If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

with essentialism being defined as, a belief that things have a set of characteristics that make them what they are, and that the task of science and philosophy is their discovery and expression; the doctrine that essence is prior to existence, this is your position? that biology is a social construct?

Sorry, but you are not reading this correctly at all.

Essentialism is the argument that things are the way they are because of some prior essence, some metaphysical substance that produces us in the way we are--thereby making our sexual preferences, our gender, etc. a reflection of some prior spark of being that led to our existence.

Biology doesn't make this argument, that's what the author is saying. Biology is the study of the existence of things, not of some preternatural life-essence that gives rise to entities the way they are. Logically speaking, such a belief couldn't give rise to entities in any other way; that is, their existence would be predetermined by their essence.

Biology isn't the study of predetermined essence or substance. It's the study of the way things are, which could also appear in any given number of other ways. Biology isn't a social construct, but it's not an essence either.

 

[rms]

Essentialism is the argument that things are the way they are because of some prior essence, some metaphysical substance that produces us in the way we are--thereby making our sexual preferences, our gender, etc. a reflection of some prior spark of being that led to our existence.

feel like we're on the same page here, yet how do you grapple the rest of the paragraphs with the field of evolutionary biology? Isn't that practice simply an attempt to understand/demonstrate why things are the way they are, ie 'best for surivival' ?

Thankfully his first paragraph isn't as wordy as the intro

 

[CiG]

Biology's study of the way things are necessarily includes an understanding of the way things were and have always been as well. I think that is often missing from these characterisations of biology.

Anyway, what I find interesting is how so many people seem keen to talk about "trans race" yet isn't there only one person who is supposedly "trans race" so far? Are there any more beyond just Rachel Dolezal?

Why is there a preference to scientifically justify or debunk "trans race" rather than just putting this all down to an obvious huckster's attempt to salvage her career?

 

[Einherjar86]

feel like we're on the same page here, yet how do you grapple the rest of the paragraphs with the field of evolutionary biology? Isn't that practice simply an attempt to understand/demonstrate why things are the way they are, ie 'best for surivival' ?

Biology's study of the way things are necessarily includes an understanding of the way things were and have always been as well. I think that is often missing from these characterisations of biology.

Evolutionary biology doesn't actually explain why things are the way they are; it explains how things go to be the way they are. I realize this may seem like splitting hairs, but there is a crucial difference.

Explaining why things are the way they are would be to posit some kind of pre-directed goal, to assume that every organism has been striving to be the way that it is from the beginning. Aside from actually identifying what that beginning would be, this simply isn't the case. Evolution has no pre-directed goals. Organisms evolve and mutate, and certain mutations work while others don't. None of this points to some underlying cause for mutation, as though it's being ushered in the best suitable direction. Mutations are accidents.

Rather, evolution just explains how things got to be the way they are. So once again, new generations introduce new mutations, and some of these mutations might be better-suited to handle changes in the environment. There was nothing predetermined about these mutations, they just happened; and they also just happened to work, thereby passing their genes on to further generations.

 

[rms]

Anyway, what I find interesting is how so many people seem keen to talk about "trans race" yet isn't there only one person who is supposedly "trans race" so far? Are there any more beyond just Rachel Dolezal?

Why is there a preference to scientifically justify or debunk "trans race" rather than just putting this all down to an obvious huckster's attempt to salvage her career?

just for academic sense, logisticians point out that the arguments used for being pro-transgender is the same as transrace, so you can't be for one and not the other

honestly, not sure if anyone is hated more than Dolezal in the public sphere. Maybe Shkreli (drug price dude) for a bit, but I can't think of anyone on a lower totem pole in society -- at least as a caricature

 

[rms]

Mutations are accidents.

Yes, but certain mutations eventually become normalized--and those certain ones do so for a reason. And that reason has to be it's a beneficial mutation towards surviving?

I get your point that non-humans don't have intent, but environments clearly create pressure on organisms and force those organisms into 'channels' or 'paths' throughout their existence, no?


read the rest of his facebook piece, what a waste of time. many people writing lots of words without saying anything. gender academics are tiresome

p.s. wtf is trans-GNC?

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes, but certain mutations eventually become normalized--and those certain ones do so for a reason. And that reason has to be it's a beneficial mutation towards surviving?

I get your point that non-humans don't have intent, but environments clearly create pressure on organisms and force those organisms into 'channels' or 'paths' throughout their existence, no?

Mutations do become normalized for a reason, but it has nothing to do with the organism itself realizing its evolutionary potential, or that the mutation is essential to its survival. It simply has to do with that organism and its progeny surviving, and others not. Hence, some mutations shift from outliers to the norm, while others die off.

Environments don't put pressure on individual organisms, since individual organisms don't mutate during the course of their lives (generally speaking). It happens as one generation gives rise to another. The feedback between organism and environment has to be thought of on a genealogical level, not on the level of individual organisms.

It may look like environments direct organisms through channels, but environments themselves don't dictate the anatomical consequences that any given mutation will assume. An organism's anatomy cannot be shaped by the pressure of its environment. In other words, environments might encourage mutation, but they don't infiltrate the genetic material and influence what that mutation will be, or how it will manifest anatomically.

 

[rms]

The feedback between organism and environment has to be thought of on a genealogical level, not on the level of individual organisms.

I don't get how you are separating the two. If an environment suddenly runs out of tuna and now all the organisms have to eat chicken, that diet will effect both the organism and their genetics.

environments might encourage mutation, but they don't infiltrate the genetic material and influence what that mutation will be, or how it will manifest anatomically.

How environment do not encourage mutation seems baffling to me let alone the second half of the statement. Just don't get how you can separate the organism from the genealogy of that organism

Hence, some mutations shift from outliers to the norm, while others die off.

We both agree and have mentioned there's no 'agency' within organisms in relation to mutation, but it sounds like you're scared to take the next step in the logical process. Obviously not all mutations are 'more beneficial' in relation to survival, but it seems likely that the vast majority of organisms that carried on certain mutations did so because those mutations were improvements for that organism in that environment.

I've seen this position to fight off "pre-determination" all the time in history, and I don't get how it's being used here by me. It seems like you're arguing with a non-existent viewpoint in this discussion

 

[CiG]

Evolutionary biology doesn't actually explain why things are the way they are; it explains how things go to be the way they are. I realize this may seem like splitting hairs, but there is a crucial difference.

No I think I understand the distinction you're making. How describes external influences which bring about the accidental mutation in something, why describes (or more appropriately attempts to ascribe) a conscious or subconscious decision to a mutation, which I would say is inappropriate in a discussion about evolutionary biology.

 

[Mort Divine]

p.s. wtf is trans-GNC?

Gender non-conforming

 

[CiG]

I would say one of the best examples we have for attributing a consciousness or subconsciousness to a major evolutionary change is the advent of birth control, essentially a biological revolution, which fundamentally changed the nature of women into a being that had almost instantly much less in common with women, as a being, pre-birth control.

But that's probably a little pseudo-intellectual and it wasn't exactly intended when birth control was invented.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Mutations do become normalized for a reason, but it has nothing to do with the organism itself realizing its evolutionary potential, or that the mutation is essential to its survival. It simply has to do with that organism and its progeny surviving, and others not. Hence, some mutations shift from outliers to the norm, while others die off.

Environments don't put pressure on individual organisms, since individual organisms don't mutate during the course of their lives (generally speaking). It happens as one generation gives rise to another. The feedback between organism and environment has to be thought of on a genealogical level, not on the level of individual organisms.

It may look like environments direct organisms through channels, but environments themselves don't dictate the anatomical consequences that any given mutation will assume. An organism's anatomy cannot be shaped by the pressure of its environment. In other words, environments might encourage mutation, but they don't infiltrate the genetic material and influence what that mutation will be, or how it will manifest anatomically.

Environments absolutely put pressure on individual organisms. The presence of biological diversity (mutations) may be predetermined at birth, but it is *primarily* environmental pressure that dictates which of those mutations will be favorable and conducive to propagation. You have cause and effect entirely backwards. It's the environment that "causes" a finch to evolve a different beak; without that pressure, you'd just see a genotypic average of all available beak alleles, with no particular preference between potential mates.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't get how you are separating the two. If an environment suddenly runs out of tuna and now all the organisms have to eat chicken, that diet will effect both the organism and their genetics.

Sure, but not in any way that can be predicted, by the organisms or by the environment. In fact, most organisms that eat tuna will likely die off. In a small number there might emerge some kind of genetic mutation with increased chances of survival, but the specifics of that mutation do not inhere in the environmental change. In other words, the sudden disappearance of tuna doesn't provide specs for what the genetic mutation will be.

How environment do not encourage mutation seems baffling to me let alone the second half of the statement. Just don't get how you can separate the organism from the genealogy of that organism

Mutations occur inter-generationally, not within the duration of a single generation (unless radically infiltrative substances are introduced, which isn't common). All I'm saying is that when we think of mutation we can't attribute it to some predisposition within the organism itself; the organism isn't working toward some most suitable form.

We both agree and have mentioned there's no 'agency' within organisms in relation to mutation, but it sounds like you're scared to take the next step in the logical process. Obviously not all mutations are 'more beneficial' in relation to survival, but it seems likely that the vast majority of organisms that carried on certain mutations did so because those mutations were improvements for that organism in that environment.

Actually, just the opposite. Far more organisms have perished on this planet than are currently alive. The vast majority of mutations that have occurred throughout the history of life on this planet were mostly duds.

Environments absolutely put pressure on individual organisms. The presence of biological diversity (mutations) may be predetermined at birth, but it is *primarily* environmental pressure that dictates which of those mutations will be favorable and conducive to propagation. You have cause and effect entirely backwards. It's the environment that "causes" a finch to evolve a different beak; without that pressure, you'd just see a genotypic average of all available beak alleles, with no particular preference between potential mates.

Environments don't "cause" mutations to occur. They provide circumstances in which certain mutations prove beneficial, and those organisms pass their genes on to future generations. The finch evolves the beak it does entirely by accident. The finch perpetuates because its beak is conducive to its particular environment.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Environments don't "cause" mutations to occur. They provide circumstances in which certain mutations prove beneficial, and those organisms pass their genes on to future generations. The finch evolves the beak it does entirely by accident. The finch perpetuates because its beak is conducive to its particular environment.

Your second paragraph began "Environments don't put pressure on individual organisms, since individual organisms don't mutate during the course of their lives (generally speaking)." and your third paragraph began "It may look like environments direct organisms through channels, but environments themselves don't dictate the anatomical consequences that any given mutation will assume. An organism's anatomy cannot be shaped by the pressure of its environment.", which were what I was responding to. What you're saying right now seems to be what I'm saying and in contradiction to your previous post.

In the context of previous posts about the why vs the how, I think it's clear that environment dictates why various organisms evolved different mechanisms of sexual dimorphism. Angler fish live in large, dark bodies of water with low population densities; therefore, a mechanism where the male permanently fuses with the first female it comes into contact with evolved to maximize reproductive potential in response to environmental pressures. Same thing with giant squids holding onto sperm for long periods of time. In contrast, land animals are able to cope with more elaborate, competitive modes of reproduction, usually involving a physically stronger and showier male attempting to attract a female, due to a very different kind of environment. In humans, that divide between the sexes is retained and we see obvious biological reason for gender roles.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm disagreeing with you because it sounds like you're saying environments provide a reason for mutation--in broader terms, evolution. While I absolutely agree that there is a circuitry of sorts between environments and genetic mutation, I would stop short of saying that environments gives organisms a reason for mutating. It's not as though an organism's genes are responding to the conditions of an environment when a mutation occurs. That's not what's happening (at least, not in any directly observable or causal way).

So, when mutation occurs, the specific mutation itself hasn't been directed by the environment in any way--what has been directed is simply the process of selection.

This is my reason for focusing on why versus how. "Why" implies some kind of purposiveness behind a mutation, as though the very change in genetic structure was somehow directed by environmental conditions--but genetic mutations are accidents, that's all (again, unless induced somehow). "How" attends to the fact that mutations have occurred, and that some prove more successful than others--in this case, the environment intervenes only in the process of selection, meaning some mutations allow an organism to survive, while other genetic variations dwindle.

So yes, environments put pressure on organisms, but only after the mutation has already occurred. They don't pressure the organisms to mutate. Mutation just happens.

Sorry if this is what you've been saying all along.

 

[rms]

In other words, the sudden disappearance of tuna doesn't provide specs for what the genetic mutation will be.

specificity is not necessarily the point, it's that tuna eating organisms will have to mutate or die. And you were right that the one paragraph was backwards, it should have been the mutations that prolong said organisms do so because its more beneficial rather than the best way etc.

All I'm saying is that when we think of mutation we can't attribute it to some predisposition within the organism itself; the organism isn't working toward some most suitable form.

no duh, but this feels different than what that dude said in his piece and what you said you agree with.

Biological essentialism sounds like 'evolutionary biology as a social construct' and nothing since has steered me away from that or clarified your position on that.

So, when mutation occurs, the specific mutation itself hasn't been directed by the environment in any way--what has been directed is simply the process of selection.

but the process of selection is a byproduct of environmental pressures, no?

 

[Einherjar86]

(sorry for the lengthy response...)

Biological essentialism sounds like 'evolutionary biology as a social construct' and nothing since has steered me away from that or clarified your position on that.

I guess this is the crux of the disagreement, which comes down to how we read the original text. I don't see it as ascribing a constructionist process to the field of evolutionary biology, and I definitely don't think the author is trying to say that organisms are evolving toward some ideal form. I do think that biology describes real things in a constructed/conditioned way, but that's not to say that the physical hardwiring of our bodies is socially constructed; and I don't think the author is trying to suggest that.

The author doesn't use the phrase "social construction," and we aren't working here with strict binaries. In other words, just because we reject something as essentialist, that doesn't mean we're beholden to calling it constructionist. It's not an ultimatum.

I see biological essentialism, when it comes to gender, as basically saying the following: that our gendered practices correspond to some internal essence or substance, and that this internal substance remains unaffected by social or environmental conditions. In such a model, evolution has a predetermined plan and is working toward the realization of that plan. Those who oppose transgender identification appeal to essentialism in order to make the claim that non-cisgender people are rejecting some natural order, and that doing so is harmful to themselves and to others.

The author is simply saying that this isn't the case, and that evolutionary biology doesn't support the idea of biological essentialism. We have bodies, and they're structured a certain way--but they aren't evolving toward some ideal form or essence, or approximating some optimal model. After all, environments change too; it doesn't make sense for organisms to be evolving toward some best possible solution.

If we reject this kind of biological essentialism (which is what I think the author is talking about), then it doesn't make sense to say that transgender subjects are denying any bodily essence. Of course, the problem with this position, which is also what the author is commenting on, is that we also can't permit transgender subjects to say they're identifying with some other kind of internal essence or substance--some metaphysical sense of self that is alternative to what biological essentialism would proclaim. The author is saying that our current mode of identity politics is still imbricated in the ideology of the metaphysical self, and this contradicts the arguments made against biological essentialism. It's an inconsistent set of practices, basically.

but the process of selection is a byproduct of environmental pressures, no?

In short, yes. I was simply objecting to where that pressure falls. I'm saying that environments don't have a direct impact on the kind of mutation that happens. To take the tuna example once again, it's not as though the environment intervenes with the genetic makeup of tuna-eating organisms and says "alright, time for a mutation so that these fellas can eat some shrimp instead!" Mutation just happens, and the environment directs selection ("directs" in the most non-intentional way, of course).

 

[rms]

I definitely don't think the author is trying to say that organisms are evolving toward some ideal form.

we don't really know what he thinks, because most of his piece is his own conflicting biases and how to best use those. it's the rambling of a liberal arts academic mad man, quite frankly. I can't believe how much attention trans people get in this sphere. Gotta get a thesis going, I guess.

In such a model, evolution has a predetermined plan and is working toward the realization of that plan.

now, why are you ascribing agency to the invisible hand of evolution?

Those who oppose transgender identification appeal to essentialism in order to make the claim that non-cisgender people are rejecting some natural order, and that doing so is harmful to themselves and to others.

I guess you're going to have to cite this since I don't see how this leap is made, especially in the harm of yourself&others.

but they aren't evolving toward some ideal form or essence, or approximating some optimal model

this is a weird claim to make. how would we know what the ideal form is or that there is such an invisible agent that wants all organisms to be the next step?

Why isn't everything just a natural evolution from past environments? Not all evolutions are the best, but I think we can safely say that all evolutions that elongated the survival of a species is a good thing, as all beings are (or should) be mostly self interested in survival.

it doesn't make sense for organisms to be evolving toward some best possible solution.

this just makes no sense for me. the 'best possible solution' is impossible to define as it is ever changing and limited by the scope of the organism viewing it (or understanding it, if they are conscience beings). maybe that's why these people are in the liberal arts?

then it doesn't make sense to say that transgender subjects are denying any bodily essence

define 'bodily essence' pleaseeeeee

It's an inconsistent set of practices, basically.

yes, I imagine most would agree here that identity politics is ideologically and logically inconsistent if not hypocritical.

In short, yes.

great, glad that's settled

 

[arg]

Gender non-conforming

that shit is hilarious

 

[Einherjar86]

we don't really know what he thinks, because most of his piece is his own conflicting biases and how to best use those. it's the rambling of a liberal arts academic mad man, quite frankly. I can't believe how much attention trans people get in this sphere. Gotta get a thesis going, I guess.

It's actually not conflicting or contradictory. You're reading your preconceptions and biases into this piece, methinks.

now, why are you ascribing agency to the invisible hand of evolution?

I'm not. That's a description of biological essentialism, which I disagree with.

I guess you're going to have to cite this since I don't see how this leap is made, especially in the harm of yourself&others.

You've never heard a Christian say that transgender people are violating a natural order that hurts themselves and others in their family? That's an appeal to biological essentialism (albeit a grossly simplified one).

this is a weird claim to make. how would we know what the ideal form is or that there is such an invisible agent that wants all organisms to be the next step?

Exactly. How would we know? We can't, because it isn't observable. To claim it's there would be bad science.

The vast amount of evidence for evolution doesn't point to any mechanism that is subtly guiding the evolution of all species toward some better form. All it does is explain the variant morphologies across species.

Why isn't everything just a natural evolution from past environments? Not all evolutions are the best, but I think we can safely say that all evolutions that elongated the survival of a species is a good thing, as all beings are (or should) be mostly self interested in survival.

It's neither a good or a bad thing. It just is. The prolonged survival of spiders might be good for spiders, but it's bad for flies. It doesn't make sense to talk about evolution as good or bad, because--once again--there's no teleological endgame guiding the evolutionary process.

this just makes no sense for me. the 'best possible solution' is impossible to define as it is ever changing and limited by the scope of the organism viewing it (or understanding it, if they are conscience beings). maybe that's why these people are in the liberal arts?

Jesus Christ, and you think I'm condescending!

Yes, the "best possible solution" is impossible to define because it doesn't exist. That's what I'm saying. It isn't within the purview of evolutionary biology to guide an organism toward any model or form that would best suit that organism to its environment. "These people" in the liberal arts get that; and I think you do too, so I'm not sure what your problem is.

define 'bodily essence' pleaseeeeee

Why? My point is that it doesn't exist. It's made up. It's an illusion. It can be whatever you want it to be. As far as biological essentialism goes, organisms' anatomies are dictated by some internal essence or substance, as I've been saying, which informs the way they evolve. From this perspective, evolution appears like teleological progress in which all organisms are striving to realize their optimal form, which would be whatever their "essence" is.

That's how you define it. It's a metaphysical determinant that gives rise to biological form/anatomy.

yes, I imagine most would agree here that identity politics is ideologically and logically inconsistent if not hypocritical.

Which is what that author is saying! But even better, explains why.