If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

Hippie shit.

 

[Einherjar86]

Saying there isn't an inherent reason to evolve and then your next sentence says there is a need to evolve is so confusing and has been confusing throughout this entire thing. I don't get how you don't think "the need" to evolve hasn't permeated all levels of all beings throughout Earth's history which then becomes the "inherent reason" one evolves

It's just a different perspective, but it's the perspective that I think is more scientifically presentable.

Think of it in terms of surface and depth--saying that evolution reflects an inherent quality in things to evolve implies some kind of built-in impulse, an innate quality, some deep essence, that pushes organisms toward survival (ideally). This perspective makes mutation into a necessary thing, something that has to happen and that is predetermined to happen in some originary model of organic life.

Alternatively, we can think of evolution as something that just happens, a surface-level accident, a purely contingent event. It needs to happen in order for organisms to have any chance of surviving, but this doesn't mean it needs to happen at all. The universe could just as easily be a lifeless space. Just because life emerges and begins to mutate/evolve doesn't mean that the necessity of evolution for survival becomes an inherent reason for mutation. Mutation is just something that happened, and continues to happen. It could just as easily stop happening, in which case all life would (theoretically) go extinct.

Turning it into an inherent reason is granting some kind of cosmic determinism, which we have no reason to assume actually exists.

 

[rms]

Turning it into an inherent reason is granting some kind of cosmic determinism, which we have no reason to assume actually exists.

Exactly the problem here. Instead of a cosmic process that has been 'fine tuned' over billions of years, apparently your perspective is that it's culturally driven for humans and ?? for non-conscience beings.

One question I think helps my point: If every organism was immortal, would evolution be a natural process for any organism?

Alternatively, we can think of evolution as something that just happens, a surface-level accident, a purely contingent event.

I never thought liberalism would deny agency for non conscience beings, but here we are.

The universe could just as easily be a lifeless space

I agree in theory, but the opposite has happened because species inherently strive to survive and then thrive. You can't just ignore the trajectory of evolution because in the multiple universe theory there's a planet Earth where dinosaurs never became extinct and humans never evolved. There is luck involved, there is chance involved, but there is always the inherent need to survive, and surviving is influenced by evolving.

Mutation is just something that happened, and continues to happen. It could just as easily stop happening, in which case all life would (theoretically) go extinct.

The only way this could happen is if the environment changed so drastically that no species could adapt. If there is an option for a species to mutate to then thrive in this new dystopian environment, one would. We see that jellyfish are thriving all over the oceans now because of all the plastic in there. This position denies evidence for theory.

You say this is the more scientific approach to be applied to the mainstream, but it's quite the opposite to what you are saying and how you support your thesis. You rely entirely on philosophy, not evidence.

 

[EternalMetal]

It's perfectly fine to talk about survival as a good thing from the point of view of a single species. For humans, yes--we want to survive, and that which contributes to survival can be evaluated as "good."

From the point of view of evolution, humans are just another species. We aren't special. Mutations that enable the survival of a particular species are neither good nor bad.

I should have specified that above, as it strikes me now that rms was probably speaking from a position similar to yours.

Nah, I actually follow where you are coming from

Im also not disagreeing with your evaluation of evolution and biology. It is a very unbiased stance, so you are free to evaluate the data in purely observational ways (ie. 'true' science). Evolutionary science is deliberately ignorant to assigning judgment because it is purely observational. From the perspective of this single discipline alone, you are correct. My point of contention is the continuation of this approach when looking at human beings. Why should you feel obligated to observational science when analyzing the data of our own species? Especially considering that the context of the whole discussion is in the evaluation and judgment of phenotypes. From your current perspective, any criticism of human behavior or state of being is beyond reproach; this perspective is not worthy of critiquing things from ethical, moral, or philosophical viewpoints because it doesnt even consider them. Is this really a valid justification for transgenderism within liberal arts circles?

organisms just mutate--there's no significant rhyme or reason for it.

This. It is a random event without any real sort of directed action. What works, propagates. What doesnt work, dies. Even horizontal transfer is a happenstance event. Survival is the result, not the cause of evolutionary mutations.

 

[Einherjar86]

@rms Okay, I'm turning the tables here. Also, you need to read my response to EM, because I think you have totally misread this entire discussion and blown it out of proportion.

Exactly the problem here. Instead of a cosmic process that has been 'fine tuned' over billions of years, apparently your perspective is that it's culturally driven for humans and ?? for non-conscience beings.

How am I denying the natural process of evolution? What am I saying that makes you claim that? I don't believe, nor have I ever insinuated, that evolution is a culturally driven phenomenon.

I never thought liberalism would deny agency for non conscience beings, but here we are.

How am I denying any organism agency? Where are you getting this?

I agree in theory, but the opposite has happened because species inherently strive to survive and then thrive. You can't just ignore the trajectory of evolution because in the multiple universe theory there's a planet Earth where dinosaurs never became extinct and humans never evolved. There is luck involved, there is chance involved, but there is always the inherent need to survive, and surviving is influenced by evolving.

We can retain the instinct for survival and the phenomenon of genetic mutation without reifying survival as the reason for mutation.

You say this is the more scientific approach to be applied to the mainstream, but it's quite the opposite to what you are saying and how you support your thesis. You rely entirely on philosophy, not evidence.

Again, how. I have no idea what you're seeing in my comments.

Why should you feel obligated to observational science when analyzing the data of our own species? Especially considering that the context of the whole discussion is in the evaluation and judgment of phenotypes. From your current perspective, any criticism of human behavior or state of being is beyond reproach; this perspective is not worthy of critiquing things from ethical, moral, or philosophical viewpoints because it doesnt even consider them. Is this really a valid justification for transgenderism within liberal arts circles?

Historically, yes--I think it is. It may not seem as relevant today because we have largely moved away from essentialist arguments against transgender identities (such as religious ones, which rms dismissed out of hand).

The entire point of the FB post is to point out a criticism within identity politics itself--i.e. a reinvigoration of the essentialist position as it informs gender identity. The author is saying we've actually won this battle, we've moved beyond such spiritualist critiques of transgender, thereby making the reiteration of these points seem rather irrelevant and, as you suggest, nihilistic today.

The FB post wasn't attacking arguments levied by, for example, religious or conservative figures against transgender identity. It was to criticize the invocation of essentialist arguments, similar to those from religion, within identity politics itself. It's basically reminding the academic community, "Hey, remember how we made lots of convincing arguments against essentialism? You're committing the same error you accused those people of making when you proclaim that gender derives from some inherent sense of identity!"

This. It is a random event without any real sort of directed action. What works, propagates. What doesnt work, dies. Even horizontal transfer is a happenstance event. Survival is the result, not the cause of evolutionary mutations.

Very well-said.

 

[rms]

How am I denying the natural process of evolution? What am I saying that makes you claim that? I don't believe, nor have I ever insinuated, that evolution is a culturally driven phenomenon.

here:

Think of it in terms of surface and depth--saying that evolution reflects an inherent quality in things to evolve implies some kind of built-in impulse, an innate quality, some deep essence, that pushes organisms toward survival (ideally). This perspective makes mutation into a necessary thing, something that has to happen and that is predetermined to happen in some originary model of organic life.

Turning it into an inherent reason is granting some kind of cosmic determinism, which we have no reason to assume actually exists.

instead of defining cosmic determinism differently, you only see it as a "hand" that tells all organisms to evolve or else. It's not a thinking being, but, and I noticed you ignored the question I posed, since organisms are mortal they must reproduce. By reproducing there are mutations, and because there are mutations there is evolution. Good and bad evolution. Yes the mutations are random and seemingly impossible to define and quantify, but they do happen.

How am I denying any organism agency?

By going back to the tuna discussion, when an organism who eats tuna no longer has tuna to eat, they don't just say "oh well I guess that's it for me now." They find something else to eat, and either they adapt (evolve) to the new food source or they do not. By calling all mutations an accident is removing the ability for organisms to introduce change. They cannot control that change, but they do bring it in.

Scientists are starting to think peanut allergies are on the rise because kids simply don't eat nuts anymore. Same with milk and lactose intolerance. I wonder what studies will suggest about gluten.

We can retain the instinct for survival and the phenomenon of genetic mutation without reifying survival as the reason for mutation.

It totally is the reason for mutation. I already answered this above in reference to the tuna & chicken.

Again, how.

Show me what evidence you have used to support your position

You're committing the same error you accused those people of making when you proclaim that gender derives from some inherent sense of identity!"

it does! at least for the vast majority of it.

Survival is the result, not the cause of evolutionary mutations.

You cannot separate the organisms need for survival from mutations. I'll ask EternalMetal now, if all organisms were immortal would they strive to survive?

 

[Einherjar86]

here:

In no way does that statement imply that evolution is culturally driven. I have no idea what you're talking about.

instead of defining cosmic determinism differently, you only see it as a "hand" that tells all organisms to evolve or else. It's not a thinking being, but, and I noticed you ignored the question I posed, since organisms are mortal they must reproduce. By reproducing there are mutations, and because there are mutations there is evolution. Good and bad evolution. Yes the mutations are random and seemingly impossible to define and quantify, but they do happen.

First, I don't believe in cosmic determinism. I was articulating another position, not my own.

Second, and I apologize, but I don't see what you're getting at with your question. If organisms were immortal then no, they wouldn't strive to survive. This doesn't prove that because they do strive for survival there's some inherent purpose or meaning in mutation. As EM said, survival is the result, not the cause, of evolutionary mutations. You're imposing necessity onto an entirely accidental phenomenon.

By going back to the tuna discussion, when an organism who eats tuna no longer has tuna to eat, they don't just say "oh well I guess that's it for me now." They find something else to eat, and either they adapt (evolve) to the new food source or they do not. By calling all mutations an accident is removing the ability for organisms to introduce change. They cannot control that change, but they do bring it in.

An organism doesn't mutate during its lifetime, unless radically invasive substances/chemicals are introduced into its environment (such as radiation). What you're talking about isn't mutation, you're just talking about an organism starving so it eats whatever it can find. When confronted with a scarcity of food, an organism can't will itself to mutate. That's not denying it agency, that's just science.

Scientists are starting to think peanut allergies are on the rise because kids simply don't eat nuts anymore. Same with milk and lactose intolerance. I wonder what studies will suggest about gluten.

So are you suggesting that mutation is cultural? I'm confused.

I don't know enough about allergies and genetics to comment, but I'm having serious trouble following any logic through your comments.

It totally is the reason for mutation. I already answered this above in reference to the tuna & chicken.

No, I'm sorry. You're not correct here, and nothing you said has demonstrated otherwise. You're making illogical associations between physical necessity and inherent purpose.

Show me what evidence you have used to support your position

I'm relying on the evidence already gathered and assessed by decades of evolutionary research! You're committing the common error of misreading evolutionary theory. My entire argument hasn't been about providing new evidence, it's been about how you're misreading the evidence that's there.

Your jellyfish example disproves nothing. I'm saying that it is theoretically conceivable that life could not exist, and evolutionary theory doesn't contradict this.

it does! at least for the vast majority of it.

Again, this is not my position. I'm paraphrasing the FB post; I'm saying that the FB post itself is saying this of gender theorists and identity politics broadly speaking. That's why I used quotation marks.

 

[rms]

In no way does that statement imply that evolution is culturally driven.

Then what is the alternative position since you apparently can't just say what you believe

You're imposing necessity onto an entirely accidental phenomenon.

it is a necessity because organisms are mortal!

What you're talking about isn't mutation, you're just talking about an organism starving so it eats whatever it can find.

exactly, so that "choice" facilitates mutations. exposing yourself to a new environment begins a process of mutations

So are you suggesting that mutation is cultural? I'm confused.

Cultural is too shallow of a scope. It's environmental, it's impossible for anything not to. Organisms exist because of an environment and they mutate because of it. Mutations occur because organisms respond to their environment. Because organisms mutate in response to their environment, their mutations become rooted in their genealogy or whatever the fundamental information carrying part of an organism is.

We see 'small' mutations within humans in relation to milk and lactose and peanuts. And this is all preliminary, our understanding of genes is very shallow as well.

My entire argument hasn't been about providing new evidence, it's been about how you're misreading the evidence that's there.

I did not ask for new evidence, I asked for evidence. I could say you are misreading it too but I have obviously offered several examples and for you I cannot think of one

Your jellyfish example proves absolutely nothing. I'm saying that it is theoretically conceivable that life could not exist, and evolutionary theory doesn't contradict this.

jellyfish that are more able to break down and create energy off of plastic are going to thrive versus those that do not, so pro-plastic jellyfish are going to thrive and alter the jellyfish wherever plastic is concentrated.

Again, this is not my position.

well this is unclear as I asked you what your position was and you never answered it directly:

this is your position? that biology is a social construct?

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

 

[Einherjar86]

From the beginning I've said that that is neither my position, nor the position that the FB post was trying to promote. My position is that evolution and biology occur beyond our society and culture, whatever we want to call that (I'd say natural, but that raises a host of problems too). I cannot fathom how it's been so hard for you to grasp that.

Now, I want to address these comments:

Your jellyfish example disproves nothing. I'm saying that it is theoretically conceivable that life could not exist, and evolutionary theory doesn't contradict this.

jellyfish that are more able to break down and create energy off of plastic are going to thrive versus those that do not, so pro-plastic jellyfish are going to thrive and alter the jellyfish wherever plastic is concentrated.

I consider this a prime example of you responding to something in a way that is neither logical nor in the least bit sensical. Your comment doesn't respond at all to the primary point I'm making, i.e. that life could theoretically cease to exist.

Is your jellyfish comment a retort to this claim? That some jellyfish might live, while others might die? What if sea temperatures rose drastically due to methane gas release, or the oceans dried up entirely? What if the sun expands and consumes the earth, as will happen eventually, so that jellyfish, along with all other life on the planet (assuming the earth still harbors some forms of life), perish?

Half the time, it's as though you're not even replying to my comments. I struggle to see the connection here. It's like you're having a wikipedia party inside your own head.

Now, as to evidence:

Nothing in evolutionary history, from opposable thumbs to finch beaks, points to an inherent reason that preexists the longevity of an organism. The finch evolved the beak it did not in order to survive, but by accident--and so happened to survive. The mutation was not shaped by the bird's environment, nor is it intended to prolong the animal's survival. This is happy coincidence. Additionally, it has nothing to do with agency, since most animals do not actively seek out new environments that aren't hardwired into their biology (e.g. migration patterns). New environments may be forced upon animals, and they adapt as best they can--but they have no control over the mutations that occur down the line, nor do their immediate survival behaviors/instincts have any agential relation to promoting mutation.

In other words, survival is unconscious. When you see something out of the corner of your eye and duck, or put your hands up, you're not acting consciously. You're responding according to instinctual principles hardwired into your anatomy. As human beings, we can contemplate survival--which is why Eternal Metal brought up the point about considering survival in a more evaluative sense when discussing human beings. But other animals don't consider survival in this way, as far as we can observe, at least (there are some exceptions, but I'm speaking generally).

It has been my position, since the beginning of this circuitous discussion, that evolution is extra-cultural, that it is natural, if we can use that word. It is also my position that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, inherently purposeful or self-directed within evolutionary science. Organisms don't have control over their mutations, their evolution, or how their environments might impact such things (at best, an organism has minimal control--and I'm thinking primarily here of humans). There was no predetermined plan by which life wanted to survive and lo, we have mutation! All of these elements arose as part of a vast, complex system, spanning species and millennia, and formed the development that we recognize today as evolution. It's very easy to impose purpose and inherent reason into this system when looking at it from our perspective, bit it's also errant.

Now, you can have the last word, because I'm finished. For the sake of others, I hope your posts aren't as vacuous as I think they are.

 

[EternalMetal]

Historically, yes--I think it is. It may not seem as relevant today because we have largely moved away from essentialist arguments against transgender identities (such as religious ones, which rms dismissed out of hand).

The entire point of the FB post is to point out a criticism within identity politics itself--i.e. a reinvigoration of the essentialist position as it informs gender identity. The author is saying we've actually won this battle, we've moved beyond such spiritualist critiques of transgender, thereby making the reiteration of these points seem rather irrelevant and, as you suggest, nihilistic today.

The FB post wasn't attacking arguments levied by, for example, religious or conservative figures against transgender identity. It was to criticize the invocation of essentialist arguments, similar to those from religion, within identity politics itself. It's basically reminding the academic community, "Hey, remember how we made lots of convincing arguments against essentialism? You're committing the same error you accused those people of making when you proclaim that gender derives from some inherent sense of identity!"

In that case id like to see what the profound argument for transgenderism is that results in a complete win. I realize that the post is actually more about transracialism, and while I find it funny that the community is backpedaling because race is more of a controversial subject, I guess I have a lack of knowledge about the groundwork in which he is referring to.

By going back to the tuna discussion, when an organism who eats tuna no longer has tuna to eat, they don't just say "oh well I guess that's it for me now." They find something else to eat, and either they adapt (evolve) to the new food source or they do not. By calling all mutations an accident is removing the ability for organisms to introduce change. They cannot control that change, but they do bring it in.

The problem with your logic is that organisms do not introduce mutational change. Adaptation is not synonymous with evolution, even though all evolutionary pathways that involve increased fitness levels are adaptations. Organisms can adapt to survive based on instincts and other genetic information. Not every crisis requires evolutionary change. The fitness landscape of an organism is defined by various alleles and how the dominant or recessive forms affect survival. Overtime, phenotypes that promote survival become expressed as the prevailing genotype, and the average organism's genome reflects this. The majority of evolution is a slow process, and typically does not involve extreme 'adapt immediately or die' scenarios as you are presenting it.

The tuna example is a gross simplification. The food supply of tuna does not go from 100% to 0% in a day. Evolutionary changes that allow for this organism to digest and use something other than tuna as a food source would occur in times where the tuna population is in decline, and a subset of the population would randomly induce either genetic or behavioral changes that compensate for a drop in food supply (the population of said organism would plummet during this period as well as the tuna). If there was a scenario where an organism relied entirely on tuna, and if one day tuna were to immediately go extinct, in all probability this organism would probably die off entirely as well.

You cannot separate the organisms need for survival from mutations. I'll ask EternalMetal now, if all organisms were immortal would they strive to survive?

What are you trying to prove with this question? Immortality implies that you would not need to strive to continue existing, so no, I dont think they would. Do these theoretical organisms reproduce? Do they actually live forever? Competition for resources would be an issue if these organisms did not have a lifespan and they could reproduce. Is death even possible for an immortal being? Please come up with a better example, this one is obviously pointed with an agenda at the end.

Organisms exist because of an environment and they mutate because of it. Mutations occur because organisms respond to their environment. Because organisms mutate in response to their environment, their mutations become rooted in their genealogy or whatever the fundamental information carrying part of an organism is.

Mutations occur because of the various mechanisms involved in meiosis, recombination, and spontaneous mutations that happen due to transcription errors and/or because of mutagens. These changes happen irrespective of an organism's environment. Vertical gene transfer is one of the most predominant ways in which genetic information is spread in multicellular organisms (ignore the horizontal gene transfer that has been shown to readily occur in plants, fungi, and and bacteria), which is, according to modern science, transferred in the same way regardless of environmental struggle. Whether various changes in phenotype or biomechanics are favorable is influenced by the environment, but any changes are due entirely to chance. Mutations and recombination events are all random.

We see 'small' mutations within humans in relation to milk and lactose and peanuts. And this is all preliminary, our understanding of genes is very shallow as well.

Lactose (in other words milk) intolerance develops because of RNAi mechanisms that start to silence the gene at around 6 years old due to the lack of need for the mother's breastmilk for survival. While you are right in the idea that these mechanisms have not become fully understood, RNAi and many other epigenetic mechanisms have been discovered and much research already exists about them. While the environment can control gene expression to an extent, it cannot readily induce desirable mutations for survival. Evidence of such a mechanism does not exist to my knowledge and probably never will.

 

[rms]

Your comment doesn't respond at all to the primary point I'm making, i.e. that life could theoretically cease to exist.

how is this still a question? I responded to it like 15 replies ago.

I agree in theory, but the opposite has happened because species inherently strive to survive and then thrive. You can't just ignore the trajectory of evolution because in the multiple universe theory there's a planet Earth where dinosaurs never became extinct and humans never evolved.

The finch evolved the beak it did not in order to survive, but by accident--and so happened to survive.

I do not agree with your so happened. This is the problem, "so happened' is passive and I would argue incorrect. Species, like the finch, are inherently interested in survival and adaptation which is why their beak has improved or at least adapted to new environments (adapt vs improve is subjective assessment that isn't necessarily relevant here)

The mutation was not shaped by the bird's environment, nor is it intended to prolong the animal's survival. This is happy coincidence. Additionally, it has nothing to do with agency, since most animals do not actively seek out new environments that aren't hardwired into their biology (e.g. migration patterns).

I honestly do not get how you think this is true (bold) -- It's a "happy coincidence" that that specific mutation occurred before they died off, but it is not a coincidence that the finch mutates to better themselves as a species IN A specific environment.

how can you say migration is biologically hard wired but not a self interest in survival and adaptation?

In other words, survival is unconscious.

agreed, because it is inherent within the species!

The belief that ‘human nature’, an individual's personality, or some specific quality (such as intelligence, creativity, homosexuality, masculinity, femininity, or a male propensity to aggression) is an innate and natural ‘essence’ (rather than a product of circumstances, upbringing, and culture).


Really hate it when people do the "oh i'm done" in the last sentence. But it still seems you are only interested in the definition that says from inception someone directed all life towards survival which is NOT the definition offered by the oxford source.

 

[rms]

The majority of evolution is a slow process, and typically does not involve extreme 'adapt immediately or die' scenarios as you are presenting it.

obviously, man. the extreme example was to establish a point, not to properly demonstrate all evolutionary history.

and a subset of the population would randomly induce either genetic or behavioral changes that compensate for a drop in food supply (the population of said organism would plummet during this period as well as the tuna).

yes, thank you for agreeing with me on my point here. yes it is simplified and likely impossible, but thank you.

Immortality implies that you would not need to strive to continue existing, so no, I dont think they would

we agree again, that since organisms on Earth are mortal they are interested in survival inherently.

Please come up with a better example, this one is obviously pointed with an agenda at the end.

sounds like something someone else would have to do since I believe mortality being central to my argument

which is, according to modern science, transferred in the same way regardless of environmental struggle. Whether various changes in phenotype or biomechanics are favorable is influenced by the environment, but any changes are due entirely to chance. Mutations and recombination events are all random.

I agree that gene transfer and random mutations occur no matter where an organism is, but to say that an environment has no effect on what mutations occur is so out there to me that I cannot imagine is validated by any evidence based research. i've done this point 10x already with Ein so I guess i'll just ask for some article on this

 

[Einherjar86]

Or you could go read about mutation.

 

[EternalMetal]

obviously, man. the extreme example was to establish a point, not to properly demonstrate all evolutionary history.

Though this is the point you dont get. Animals do not evolve quickly and effectively to suit an acute change in environment. Your point is that animals evolve because of their ever-changing environment. In a sense, yes, but you have the details all wrong. The environment is the pressure to change, and random genetic change is the cause for either positive or negative fitness of the organism. The environment has no sort of feedback mechanism to actually induce these changes.

we agree again, that since organisms on Earth are mortal they are interested in survival inherently.



sounds like something someone else would have to do since I believe mortality being central to my argument

Given the same DNA mechanism and reproduction rate, your fantasy creatures would develop mutations and changes to the genetic information at the same rate as their 'reality' counterparts. The difference would be a more even distribution of various alleles that may have affected survival before along the fitness landscape of the genome. Nothing would be selected for (unless the allele had a behavioral or otherwise mate-friendly phenotype), and genetic information would be exchanged, propagated, and mutated in ways that were entirely random. If you are thinking that this sort of mirrors the human condition in the first world, I would agree with you. The rise in people with peanut allergies and the like is because this doesnt kill you anymore.

I agree that gene transfer and random mutations occur no matter where an organism is, but to say that an environment has no effect on what mutations occur is so out there to me that I cannot imagine is validated by any evidence based research. i've done this point 10x already with Ein so I guess i'll just ask for some article on this

You are so caught up in cause and effect that you are blinding yourself to what evolutionary theory actually claims. Positive mutations do not happen at a point where every other organism dies. Only common ancestors are able to bask in the benefits of any one given mutation. Specialized communities of species like the perfect case study of the Galapagos is extremely rare to the point of being an outlier example of evolution, and is not the norm or benchmark to look at evolution in most other species. There isnt an academic article to explain what you want, but writings on evolution and genetics in general should be able to make you realize where you are wrong. Current science allows no merit to the claim of directed mutation.

 

[Einherjar86]

In that case id like to see what the profound argument for transgenderism is that results in a complete win. I realize that the post is actually more about transracialism, and while I find it funny that the community is backpedaling because race is more of a controversial subject, I guess I have a lack of knowledge about the groundwork in which he is referring to.

If by "complete win" you mean some kind of proof for the positive value of transgender identity, then I can't give you anything--and sorry if my comments suggested that. I think that when the author writes about the "hard-won" struggles against essentialism, he's not referring to any single definitive argument, but to a change in cultural atmosphere, so to speak. There's no argument "for" trans-identities, but rather a series of rejoinders that respond to the arguments against trans-identities. I suppose a lot of it goes back to Foucault's work in the History of Sexuality, which has in turn led to the (somewhat unfortunate) generalization that sexuality is a "social construction" (it's important to underscore that Foucault writes about sexuality, not biological sex). The concept of constructionism was never meant to deny that biological processes inform behavior, but that the way we discuss these processes is always socially/culturally inflected. So, for example, in the nineteenth century, factory owners took steps to enforce cleanliness and propriety among their employees because work-class sexuality was seen as dirty, unhygienic, and debaucherous. This had nothing to do with biology itself (i.e. upper-class sexuality is the same as lower-class sexuality), but with social assumptions imposed onto biological observations (i.e. the lower classes are "dirty," therefore their sexual practices contain biological contaminants).

A more contemporary example would be the association(s) between race and intelligence. Even without denying some link between genetics and intelligence, so much of the discourse surrounding race and intelligence invokes social assumptions and/or expectations regarding race that it's almost impossible to extricate the cultural effects from the "natural" ones (*my quotation marks don't signify that I'm skeptical of the outside world, just that I'm always skeptical of what the word "natural" entails*).

This probably isn't a convincing response, but I honestly think a lot of this goes back to Foucault. I believe I've seen you mention that you think trans-identity is a mental disorder (or something along these lines--please correct if I'm wrong). Between Foucault's History of Madness, History of Sexuality, and Discipline and Punish, I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the history of sexuality/gender and the history of madness/mental health are so confusingly imbricated with one another that it's impossible to say definitively that trans-identity has any significant correspondence with mental health. The social baggage is just way too heavy.

 

[rms]

Or you could go read about mutation.

no offense, but outside of philosophical & sci-fi thought, your knowledge on "science" does not cede me to think I am wrong simply because you argued something.

There isnt an academic article to explain what you want, but writings on evolution and genetics in general should be able to make you realize where you are wrong. Current science allows no merit to the claim of directed mutation.

Well, if nothing is written because my idea and understanding of evolutionary biology is that wrong/bad, then it should be easy to argue it by the overwhelming body of work in the field. This directed mutation theory seems to go farther than my perspective, in that that idea apparently argues organisms go out of their way to induce specific mutations. I simply am saying that organisms and their responses to their environment do 'push' mutations. And those mutations are both bad and good, but they do influence the direction to which they go. This Cairns guy seems to argue a similar point to what I hold, based off the wiki.

Mutations are the ultimate fuel for evolution, but most mutations have a negative effect on fitness. It has been widely accepted that these deleterious fitness effects are, on average, magnified in stressful environments. Recent results suggest that the effects of deleterious mutations can, instead, sometimes be ameliorated in stressful environments.

that describes the range of phenotypes that can arise from a given genotype in response to variation in the environment..

I don't know how legitimate this author or article is, but I dug this up on google relatively quickly.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC193684/

 

[EternalMetal]

I believe I've seen you mention that you think trans-identity is a mental disorder (or something along these lines--please correct if I'm wrong). Between Foucault's History of Madness, History of Sexuality, and Discipline and Punish, I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the history of sexuality/gender and the history of madness/mental health are so confusingly imbricated with one another that it's impossible to say definitively that trans-identity has any significant correspondence with mental health. The social baggage is just way too heavy.

I prefer to think of someone who thinks they need to mutilate their own body in order for their outer image to reflect their inner one as someone with a mental illness. Most if not all transgender people go through extreme moments of depression, anguish, and insecurity. The hallmarks of a mental illness are present, but I guess this one gets cultural immunity.

Well, if nothing is written because my idea and understanding of evolutionary biology is that wrong/bad, then it should be easy to argue it by the overwhelming body of work in the field. This directed mutation theory seems to go farther than my perspective, in that that idea apparently argues organisms go out of their way to induce specific mutations. I simply am saying that organisms and their responses to their environment do 'push' mutations. And those mutations are both bad and good, but they do influence the direction to which they go. This Cairns guy seems to argue a similar point to what I hold, based off the wiki.

I apologize if I have misinterpreted your perspective, but to me it sounded like you were pushing for the directed mutation theory. Look, the environment has a huge impact on organism propagation given a change in genetic information, but the genetic mechanisms involved in DNA mutation and recombination are not directed by environmental circumstance. The mechanisms on an individual level are continuous, unless of course there are mutagens present, then mutation may occur at a higher rate (like smoking causing lung cancer).

Btw, you misinterpreted that quote. He is saying that some deleterious mutations given a stable environment can actually end up being less negative in more averse conditions. This simply reflects the idea that "bad" mutations arent always bad, and that the study of allele fitness can not be broadly applied to different environments. It has nothing to do with the incidence of mutations, as these studies all use mutagens to induce random mutations by design.

Ill revisit this question while im at it:

I agree that gene transfer and random mutations occur no matter where an organism is, but to say that an environment has no effect on what mutations occur is so out there to me that I cannot imagine is validated by any evidence based research. i've done this point 10x already with Ein so I guess i'll just ask for some article on this

That's right, the environment doesnt have an effect on what mutations occur. It does however dictate which alleles are selected for, and which ones are not. I will concede slightly that in the future there may be studies conducted that could show how certain regions of DNA are more prone to mutation, but I find it unlikely that this will be due to environmental feedback (my guess would be chromatin compaction).

 

[Mort Divine]

I prefer to think of someone who thinks they need to mutilate their own body in order for their outer image to reflect their inner one as someone with a mental illness. Most if not all transgender people go through extreme moments of depression, anguish, and insecurity. The hallmarks of a mental illness are present, but I guess this one gets cultural immunity.

I bet you could say the same for gay people before they started to become more accepted by society. Most trans people go through that not due to being trans, but because they're tormented for it. Their existence is a joke at best and a deception at worst to so many people and often is met with violence.

Try not experiencing depression, anguish and insecurity under those circumstances.

 

[rms]

but the genetic mechanisms involved in DNA mutation and recombination are not directed by environmental circumstance.

I agree, but my point is influence rather than directed. And I would say influence to an extent to where it's important and not irrelevant.

you're right on my interpretation, maybe i will spend more time researching this but a tad more busy than usual atm

 

[Einherjar86]

I prefer to think of someone who thinks they need to mutilate their own body in order for their outer image to reflect their inner one as someone with a mental illness. Most if not all transgender people go through extreme moments of depression, anguish, and insecurity. The hallmarks of a mental illness are present, but I guess this one gets cultural immunity.

I'd point to Mort's response here:

I bet you could say the same for gay people before they started to become more accepted by society. Most trans people go through that not due to being trans, but because they're tormented for it. Their existence is a joke at best and a deception at worst to so many people and often is met with violence.

Try not experiencing depression, anguish and insecurity under those circumstances.

Basically, I wouldn't deny that trans-individuals experience serious bouts of mental illness--I just think it's impossible to make a distinction between a) trans-identity as constituted by mental illness, and b) mental illness as caused by the negative social attention and cultural assumptions associated with trans-individuals.