|
rudatron posted:Social behaviors are unnatural. Nor is this standard one based on the mere fact of observation, but on the possibility of deception - it isn't necessary to look inside their mind, so long as you are aware of what they have seen and heard (technically possible), you can rule out deception on any logical ground - there is no cue for insanity, but every Singh Lee philosophy had problems with that, including your own standard of self declaration - ergo, mine is better than yours. Okay, so interaction with other minds is inherently deceptive? This is, I think, not very tenable as anything other than an axiomatic statement that is no more convincing in and of itself than any alternative. Furthermore, you cannot actually rule out the possibility that the person has intuitively determined they are being observed and is thus adjusting their behaviors in response (and even if you observe a shift, you can't determine whether that the previous scenario is the case or not) without rooting around in their mind. So we are back to phenomenology because you are, like so many others, unable to solve the problem of subjectivity. This is aside from the ethical problems with attempting this in real life, but given that you are by your own admission being dishonest every single time you make a post, I don't think you'll agree that those exist.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Human behavior is in part a function of the societies that they live in. It's impossible to conceive of a human being's behavior who does not live in some kind of society. No it isn't? Hermits do exist. They're certainly rare but human beings living with close to zero social contact is a thing that has happened, even from a young age.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay, so interaction with other minds is inherently deceptive? This is, I think, not very tenable as anything other than an axiomatic statement that is no more convincing in and of itself than any alternative. Furthermore, you cannot actually rule out the possibility that the person has intuitively determined they are being observed and is thus adjusting their behaviors in response (and even if you observe a shift, you can't determine whether that the previous scenario is the case or not) without rooting around in their mind. So we are back to phenomenology because you are, like so many others, unable to solve the problem of subjectivity. None of which changes that your demanding a standard of my system that you are not applying to your own - why, if we are now introducing intuition/magic as an acceptable defense, are you then claiming that that must necessarily privilege self declaration as absolute? How does your system fare any better? It must do worse, since you don't even have a reasonable situation, however unethical, to verify it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Where have I made this admission? Everything I say is something I actually believe. If anyone is being dishonest, it it's yourself: Your use of the word 'intuition' here is simply a substitute for 'magic', ans it's not necessary to rule out totally the possibility, in the same way it's not necessary to rule out The Matrix a reality in order to interact with reality. you still haven't explained what natural behavior is for men and women. please stop talking around it and do this. it should be easy if that is the way you judge someone's gender identity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Where have I made this admission? Everything I say is something I actually believe. If anyone is being dishonest, it it's yourself: Your use of the word 'intuition' here is simply a substitute for 'magic', ans it's not necessary to rule out totally the possibility, in the same way it's not necessary to rule out The Matrix a reality in order to interact with reality. You are saying that social behaviors are inherently deceptive, because you said they are unnatural and that naturalness is honesty. You are engaging in a social behavior when you post. Therefore, your posts are all inherently deceptive. QED. But in order to be sure that behaviors are unobserved and that you are not incorporating dishonest/observed ones, you must be able to conclusively disprove solipsism or lucky guesses or paranoia, which you can't do absolutely. So you can't make absolutely declarative statements about which behaviors are natural and so you cannot actually determine gender as you have outlined it. Which is why my "system", or rather what you have imputed on me as my system is superior, in that it accepts phenomenological indeterminacy and doesn't demand proof of the inner state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No it isn't? Hermits do exist. They're certainly rare but human beings living with close to zero social contact is a thing that has happened, even from a young age. Yeah but that's what I mean, their human society is defined by the lack of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Yeah but that's what I mean, their human society is defined by the lack of it. What? If you create a person and then allow them to develop outside of society, what you get is a human without societal influence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What? Yeah that's true. I was wrong when I said it was impossible to conceive it. But it's impossible to create a person who has never interacted with society. I'm going to start by claiming that all human beings that have ever lived, were contained inside of a uterus at one point in their lives. This might be untrue, but if it is, then I would also claim that such an instance would be impossible without a society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No it isn't? Hermits do exist. They're certainly rare but human beings living with close to zero social contact is a thing that has happened, even from a young age.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Yeah that's true. I was wrong when I said it was impossible to conceive it. If you're going to say that it is impossible to create a human that has not had another human involved with it at some point, then yes, that's true. But, like, there's a bit of a difference between that and someone who has societal influence. If you meet with maybe one or two other people your whole life and even then rarely, you're not going to be shaped by society to the degree that someone who lives around other people are. I would suggest that such a person is not, to a meaningful degree, influenced by society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Not at all, behaviors are verifiable in a way in which feelings are not. So for example, the usual ring of tests you are required to do before your legal sex change, are designed to weed out people who are not committed, or mistaken. Yet functionally all it is measuring is your behavior. This is actually how it used to work in the bad old days, where gatekeepers with attitudes not dissimilar to yours (are you going to look non cisnormative, do you like guys or girls, because if you're not doing it right, then you're probably not what you say you are) judged to see if your behaviors warranted your self determination. Increasingly, current practice is to ensure that the person requesting treatment is capable of making an informed decision, and can form a clear intent to transition. You know, basically asking them about their feelings. Legal recognition is a function of local area prejudices more than anything, but in many jurisdictions a letter from a doctor saying you're being treated is sufficient for drivers licenses, passports and more. Of course, every discussion about trans issues is full of cis people speaking authoritatively 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
I cannot, nor am I interested in, creating an exhaustive list of the properties and behaviors that constitute a gender, both because it is irrelevant to my point, and only introduces more confusion. Suffice to say that it exists in the social consciousness, is what most people would conceive of it add being, and it's not a result of any kind of biological determinism, but it's instead the result of cultural pressures, that change with time. My system does not demand proof of inner state, it just accepts the possibility of that subjectivity problems, including deception, which yours does not. You are also, again, demanding a standard you do not satisfy - you neither attempt to disprove solipsism, or lucky guess, nor accept them as reasonable objections. You also ignore the differences I have pointed out - namely, that my standard is able to verify in a case yours cannot - a reasonable mind. Simply suing that since they both cannot deal with insanity, and are therefore equivalent, is deceptive. Additionally, in that context, I was claiming social interaction is not natural, as I'm deriving from nature, because I assumed that is the meaning you were using it in. If you meant that meaning here, then I cannot see your original statement I was responding to as anything but a non sequitur. Please elaborate on that original statement. I also apologize for confusion resulting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Effectronica, you may think you can hide behind a reregister, but you cannot. Your mistake was posting in dadchat, because no one sane would register for dadchat. I recognize your kind of thinking. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
sidviscous posted:Of course, every discussion about trans issues is full of cis people speaking authoritatively Sorry. rudatron posted:My system does not demand proof of inner state, it just accepts the possibility of that subjectivity problems, including deception, which yours does not. So you admit that your system is incapable of determining anyone's gender authoritatively. So, given that, why should we use it to enforce how people are treated?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Because it performs better than your system, taking self declaration as authoritative. Do you dispute that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
rudatron if you can't even describe what you're talking about how are other people supposed to get what you mean and use your methods? so far all it seems like is a bunch of words saying "I have no answers and don't know what I'm talking about but by golly am I sure going to talk!!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I cannot, nor am I interested in, creating an exhaustive list of the properties and behaviors that constitute a gender, both because it is irrelevant to my point, and only introduces more confusion. How does this jive with you saying that you'd call a lesbian woman a man if she wasn't wearing feminine clothes? It seems like thinking that's a good thing to do requires a pretty clear set of properties that you use to judge someone's gender. rudatron posted:Effectronica, you may think you can hide behind a reregister, but you cannot. Your mistake was posting in dadchat, because no one sane would register for dadchat. I recognize your kind of thinking. Can you please try to stay on topic? I don't know what this weird call out has to do with the topic of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Because it performs better than your system, taking self declaration as authoritative. Do you dispute that? Actually, you have not shown that it performs better than anything, because I am arguing it is incapable of performing at all, by its own definitions. Furthermore, I have not outlined a grand system, nor have I said that self-declaration is authoritative. I am actually arguing that there is no way to authoritatively determine gender, so it seems a bit obsessive and smallminded of you to say such a thing, as though we cannot function without authoritative declarations from which to oppress people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you're going to say that it is impossible to create a human that has not had another human involved with it at some point, then yes, that's true. What you're talking about is a person who is influenced by a specific society. What I'm talking about is the idea of what a society is in a general sense. It's like "negative space" in art. The lack of substance defines its relationship to the rest of the material. I did say that human behavior is only in part a function of their society. I'm not trying to assert that it's the absolute, most important thing to consider about any person (though I believe in most cases it is). I just don't think you can extricate the idea of society from a person entirely. It's always going to be there in some way acting as a force on their behavior.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Because it performs better than your system, taking self declaration as authoritative. Do you dispute that? You don't even seem to have a system. You said "a person's true nature is that which is their default". And when asked what the hell the default was, there isn't anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:What you're talking about is a person who is influenced by a specific society. What I'm talking about is the idea of what a society is in a general sense. It's like "negative space" in art. The lack of substance defines its relationship to the rest of the material. Well you probably could if you just dunked someone in a forest somewhere and built a big wall around them. But, I mean, I think it's certainly practical for people in particularly remote places to just not really be affected by society any more than they're affected by the phase of the moon. A person can live on their own assuming nobody else hassles them and they know how to sustain themselves. Which would provide an arguable default state for a human outside of society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well you probably could if you just dunked someone in a forest somewhere and built a big wall around them. Yeah... and that's how society affects them. It's a 'negative structure' of society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
My favourite part of all this progressive triumphalism is the assumption that society will advance in a way catered to them. I have a nagging feeling that instead of society casting down gender, changing language, sexuality and the 'cotton ceiling' being ripped asunder - a medication will come along to treat gender dysmorphia or a more effective form of therapy will come about. It's strange to see liberalism hijacked to unfurl the banners and die on the hill of an admitted mental illness. As an aside, what exactly does a xir do? I mean, why differentiate for a they?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Yeah... and that's how society affects them. It's a 'negative structure' of society. I'm really having trouble understanding this concept. If a thing doesn't affect another thing, it doesn't affect it. There's no "negative effect" of that thing. Frosted Flake posted:My favourite part of all this progressive triumphalism is the assumption that society will advance in a way catered to them. I have a nagging feeling that instead of society casting down gender, changing language, sexuality and the 'cotton ceiling' being ripped asunder - a medication will come along to treat gender dysmorphia or a more effective Nah, cosmetic surgery is already a desired thing for entirely different reasons so it will probs just become more and more effective as a treatment and also people will probably start wanting to do it anyway as it becomes more commonplace. I reckon by the time there's alternative treatments, transitioning will probably be so developed as to be pretty ingrained in society. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:As an aside, what exactly does a xir do? I mean, why differentiate for a they? SwimmingSpider posted:They use them because those pronouns feel right for those individual people. SwimmingSpider fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:My favourite part of all this progressive triumphalism is the assumption that society will advance in a way catered to them. I have a nagging feeling that instead of society casting down gender, changing language, sexuality and the 'cotton ceiling' being ripped asunder - a medication will come along to treat gender dysmorphia or a more effective They, them, their, etc. are pretty problematic words in the English language since they (poo poo) represent plural and singular pronouns. It might be tidier to create a new word, rather than add on to an existing word. But I definitely think there's a good argument either way. OwlFancier posted:I'm really having trouble understanding this concept. If a thing doesn't affect another thing, it doesn't affect it. There's no "negative effect" of that thing. Ok, I understand. We can agree to disagree if you like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Ok, I understand. We can agree to disagree if you like. If you like, like I say I just don't at all understand the idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
It's pretty obvious why, after several centuries of conscious Latinizing of English and the consequent downplaying of singular they, people would feel uncomfortable using it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
SwimmingSpider posted:They use them because those pronouns feel right for those individual people. Society is not based around everyone doing what feels right for them. That doesn't even make sense. Why does "xir" feel better than "they"? What differentiates the two? What informs those feelings? Why should people indulge them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Why should people indulge them? Because it costs literally nothing to do so. It harms no-one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Society is not based around everyone doing what feels right for them. That doesn't even make sense. Why does "xir" feel better than "they". What differentiates the two? What informs those feelings? Why should people indulge them? We don't know what informs most of our feelings or emotions on the level that you are requiring, so without some pre-existing reason (such as a belief that transness is insanity and should be eliminated) we would be forced to conclude that our existence is illegitimate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
I don't think I've ever met a trans person who got really hung up over nonstandard pronouns. It's almost as if going "hah xir is a funny word" is some sort of fig leaf.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Society is not based around everyone doing what feels right for them. That doesn't even make sense. Why does "xir" feel better than "they". What differentiates the two? What informs those feelings? Why should people indulge them? The pronoun thing is really just one aspect of the marginalization of certain minorities. And by this I mean they are deprived of power in society, and therefore are oppressed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
transness already goes against societal norms in about a million ways, so im not sure why slgihty weird pronouns where you draw the line duder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
I think "xir" is not being ridiculed only because a better alternative already exists. As a ridiculous word it draws attention to the absurdity of the whole concept. That in order to not behave how society believes your sex ought to act, you can't just challenge that assumption but reject society and withdrawal to an individualist island. Genderqueer doesn't mean anything because gender itself is a social construct. It reinforces the binary by positioning the binary as so absolute that the only way to not perform your role is to invent a new role held by only yourself. To even address one so transcendent you must bend your mouth in unfamiliar ways and speak a word unknown to English tongue. To press your lips together and gasp the word that gives them power. "Xir". The death of language, tradition, societal norms and common sense is "Xir". Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
'Xir' Now more ridiculous than 'iPod' 'Blog' and 'Google' Also 'Racist' now a nonesense word because race is a social construct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
how does having a gender outside of the binary reinforce the binary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I think "xir" is not being ridiculed only because a better alternative already exists. As a ridiculous word it draws attention to the absurdity of the whole concept. That in order to not behave how society believes your sex ought to act, you can't just challenge that assumption but reject society and withdrawal to an individualist island. Genderqueer doesn't mean anything because gender itself is a social construct. It reinforces the binary by positioning the binary as so absolute that the only way to not perform your role is to invent a new role held by only yourself. This is all false. First of all, if social constructs don't mean anything, then nothing means anything as soon as it is spoken aloud or written down. Second of all, it doesn't actually reinforce the binary to have people who exist outside of it or cross it or exist as both parts of it as once, without redefining "reinforce the binary" to mean "this makes me uncomfortable."
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I think "xir" is not being ridiculed only because a better alternative already exists. As a ridiculous word it draws attention to the absurdity of the whole concept. That in order to not behave how society believes your sex ought to act, you can't just challenge that assumption but reject society and withdrawal to an individualist island. Genderqueer doesn't mean anything because gender itself is a social construct. It reinforces the binary by positioning the binary as so absolute that the only way to not perform your role is to invent a new role held by only yourself. A woman putting on a dress and make up also reinforces the gender binary, how mad do you get about that? Actually you calling people "he" or "she" reinforces the gender binary - are you telling me you only refer to everyone as "they"? Furthermore why should people sacrifice their own comfort and emotional needs in order to uphold your idea of correct gender performance? SwimmingSpider posted:how does having a gender outside of the binary reinforce the binary. Because you see, it makes people think about gender, and that makes some people uncomfortable. "Gender is a social construct, stop caring about it" is similar to "I don't see race" as a way of shutting down discourse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
jivjov posted:Because it costs literally nothing to do so. It harms no-one. SwimmingSpider posted:how does having a gender outside of the binary reinforce the binary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 03:13
|
|