals. One result of this is that the highest suicide rates for teenagers in the United States are for trans individuals.

Third, even in the realm of phenotypic sex of the body, does it not deny the dignity of any non-cis individual to label them as somehow representing a “disorder”? While I mentioned above that many testosterone-insensitive individuals are quite happy, many also suffer from a variety of psychological problems because of the way they are “labelled.” (I recognize here that I have gone deeper into the question than the author did to begin with).

This article strikes me as one written with little input from or awareness of people who have a critical stake in the argument (the LGBTQ+ community), with little understanding of the relevant biological information available to us today, and with little consideration to the big difference it makes in how one conceives of the as yet unclear mix of biological and non-biological factors influencing biological sex and self-asserted gender identity. The author states, “It is probably not controversial to suggest that violence against transgender people should be addressed through instruments and methods of public health.” Visit the Midwest and high plains and southern states of the US. Some of the thoughts presented in this article are part and parcel of arguments used to justify violence against LGBTQ+ individuals. Asking the dominant force within any hegemony whether or not the hegemony represents a proper order of society will often garner the answer, “yes.” A lot of what this article says is just that.

And just to offer a glimpse about how complex all of this can be in the wider biological world: phenotypic sex of turtles and crocodilians is generally determined by the temperature at which eggs are incubated, not by genetics.

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 2:21 am Francisco Javier Camacho Jr asks, what difference does it make?

https://philosophynow.org/issues/150/Ge ... nstruction

Genders are two aspects of one thing representing the human species. It should be remembered that by nature there is a relation between them in that the sexes influence and evoke differing things from each other in this mutual relationship. Even where this relationship does not lead to procreation, every man and every woman effects by their presence the basic nature of the other. This understood with the fact that biology does not fellow fashion makes today's sexual politics stand out as the absurdity that it is, it is not an intelligent approach to better relations between males and females but quite the opposite. The politics of the present day is successfully using its powers to create a monstrosity of a social structure that would be hard to deny runs counter to the nature of the species. I personally am disgusted with the endless list of imagined genders, even some young people identifying with animals, the insanity has to stop somewhere, and soon. Gender is not a social construct, certainly, there are anomalies and anomalies seem part of nature not an intelligent choice. These aberrations of course might be due to the aberrations of our culture under the pressures of overpopulation. The gender roles are not switching, women are taking on the transformation of society which used to be the male role, and as motherhood is not the sacred role anymore, this presents some problems. Just last week I read of some findings that indicated that women taking birth control and thus not ovulating are more attracted to more effeminate males or not hard to extrapolate more attracted to other females. I know what I say is politically incorrect, but being politically incorrect I believe is our only hope, the herd is headed for the edge of a cliff. Keep in mind that context defines/molds the basic nature of life, but when the context becomes a monstrosity, it violates that which is the essence of life.