If Mort Divine ruled the world

[rms]

It may appear to be a stubborn and dick kind of move, but ultimately he is just an academic who does not want to nor should he indulge concepts that he does not fundamentally agree with.

but academics consistently define terms for their own meanings. Having strict definitions to words is something un-academics too, quite honestly.

If the new world order is that sex is male / female and gender is x/y/z/zhe/whatever then OK, there's nothing wrong with arguing in that framework.

But I have problems with any psychologist considering themselves academics

 

[Dak]

but academics consistently define terms for their own meanings. Having strict definitions to words is something un-academics too, quite honestly.

I would argue the opposite. Academics are much more strict with meaning/definition, even if they use slightly different meanings than the convention holds.

But I have problems with any psychologist considering themselves academics

I'm not sure the US is turning out much in the way of academics in any field, and the ones being turned out are on personal rather than systemic merit.

 

[The Ozzman]

but academics consistently define terms for their own meanings. Having strict definitions to words is something un-academics too, quite honestly.

Yep, I would argue this is the antithesis of any collegiate teachings

 

[rms]

I would argue the opposite. Academics are much more strict with meaning/definition, even if they use slightly different meanings than the convention holds.

might be strict that when arguing within a specific context this word means this, but understand that it defies conventional understanding and usually devotes a sufficient amount of words to help readers/students understand

 

[Dak]

might be strict that when arguing within a specific context this word means this, but understand that it defies conventional understanding and usually devotes a sufficient amount of words to help readers/students understand

Conventional understanding involves a lot of subjective fuzziness. A good academic attempts to eliminate this fuzziness. Propaganda exploits this fuzziness of meaning in the mind of the average person.

Yep, I would argue this is the antithesis of any collegiate teachings

Good point. Collegiate professor/course =/= academic.

 

[Cythraul]

He is hiding behind his wall of academia to defend his bigotry.

Nah, you're just being anti-intellectual and totalitarian. The legal requirement that people be referred to by whatever pronouns they wish to be referred to by is, contrary to the transparent attempts at gaslighting the public from the people pushing this stuff, really nothing less than the demand for the public affirmation of an entire (highly questionable) ideology concerning the nature of manhood and womanhood, the metaphysics of embodiment and of the self, and so on. 'Bigotry' doesn't mean disagreement with that ideology or the refusal to reform one's speech in accordance with it. Not unless you're engaged in low redefinition of the term 'bigotry' (nothing new for the left here!) Stop abusing language and stop pretending that a manifestly ideological push to overturn plain common sense about the nature of manhood and womanhood is just a matter of tolerance or respect.

 

[rms]

someone should remind Bill he did this back in 92

hahahahahhahahahaha I hate everyone

 

[Dak]

nothing less than the demand for the public affirmation of an entire (highly questionable) ideology concerning the nature of manhood and womanhood, the metaphysics of embodiment and of the self, and so on.

This is an excellent point, which unfortunately is far beyond any sort of useful public critique, as the public has their various ideologies and accepted metaphysical ideas without actually examining even the terminology, much less the respective philosophical roots and arguments.

 

[EternalMetal]

MTV strikes again. lol

 

[Dak]

"You guys can have Kanye"

lol racists.

 

[Cythraul]

Blue Lives Matter isn't a thing because cops weren't born with blue skin. You learn something new every day!

 

[Einherjar86]

Nah, you're just being anti-intellectual and totalitarian. The legal requirement that people be referred to by whatever pronouns they wish to be referred to by is, contrary to the transparent attempts at gaslighting the public from the people pushing this stuff, really nothing less than the demand for the public affirmation of an entire (highly questionable) ideology concerning the nature of manhood and womanhood, the metaphysics of embodiment and of the self, and so on. 'Bigotry' doesn't mean disagreement with that ideology or the refusal to reform one's speech in accordance with it. Not unless you're engaged in low redefinition of the term 'bigotry' (nothing new for the left here!) Stop abusing language and stop pretending that a manifestly ideological push to overturn plain common sense about the nature of manhood and womanhood is just a matter of tolerance or respect.

This is an excellent point, which unfortunately is far beyond any sort of useful public critique, as the public has their various ideologies and accepted metaphysical ideas without actually examining even the terminology, much less the respective philosophical roots and arguments.

This is a two-way street though. Identity politics falls apart under a critique of the metaphysics of presence, which goes back to theorists like Judith Butler (obviously the critique of presence goes back much earlier, at least to Heidegger, but Butler connected it explicitly to gender). Gender doesn't reflect any metaphysical presence, which is secret, or hidden - i.e. it is inside, interior. Rather, gender is a public cultural performance constituted by language and social context. Accepting this, it then becomes idiosyncratic to promote a politics of identity that grounds itself on presence (on what I am, on what I feel myself to be).

But, if we accept this, then it also becomes idiosyncratic to ground gender in biological sex. Gender is a matter of language and social representation, and this goes back at least to ancient Rome (every Latin word had a gender - it could be masculine, feminine, or neuter). When we try and reestablish gender's constitution via biological sex, we fall back into the trap of identity politics - that is, we make an attempt to metaphysically ground gender in the stability of biology. I'm not trying to suggest that biology is metaphysical, or that it is necessary in any way; but when we draw the line from gender to biology, we are making a metaphysical move. There is a historical association between sex and gender, but there isn't any necessary connection between them.

 

[Dak]

There is a historical association between sex and gender, but there isn't any necessary connection between them.

It's historical because it is/was necessary. It appears that the sundering of the necessity is actually rooted elsewhere: In the increasing disconnect from our humanity/biology. We are no longer concerned with our lives or those of our ancestors and descendants, and so many are less and less concerned with the traditional gender roles which facilitated the transfer of life from generation to generation.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's historical because it is/was necessary.

No, that's not true. Biology is just biology, it isn't necessary in any way. It just is. You might say that its "is-ness" makes it necessary - in other words, it's necessary because it is. But that's just another argument for a metaphysics of presence. Humans of the female sex can have children, while males can't; there's nothing necessary about this except insofar as it constitutes material conditions of behavior, the same way that cultural values constitute material conditions of behavior. The point doesn't lie in denying that only women can have children, but in denying that this means women who choose to have children are more socially valuable than those who don't.

Gender's historical representation and institutionalization have often been associated with observations of biological sex, but in ways that have also often projected necessity where there is none, and in turn have created various exclusionary conventions - from the right to vote to little girls not playing with toy guns. It's important that we be able to identify and recognize these conventions in order to make what I think are appropriate and entirely reasonable concessions.

None of this means submitting to a regime of selective identity; but it does mean acknowledging that there are many instances in which the promotion of strict gender roles serves little practical purpose, and can in fact have a negative impact.

 

[Dak]

No, that's not true. Biology is just biology, it isn't necessary in any way. It just is. You might say that its "is-ness" make it necessary - in other words, it's necessary because it is. But that's just another argument for a metaphysics of presence.

Gender's historical representation and institutionalization have often been associated with observations of biological sex, but in ways that have also often projected necessity where there is none, and in turn have created various exclusionary conventions - from the right to vote to little girls not playing with toy guns. It's important that we be able to identify and recognize these conventions in order to make what I think are appropriate and entirely reasonable concessions.

I don't know how accurate it is to describe the lack of women's suffrage as "created". Political franchise has been extremely restricted historically. The amount of time between the franchise expanding to include all men and then to all women shows relatively little lag time. If women aren't expected to engage in the dangerous occupations which require the use of firearms, it makes little sense to encourage play in those areas - particularly when looking to times of relative material want and shorter life spans.

None of this means submitting to a regime of selective identity; but it does mean acknowledging that there are many instances in which the promotion of strict gender roles serves little practical purpose, and can in fact have a negative impact.

Of course you'd need to qualify strict, practical, and negative. Broadly, I think it's clear that being overly concerned with social minutiae isn't practical. But then that is exactly a problem created by having multiple genders/pronouns/etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't know how accurate it is to describe the lack of women's suffrage as "created".

I think it's obvious there's a causal relation between gender norms and women not being able to vote. That strikes me as tough to deny.

Political franchise has been extremely restricted historically. The amount of time between the franchise expanding to include all men and then to all women shows relatively little lag time. If women aren't expected to engage in the dangerous occupations which require the use of firearms, it makes little sense to encourage play in those areas - particularly when looking to times of relative material want and shorter life spans.

Alternatively, perhaps they aren't expected to engage in dangerous occupations because they aren't encouraged to entertain such occupations in the first place.

I don't think you can ultimately trace these kinds of complex social expectations back to biology, and I definitely don't think biology holds the key to unlock a set of optimal values for the social roles of men and women. My point is that it doesn't make sense to appeal to biology to discourage men or women from pursuing careers in which their biology has minimal impact. For example, it doesn't make sense to discourage young boys from playing with Barbie dolls because it might contribute to their pursuing careers in fashion design, or some other association that is gender-based.

Of course you'd need to qualify strict, practical, and negative. Broadly, I think it's clear that being overly concerned with social minutiae isn't practical. But then that is exactly a problem created by having multiple genders/pronouns/etc.

Sure - but broadly speaking, I don't think social opportunities involving income and job description can be classified as minutiae. When it comes to the social acknowledgement of our contemporary multiplicity of genders, I personally have no problem with it beyond an intellectual one. In other words, as identity politics involves a metaphysics of presence, and/or as the backlash against identity politics attempts to reduce gender to a biological binary - both are appeals to presence and thereby subject to critique. But I consider this to be a personal stance, not one to be politically mandated, since the premise for mandating it is philosophically unsound. The responsibility lies not in political mandate but in public discourse.

 

[rms]

I think it's obvious there's a causal relation between gender norms and women not being able to vote.

don't know what you're getting at here

 

[Dak]

I think it's obvious there's a causal relation between gender norms and women not being able to vote. That strikes me as tough to deny.

Alternatively, perhaps they aren't expected to engage in dangerous occupations because they aren't encouraged to entertain such occupations in the first place.

To say that women were denied voting because of gender misunderstands political power, or power in general. The political franchise has overwhelmingly been limited to a handful of people in any given human polity, and in the earliest times there was a connection between physical power and political franchise - this is the biological necessity. Over time, this connection was weakened, to the point where democracy began to spread in Europe, not surprisingly very much in connection with the advance of mechanical technology, which appeared to render physical strength inconsequential. Once *all* men are granted suffrage in a polity, women's suffrage soon follows.

I don't think you can ultimately trace these kinds of complex social expectations back to biology, and I definitely don't think biology holds the key to unlock a set of optimal values for the social roles of men and women.

Exactly the kind of comment that would be expected as per my observation in the prior post that we have become disconnected from our biology.

My point is that it doesn't make sense to appeal to biology to discourage men or women from pursuing careers in which their biology has minimal impact. For example, it doesn't make sense to discourage young boys from playing with Barbie dolls because it might contribute to their pursuing careers in fashion design, or some other association that is gender-based.

I'm not sure there is anything that biology only minimally impacts. or maybe more accurately interacts with. I know this is not a position that is currently en vogue, and hasn't been for some time.

But I consider this to be a personal stance, not one to be politically mandated, since the premise for mandating it is philosophically unsound. The responsibility lies not in political mandate but in public discourse.

Well we can agree there. If someone wants to think of themselves as ___kin, it would be problematic to outlaw this.

 

[Einherjar86]

To say that women were denied voting because of gender misunderstands political power, or power in general. The political franchise has overwhelmingly been limited to a handful of people in any given human polity, and in the earliest times there was a connection between physical power and political franchise - this is the biological necessity. Over time, this connection was weakened, to the point where democracy began to spread in Europe, not surprisingly very much in connection with the advance of mechanical technology, which appeared to render physical strength inconsequential. Once *all* men are granted suffrage in a polity, women's suffrage soon follows.

To say that political power isn't influenced by gender misunderstands political power, actually.

First, physical power doesn't dictate hierarchy. If physical power needs to be asserted, then there is no hierarchy to speak of; the strong thrive and the weak perish. This isn't politics or hierarchy, it's simply primal, animalistic behavior - extremely primitive, evolutionarily distant behavior to say the least. And again, there's no necessity here, there's only the fact of behavior, which could be otherwise (female lions are stronger than male lions, for example).

Political power first emerged not through the assertion of physical strength, but through claims to knowledge and the ability to tell convincing stories - and gender is one such story. A physically frail or weak man could wield enormous power simply by presenting himself as the bearer of tremendous knowledge, and here we have an example of conflicting gender norms already: that masculinity is both wisdom and physical strength. Of course, early knowledge-bearers also saw the value in promoting physical strength, and so men and women began to find themselves cast in specific societal roles.

By the time advanced elections come into being, the role of social organizers and knowledge-bearers had long belonged to men. To say that gender played no role in this development is pretty myopic, to say the least.

Exactly the kind of comment that would be expected as per my observation in the prior post that we have become disconnected from our biology.

Well, I wouldn't say that observation is wrong; but I also wouldn't say that what you're observing is bad...

I'm not sure there is anything that biology only minimally impacts. or maybe more accurately interacts with. I know this is not a position that is currently en vogue, and hasn't been for some time.

I would say that biology has a more significant impact on, say, childbearing than it does on whether a woman wants to be a firefighter.

 

[Dak]

To say that political power isn't influenced by gender misunderstands political power, actually.

First, physical power doesn't dictate hierarchy. If physical power needs to be asserted, then there is no hierarchy to speak of; the strong thrive and the weak perish. This isn't politics or hierarchy, it's simply primal, animalistic behavior - extremely primitive, evolutionarily distant behavior to say the least. And again, there's no necessity here, there's only the fact of behavior, which could be otherwise (female lions are stronger than male lions, for example).


Political power first emerged not through the assertion of physical strength, but through claims to knowledge and the ability to tell convincing stories - and gender is one such story. A physically frail or weak man could wield enormous power simply by presenting himself as the bearer of tremendous knowledge, and here we have an example of conflicting gender norms already: that masculinity is both wisdom and physical strength. Of course, early knowledge-bearers also saw the value in promoting physical strength, and so men and women began to find themselves cast in specific societal roles.

By the time advanced elections come into being, the role of social organizers and knowledge-bearers had long belonged to men. To say that gender played no role in this development is pretty myopic, to say the least.

If you can find an instance of political power being waged by someone through the wielding of knowledge or stories (not saying that there aren't instances of this), you will still see that this is only effective in so far as that knowledge or power was effective over those with the physical power. And of course, I specifically stated that political power has moved away from connections to physical power(sinews/flesh) over time as technological substitutions for manpower have multiplied.

But I see no conflict in a claim that masculinity includes both wisdom and physical strength, as these things aren't mutually exclusive. However, I do see a problem with mentioning animals when we talk about human behavior, and this is a common fallback when biological interactions emerge in an argument. These comparisons aren't made when discussing other animal's behaviors, so I don't understand why are made in this context. "Why do alligators do this? Ostriches are different so alligators could be different!" However, since you mentioned female lions being stronger, if we look to see how that plays out in lion behavior, we see that the females do the hunting - they do the greater amount of physical labor involved in procuring the necessities of life. That seems consistent with pointing out that male roles in humans have tended towards the more physically demanding.

Well, I wouldn't say that observation is wrong; but I also wouldn't say that what you're observing is bad...

Well I think it will be the undoing of the species if there isn't a return to a more biologically rooted view. You've been clear that you don't find that to be a problem.

I would say that biology has a more significant impact on, say, childbearing than it does on whether a woman wants to be a firefighter.

Only to the extent that firefighting doesn't require greater size/muscle mass. This is my original point that these social role divisions seem arbitrary in many cases at this point because technology is obscuring differences. At the rate of advance in the fields surrounding IVF, even childbearing is becoming disconnected/obscured.