|
The Kingfish posted:Exactly? Gender is a bad social construct, and personal genders do nothing to undermine gender as a force in our society. We should be working to abolish gender, not strengthen its grip. How is someone dressing androgynously or switching between masculinized and feminized modes of dress "strengthening the grip" of gender? Surely rendering it cosmetic puts it on the same status as hair color, no?
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
What's the difference? Do you consider being trans to require a diagnosis of a particular disorder by a psychiatrist, and thus you accepting other identities would require their medicalization?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Their gender identity isn't valid. But I thought gender was a false and damaging construct to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Its the "identity" part of their gender identity that isn't valid. The traditional genders are rammed down our throats by culture and society until they are internalized as an essential parts of our personalities. Personal genders are invented by their.. adherents(?) as a form of self-expression. So, imposed genders are valid, so long as the imposed upon does no self-defining? In fact, does this principle extend generally?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Its only rude because xe people are looking to feel special. Actually, I don't think this is credible, judging by the nonbinary people I know.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Its entirely different. Why?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Its different because transmen adopt he/his in order to better perform their new gender in a society that has preconceived notions about sex and gender. This doesn't explain anything because this applies to someone adopting Spivak pronouns just as well- they are doing it in order to better perform their new gender in a society that has preconceived notions about sex and gender.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:If you apply that same skepticism to trans people themselves, you end up having top reject pure self identification as valid - you don't need a water right case, you just need a reasonable doubt, which that frankly is. How do you determine "natural performance"?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Your behaviors that you default into, when you no one is looking ie- you're not being deceptive. Socially however, the onus is on you to present correctly, because what you communicate is more than what you say, but also how you look. But, there's no way for anyone to determine how you behave when no one is looking, because you have to look and destroy the status of being alone in order to determine what natural performance is. You are back to it being a personal form of identity. Furthermore, this assumes society is unchangeable and that is closer to being outright wrong than questionable. The Kingfish posted:No it doesn't apply to personal pronouns because non-binary people aren't performing gender the same way that trans and cis people are. Why aren't they?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
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. Additionally, it is both conceivably measurable, if you're asking to use deception and spend resources, but also a standard which can be relaxed because of practical concerns, the trade off being reliability. No such equivalence exists for your phenomenological feelings. Those are not natural behaviors as you have outlined them, they are performed behaviors. So they are irrelevant to what you have suggested should be the standard, and you are unable to measure behaviors without observing them and making them unnatural. In order to ensure that the people you are surveilling are unaware of your surveillance, you actually do need to peek inside people's heads, meaning you cannot do it and cannot be assured that behaviors are truly natural without telepathy. That is, "natural behaviors" as you outline them are inherently phenomenological. You can say that all we need is a reasonable standard, but that also means that social behaviors are totally unnatural, which is a disturbing conclusion to come to. Basically, what this sounds like is you coming up with something that sounds good without thinking through how it would work at all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I have not made, nor believe, the claims you are attributing to me here. 'Natural' in the way I used or meant 'honest', not 'intrinsic'. I am anti-essentialist. Gender is not intrinsic, it is performative, subject to already existing social norms, which change with place and time. This is smug and doesn't actually answer the question. If we don't know what "natural" behaviors are for women or men, the entire line of argumentation is moot because it's over something meaningless in the first place! So you do need to answer, at least tentatively, what a "natural" woman or man would behave like.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:If you believe that individualism is too dominant an ethos in Western culture, then it follows that you may not want to indulge someone with a de facto narcissistic concern with being perceived "correctly" regardless of how they actually appear, or someone who arrogantly insists that society reshape itself to accommodate them when is they who should accommodate society. What is the limit of the violence that can be used to make someone accommodate society?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:hokay Do you know someone who's told you they do it to feel special, or do you feel that anyone who is nonconformist is doing it to feel special until proven otherwise, or what?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:How violent is internet eye rolling? So in other words, people should accommodate society, but nothing be done to ensure that this happens. This seems like a really interesting morality, where you uphold it by refusing to uphold it. Did you get it from Zen Buddhism? The Three Stooges?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:How violent is thinking society at large does not have an ethical obligation to accommodate atypical expressions of identity? What are the limits of being able to refuse to accommodate?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Weirdly enough Xir, as a real life amnecdote you picked a person in one of the circumstances where identifying as non binary isn't dumb as hell. We're fixated on nonbimary though, let's discuss how neopronouns and an endless litany of genders like demiboy actually work out in real life One of my trans acquaintances believes that trans women need to present as ultrafeminine in order to be authentic, that only lipstick lesbianism with rigid masculinized and feminized roles is morally acceptable, and is intermittently a Stalinist when she's not a fascist or absolute monarchist. Your views are not obviously nutty, but they're also not obviously compelling either. Furthermore, her views are not all that different from the ones you're outlining. If I didn't emphasize her bad politics it would just be taking the rigidity of the gender binary to be something that also applies to sexual relationships, but otherwise would just be a natural extension of your stated beliefs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
rudatron posted:No, you've thrown up some irrelevant objections about solipsism, that has nothing to do with it working or not on its own terms. Additionally, if you're not taking self-declaration as authoritative, and you're not taking performance as authoritative (because that's what I am), then on what grounds can you say that anyone is 'misgendering'? Surely, if there is no basis to come to any conclusion, if it's all impenetrable to you thanks to the issue of subjectivity, then there's no such thing as a right or wrong gendering, either by yourself or others and, consequently you can't hold anyone to account. Is that really what you want? It's becoming increasingly obvious that you are not willing to concede the right of other people to have opinions that exist apart from you, because you consistently declare people mentally ill, tell them what they're actually thinking, etc. It seems more than a little pointless to attempt to communicate an idea that you reject the principles of in their entirety, and frankly you're disgusting in your voyeuristic desires and your hateful homophobia apart from the beliefs that have generated them. In any case, your proposed system fails to conclusively prove gender, is unethical to even attempt, and all your verbal slush is an attempt to get away from the massive torpedo-holes shot through your argument. What parts that aren't that are axiomatic statements about the need to submit which are apparently self-evident.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:It could possibly be that oversensitive people rub others the wrong way, and turns them off of acquiescing to their reauests. You do rub me the wrong way, but if I were to mistreat you because of that, I would be doing the wrong thing, and compounding my immoral behavior if I blamed you for it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:If I was being a big baby about things, I wouldn't expect my sensibilities to be catered to, and I'd imagine that is the case for most people. Okay, I won't cater to your sensibilities, then.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
The biological factors used in sexing humans are either casually invisible or defined in such a way as to create many nonbinary people with regards to sex, so they actually work against the line of argument you're using, Amused to Death.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:It does get tricky when it comes,d to religious beliefs. It's hard to say because whenever I read or hear a leading question, like Proust with his madeleines in tea, I flash back to law class, and by the time it's completed I usually have forgotten what it was in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
TheWeepingHorse posted:Law school was fun. I was actually about to bring up how one of my mentors back in law school was a hardcore Catholic of the old school - socially ultraconservative, economically basically distributist. One of his other mentees was (and is) a big LGBT rights activist. He was proud of her, even though he disagreed with much of what she stood for, and vice versa. People are complicated. Doesn't mean you have to accept every bigot, but it does mean that individual situations and relationships are often complex. I can completely believe that you went to law school from this post, actually.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Lichy posted:I just wanted to chip in and say that there is in fact some good evidence that hormonal development is connected to gender identity development, although of course gender development is multidimensional. Thus gender is not completely disconnected from biological sex. Ah, the old "we are genetically programmed to conceive of cars and construction vehicles" saw.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Lichy posted:I'm sorry? Saying that playing with construction vehicles is caused by hormones relies on the assumption that we are genetically programmed to understand what a backhoe is, if we are to use it as evidence that the relationship is "hormones cause masculine play" rather than "hormones cause an internal state that leads to masculine play". That is, what constitutes a masculine toy is so obviously culturally contingent that it's bullshit to use it as evidence that testosterone causes systematizing thinking over testosterone causing an internal state which we bind up with systematizing thinking in a cultural construction of masculinity and maleness.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Lichy posted:I disagree, as I have said gender identity is multidimensional, thus, while testosterone affects behaviour, how exactly it affects it depends on societal exposure (learning to use a backhoe is part of societal exposure). That's what the researchers are arguing in their abstracts, though!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Yes, precisely, and I do not dispute it. My contention is that a large proportion of self-identified xpecial xnowflake gender people most likely do show this phenomenon. Those studies tend to have methodological problems at such a level as to make them worthless. Most don't even attempt to be double-blind. There are also studies which show that both masculinized and feminized play are performed by children and it's social correction that causes children to only perform one or the other. There's also a significant difference, societally, between "men inherently like trucks" and "men like trucks because we associate trucks with masculinity", because the latter is malleable and the former not. The latter also doesn't cause us to conclude that women who think systematically must be intersex or something, too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
It's interesting how people assume that differences in the brain that may exist for trans people are about behavior rather than, say, a difference in the sensory homunculus which generates dysphoria about the shape of the body or something similar.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 11:59
|
|