|
Smudgie Buggler posted:For many people, yes, gender identity is an emergent property of their neuroanatomy. To others, not so much. This is irrelevant, because even if the source of gender identity were the same for everybody it would have no bearing on whether we should or should not tear down gender-based norms, which are what cause people to have hassles with their identity. Hypothetically this happens and like some people who advocate for it theorize, a large portion of the population develops a fluid nongender specific sexuality. Do you think such a society would be able to keep itself from dieing out? I don't. Societys with merely greater liberation for women seem to be enough to put the majority of them on a death spiral. While I agree with you that it is ultimately a greater moral good to do so and would definitely help keep children from developing painful gender dysphoria, ultimately you have to weigh the costs. A more just society Isn't worth it if it's going to die out in five generations.
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Population decrease would go a long way towards resolving many worldwide problems so that sounds like a bonus? It will be a world population decrease, but it will be the hypothetical gender equal societys elimination. That doesn't seem very fare for any trans people born after it ends.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Generally we resolve that sort of problem by creating an immigrant-heavy underclass to service the needs of a declining and ageing population Well, most children are created accidentally in youth based on heterosexual trysts. If you create this vacuum where up to half of these trysts are going to be samesex, you will ultimately be removing half of the children created in this manner. Which, again, are the majority.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If the human race requires teen pregnancy to be sustainable then possibly threatening it with extinction may be considered a merited stern reprimand? This reminds me of some evangelicals reasoning for why AIDS was a gift from god.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Why would anybody living today care whether or not the species is going to fail adequately to breed in a hundred years' time? Either we'll have integrated ourselves with an artificial superintelligence and it'll be a totally moot point or we'll all be dead. What kind of a loving maniac worries about whether or not their great-great-great-great-grandkids will be too tumblr-y to breed? I care for individuals who are yet to be born, and would rather they be born in a functional supportive society and not some repressive hellhole. is that really so maniacal?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:...ergo gender norms are good? If the removal of them caused the masses to have fluid sexuality , and it lead to a very quick death spiral for that society, then I can't see how you'd say that some form of gender norms aren't good.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:you guys are arguing with one of the more insane gamergate posters btw. It's a mirror.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
rudatron posted:People in the developed world aren't having kids because they actually have a choice in the matter now, and having kids is super loving expensive. If you want population growth or population stability, that is what you attack, through subsidies or what not. It's not a breakdown in gender roles that's leading to pop-decline, it's a society where both parents have to work, or the transition of jobs from full-time to part-time (and the destruction of job/income stability that brings), or the expense of childcare. This seems like some what of an obvious reading to me. It is obvious that this is a major contributor. Their are also academics who push for gender norm elimination theorizing that it could cause fluid sexuality in the masses. Now your proposition is that these developed countries who are mostly influenced by their economys would then subsidize child rearing to encourage a stable population. Why do you think they would do this rather than use cheaper, less socially equal immigrants to supplement the host societys losses?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 06:53
|
|