Gender: Philosophical Problems

[Basil II the B.S]

Well, that's why this is in the philosophy section. We - or should I say "I" - are talking about gender as it is digested over and over again in the spiritual realm. Nevertheless, the argument for an empirically observable gender is indeed valid even in a philosophy thread, as long as it remains erkenntniskritisch, that is, as long as it remains a question about the limits and limitations of knowledge. If the argument is that gender can be determined objectively through an empirical observation of nature,

Primarily.

and that the social aspect is irrelevant, then this is a fair statement.

Not irrelevant but secondary.

However, it would have to prove itself philosophically and explain the empirical fact of varying gender conceptions in different societies (including gender roles and everything attached with it).

Well again, todays human societies are patriarchal. Almost exclusively. Those that are not are those Western societies that have estabilished an equalitarian standing before law. This is the first empirical observation.
Historically, societies have been patriarchal. If matriarchal societies ever existed they did not survive the test of time, they were eliminated by what we could call Darwinian selection.
We can also empirically observe that gender roles through history maintained specific grandlines, with particular variations according to the society but grandlines nonetheless.
The gender role of the woman in patriachal society is and has always been that of homemaker, which is primarily result of the natural predisposition.
The role of man can be defined in two grandlines: provider and protector, this is in every society, from Aztecs to Sumerians, with their own variations but in every society nonetheless. And that is once again result of a natural predisposition that man have and that is the one of strenght/violence.

Let's move to the counterproof of my argument. Western societies are the first ones shifting away from patriarchal roles, and they are also the first ones where physical strenght has lost a significant part of its relevance. With the natural predisposition of men becoming less significant, the gender role of provider becomes available for women too.
The conclusion is self evident. Genders are developed by giving the best answer to human needs according to human natural skills.

[Diamat]

Which would suggest that gender is constructed to fulfill specific social needs.

In any event, I think it's a bit oversimplified if we simply roll up all of human history and call it patriarchal. Though I'm not saying that men weren't in dominant positions, the way this domination was conceived of differed across time and space. Thus you have varying conceptions about a woman's roles in places like 12th century Korea, 18th century Korea, 16th century countries in the Middle East, 15th century France, 17th century Prussia, etc.

[Basil II the B.S]

Which would suggest that gender is constructed to fulfill specific social needs.

Let's bring division of labour to the table and say social needs are fullfilled by those who are most likely to fullfil it best.

In any event, I think it's a bit oversimplified if we simply roll up all of human history and call it patriarchal. Though I'm not saying that men weren't in dominant positions, the way this domination was conceived of differed across time and space. Thus you have varying conceptions about a woman's roles in places like 12th century Korea, 18th century Korea, 16th century countries in the Middle East, 15th century France, 17th century Prussia, etc.

Question is, were they ever completely detached from the homemaker/family maker role?

This is a legitimate open question anyway, I do not have the knowledge of every human society in every century. I read history enough to make a generalized claim but I assume some societies could have tried different ways to organize society.

I do assume however that even if they did, it wasn't the best way because it didn't exploit natural inclinations in the best way, the division of labour I'm talking about above, evidence of this is that they did not survive to this day.

[Diamat]

I think it is too narrow to simply investigate the evolution of gender conceptions based on the "homemaker/family maker role." There is much more that one has to investigate, such as property relations (e.g., were women allowed to hold property?), work limitations (if any), views about sexual relations, the ontology of women etc. etc. Let's take Korean history, for example. We find that in the Goryeo dynasty, women were allowed to hold property, could inherit, and the men usually moved into the wife's house (where her parents lived). In governmental affairs, however, men are dominant. Women nevertheless had influence in the religious sphere, which did impact the government as well. Now we move on to the Joseon period, which immediate followed the Goryeo period. While Goryeo was dominantly Buddhist, Joseon gradually became a bastion of Neo-Confucianism. This facilitated a push toward a different kind of order in which women could no longer own or inherit property and the women moved into the husband's house. Women's roles were moved into the domestic sphere and legitimized through a complex Neo-Confucian morality. Thus sex also became much more controlled when it came to women. In fact, women were to carry a dagger with them at all times and kill themselves when in danger of rape. Women were also to cover themselves completely when in public.

As you can see based on this small example, there is a lot that goes into gender conceptions. A lot of it is simply historical accident. It's not like humans intentionally decide to create a certain society and gender conceptions. Humans think in the immediate sense, and the actions they take tend to give rise to structures that subsequently restrict them. Therefore it would be fallacious to think that humans are ordering their lives in accordance with nature and that they choose the most efficient way. That's simply not the case. Nor would it be a valid argument to suggest that the non-survival of societies which based themselves on a different ordering means that it is evidence for a non-natural ordering of society. There are plenty of patriarchal societies that collapsed just the same. I think this argument attributes causality where there is none.

I think the point has been proven that there do exist different gender conceptions across time and space. You are now posing the question as to why they differ. Your answer seems to be that they differ because they were needed in order to exploit natural inclinations in the best way and generate an efficient division of labor in accordance with the material conditions (this sounds very Marxist, by the way). Even if we grant this point - and I do doubt this, especially because human societies do not always choose the most economically efficient route - the question remains as to why gender conceptions take on the unique forms that they do. This is where we would need the discipline of intellectual history to do its job. But all this is not really what my exposition in the OP was trying to get at. I'm much more interested in the ethical problems that arise from a feminist (relativistic) view of gender construction. I'm interested in the necessity of gender conceptions in our society and how they can enable freedom. In other words, my concern is with the present, with the Mind, and with freedom. And to me - feminists would completely disagree with me on this point - gender conceptions in our society are not necessarily a restriction of freedom but can actually serve as vehicles for freedom's attainment. The reason why many people do not understand this is because they do not understand what freedom is.

[Himster]

Of course not. As I've said, I am not against the notion of constructivism. But a major philosophical problem arises once constructedness leads us to the corollary that we should therefore reject whatever is constructed and struggle against it (i.e., struggle against the dominant social norms). As I have explained, I consider this to be philosophically unsound. There is nothing in the notion of constructedness that must necessarily lead us into relativism and a rejection of ethics, social roles, etc. Just because gender notions are constructed should not mean that they should be struggled against, as is the case with feminism. To do so would simply replace one abstraction with another (i.e., another constructed notion), which would be just as relative (from the point of view of relativistic constructivism).

I think we agree.
I don't see any necessity to the corollary that constructions should therefore be rejected: for example the concept of gender equality is a construct. One can even argue that biological sex is a construct (to a degree). It is axiomatically impossible to reject constructs because they are constructs. One must examine and weigh them subjectively (and then reject them), which has its own shortcomings as even language and therefore the abstract thought required to process constructs is in itself a construct. The cycle continues, there is no escaping this Sisyphean task. In essence we have no choice but to arbitrarily select arbitrary constructs based on our whims, inclinations and the fashions of our times all of which are either constructs or products of constructs regardless.

In any event, I think it's a bit oversimplified if we simply roll up all of human history and call it patriarchal.

Not really. If the claim that modern western society qualifies as a "patriarchal society", then there has never existed a non-patriarchal society in all of human history, even the realm of fantasy practically never exceeds the level of gender equality achieved in the west.

Though I'm not saying that men weren't in dominant positions, the way this domination was conceived of differed across time and space. Thus you have varying conceptions about a woman's roles in places like 12th century Korea, 18th century Korea, 16th century countries in the Middle East, 15th century France, 17th century Prussia, etc.

..... compared to our "patriarchal society" those societies were ubiquitously and extremely misogynistic.

I think the point has been proven that there do exist different gender conceptions across time and space.

Superficial differences in how much chain was left slack on women's collars. One can hardly call them significant differences.

[Basil II the B.S]

I think it is too narrow to simply investigate the evolution of gender conceptions based on the "homemaker/family maker role." There is much more that one has to investigate, such as property relations (e.g., were women allowed to hold property?), work limitations (if any), views about sexual relations, the ontology of women etc. etc. Let's take Korean history, for example. We find that in the Goryeo dynasty, women were allowed to hold property, could inherit, and the men usually moved into the wife's house (where her parents lived). In governmental affairs, however, men are dominant. Women nevertheless had influence in the religious sphere, which did impact the government as well. Now we move on to the Joseon period, which immediate followed the Goryeo period. While Goryeo was dominantly Buddhist, Joseon gradually became a bastion of Neo-Confucianism. This facilitated a push toward a different kind of order in which women could no longer own or inherit property and the women moved into the husband's house. Women's roles were moved into the domestic sphere and legitimized through a complex Neo-Confucian morality. Thus sex also became much more controlled when it came to women. In fact, women were to carry a dagger with them at all times and kill themselves when in danger of rape. Women were also to cover themselves completely when in public.

As you can see based on this small example, there is a lot that goes into gender conceptions. A lot of it is simply historical accident. It's not like humans intentionally decide to create a certain society and gender conceptions. Humans think in the immediate sense, and the actions they take tend to give rise to structures that subsequently restrict them. Therefore it would be fallacious to think that humans are ordering their lives in accordance with nature and that they choose the most efficient way. That's simply not the case. Nor would it be a valid argument to suggest that the non-survival of societies which based themselves on a different ordering means that it is evidence for a non-natural ordering of society. There are plenty of patriarchal societies that collapsed just the same. I think this argument attributes causality where there is none.

The question remains though, were women ever detached from their family maker role? Were men ever not involved in protecting and providing?

Narrowing down is crucial to understand gender relations, not the weak point. I'm not saying that sex relations or property rights aren't not important, however if we are discussing derivations from natural instincts they are of secondary importance. What is of primary importance is accepting or rejecting that gender relations in human societies preserve the core functions of a natural, animal society.

I think the point has been proven that there do exist different gender conceptions across time and space. You are now posing the question as to why they differ. Your answer seems to be that they differ because they were needed in order to exploit natural inclinations in the best way and generate an efficient division of labor in accordance with the material conditions (this sounds very Marxist, by the way).

Proper allocation of labor is more Ricardo than Marx.

Even if we grant this point - and I do doubt this, especially because human societies do not always choose the most economically efficient route - the question remains as to why gender conceptions take on the unique forms that they do. This is where we would need the discipline of intellectual history to do its job. But all this is not really what my exposition in the OP was trying to get at. I'm much more interested in the ethical problems that arise from a feminist (relativistic) view of gender construction. I'm interested in the necessity of gender conceptions in our society and how they can enable freedom. In other words, my concern is with the present, with the Mind, and with freedom. And to me - feminists would completely disagree with me on this point - gender conceptions in our society are not necessarily a restriction of freedom but can actually serve as vehicles for freedom's attainment. The reason why many people do not understand this is because they do not understand what freedom is.

How can they serve as vehicles for freedom? It's an interesting point but I'm completely missing your thinking process.

[Diamat]

I think we agree.
One must examine and weigh them subjectively (and then reject them)

The cycle continues, there is no escaping this Sisyphean task. In essence we have no choice but to arbitrarily select arbitrary constructs based on our whims, inclinations and the fashions of our times all of which are either constructs or products of constructs regardless.

These are points that are not sophisticated enough for me, but are more like what Hegel called "Vorstellungen." See the last section in my response to Basil. I tried to address you both at the same time (I really hate zebra-posting. It makes for poor discussion).

The question remains though, were women ever detached from their family maker role? Were men ever not involved in protecting and providing?

Narrowing down is crucial to understand gender relations, not the weak point. I'm not saying that sex relations or property rights aren't not important, however if we are discussing derivations from natural instincts they are of secondary importance. What is of primary importance is accepting or rejecting that gender relations in human societies preserve the core functions of a natural, animal society.

Proper allocation of labor is more Ricardo than Marx.

How can they serve as vehicles for freedom? It's an interesting point but I'm completely missing your thinking process.

The first question is simply beyond my interest at this point, and I'm not even sure I would disagree with you. Another member might debate this point in a more apt fashion. I for one am more concerned with the the actual working up of Spirit. Again, I think we both agree that nature and Spirit are tightly interwoven. Construction occurs, but the question remains if there is a basic biological line that has run throughout human history. If so, that would be intriguing. If not, oh well. Either way, it is the higher realms that I am concerned with, the realms of ethics.

However, I would still disagree with you on the point that humans choose the most economically efficient route. That is a hard case to make in history. There is a reason why I said it sounded Marxist, because such a view enabled Marx to create a unifying view of history, based simply on the notion of class struggle. It's a dangerous route to tread and I do not recommend it. It might seem scientific at first, but it's really only an illusion. The more holes and deviations you can find, the better. I hate unifying theories - they tend to lead to scientism, that is, science that thinks it's science even though it's not.

This addresses both Himster and Basil:
As for the point about freedom, you would have to read Hegel to fully understand my thinking process. But I can explain it as best as I can for the uninitiated.

Himster calls our selection of constructs "arbitrary" and "subjective." This I absolutely disagree with, not because this doesn't happen, but because this is the path toward a bad society. Such a view simply does not understand where freedom lies and it does not understand where ethics reside. It's a very Kantian view of the world, in which morality is simply left to the whims of the people. But this is not the case in a good society. In a good society morality is objective, that is, morality is ethics. Morality is no longer simply my personal choice but a social one. Objectivity here is understood in the German philosophical tradition (please don't understand it in the Anglo-Saxon tradition). Morality is objective when it is no longer simply for me, but for everyone. This way, by following morality, I am at the same time affirming everyone else in my ethical community. This exists a lot in our society, you simply haven't noticed yet. Think about just the most common thing you do in your society, such as a handshake. Not to do it, would cause the other person a sense of non-affirmation, as if you do not recognize him as part of your ethical community. In a sense, when people reject the accepted good, this cause a social conflict. In fact, by rejecting the universal for your particular whims, you are causing other people unfreedom.

So let's get to the freedom part. Freedom is attained when my particular will (besonderer Wille) corresponds with the universal will (allgemeiner Wille), that is, when my particular desires, wants, needs, can be fulfilled through the universal. That is, by following what is good, I fulfill my own personal wants. This way, I am not restricting anybody else in society. To the contrary, as I realize my own freedom, I am affirming everyone else's at the same time. Thus, there is freedom in duty (again, this is a very Germanic view). The same applies in marriage. When I know my proper role as a husband, and the wife knows her proper role, i.e., when the relationship between husband and wife is universal, and if that universality is in correspondence with the particularity of each spouse, then it enables freedom. If, however, there is a conflict, if as a husband I am not acting in accordance with what my wife considers universal (and that universality should be socially determined, i.e., be objective), then I am causing her unfreedom. For instance, if it be my role to do the dishes and she do the laundry, then if I do not fulfill my proper role, she will feel unfree, because I am not affirming her Spirit. If reconciliation cannot take place, divorce must necessarily occur. Thus my point, there can be freedom in fulfilling a gender role. These constructions are in many ways objective. Not all of them, of course. And what is objective is constantly being redefined. But it sure as hell is not redefined by the personal whims of individuals, but by society as such.

I have one favor to ask for to those who respond to me: please do not quote line by line and respond line by line. What I am talking about is a philosophical point which cannot be taken apart like in political threads. Please respond on a philosophical basis (and please be somewhat familiar with Hegelian philosophy), giving a well thought-out reply that responds to the entirety of what I said.

[Basil II the B.S]

I'll address just the last part since there aren't particular disagreements with the previous ones.

What happens when the subjective elements of your gender role end up limiting the gender role of your wife, while the objective elements do not?

Or in other words, is there any room for subjective elements in a relationship based on universal principles?

If not, isn't the prohibition of subjective elements an implicit limit to freedom itself?

[Diamat]

In my previous response, when I said particular will, I also meant the subjective part. The ideal, most freedom-enabling situation is when my particularity is affirmed in the objective, i.e., when my particular personhood (my desires, wants, needs, convictions, etc.) is realized in objective terms recognized by society as a whole. Of course you will never have a society where this is all in perfect harmony. Indeed, there will be many struggles, especially as new subjectivities arise, subjectivities which challenge the objective. It usually takes time for these subjectivities to prove themselves worthy of the objective. Sometimes they are suppressed by the state. This struggle is what makes human society and Spirit so exciting. But I reject any view which would hold that we should simply reject all that is objective for the subjective (as feminism would). Such ideas tend to lead to mob morality and a type of spiritual totalitarianism in where one gets hounded if he expresses views contrary to the subjectivity of another person (see the whole safe-space and "triggering" debate, for instance).

Now directly to your hypothetical situation. First of all, it's important to keep in mind that the family is only one level of society. It is not self-contained. It is not its own state. Thus, what is considered objective in a marriage, ideally, should have been taught to you as you grew up. In other words, society as such would have the same ideas about marriage as you. I kind of misled you here, because I gave the dishwashing and laundry example, which of course is not something socially determined but tends to be determined by couples on an individual basis. In this sense, couples sometimes create their own unique universal spirit, in order to feel freer in their marriage. In any case, if, as you say, I hold on to subjective views on gender which subsequently restrict the gender role of my wife, then divorce should occur. Either that or I be taught that my subjective views are simply subjective and therefore not conducive to my wife's freedom. So if I have sex with other women, this is most likely going to violate the contract, the universality between my wife and I. I will immediately feel guilt, because I know that my subjective views were bad, not in congruence with objective good. The problem isn't subjective views as such, but my subjectivity should remain universal. That is, my subjectivity should be realized through what is universal. For example, as a man, as I was raised into society, I came to develop a variety of dreams, etc. I have developed a subjectivity. However, this subjectivity, because it developed socially, can only be realized socially. So if I want to become a successful businessman, that is only because I know, through the universal principles of my society, that this is possible to begin with. Thus my very subjectivity is intermeshed with universality. That's why I would feel my subjectivity violated if suddenly people would tell me that I cannot become a businessman because I am black, for example. And society as such would be outraged to find out that a black man was denied to become a businessman, because we all know what is good. In this sense, the universal facilitates the realization of my subjectivity precisely because my subjectivity was tempered by the universal.

However, I think it is important to point out that the suppression of subjective elements is a limitation of freedom. That's why ideally you want subjectivity to be in a mutually reinforcing relationship with objectivity, as described above. But I am not an utopianist. I know that there can never be a perfect congruence of particularity and universality. It is an unending struggle of Spirit against itself. Subjectivity will at times be destroyed by the state, thus reaffirming the objective over the subjective. But the thing is, society will move on. In time, if that subjectivity which was suppressed was indeed good, it will assert itself more and more. Eventually it will enter the objective. But this is a process of trial and error, which takes place over a long period of time. Western countries have arrived at their values through a long hard trial, and because of this, we are not going to reject them so easily. Socrates' subjectivity was suppressed. He died. The state asserted itself over his subjectivity. But Greek society went on just the same.

[Elfdude]

In my previous response, when I said particular will, I also meant the subjective part. The ideal, most freedom-enabling situation is when my particularity is affirmed in the objective, i.e., when my particular personhood (my desires, wants, needs, convictions, etc.) is realized in objective terms recognized by society as a whole. Of course you will never have a society where this is all in perfect harmony.

Why?

See you fundamentally hold onto the basic foundational principles of social justice here. I would say this is perhaps the most eloquent representation of what social justice aims for.

Indeed, there will be many struggles, especially as new subjectivities arise, subjectivities which challenge the objective. It usually takes time for these subjectivities to prove themselves worthy of the objective. Sometimes they are suppressed by the state. This struggle is what makes human society and Spirit so exciting.

I detest the dichotomy of subjectivity and objectivity in these sorts of discussions. It err's on the side of over generalization. There is no point at which an idea becomes objective or is totally subjective, there's just various degrees of support for different ideas. I would say there's definitely ideas which we can call subjective and definitely ideas which we can call objective in their purest form but I propose that the vast majority of contemplations are more or less an intinguishable grey zone between objectivity and subjectivity. What gives rise to truth is the personal perspective one choses to evaluate those grey zones. I would assert the best form we have today to do that would be the philosophical underpinnings of science and it's methods.

But I reject any view which would hold that we should simply reject all that is objective for the subjective (as feminism would).

This is an interesting statement. Why does feminism in your view reject the objective for the subjective? Is this statement not hopelessly fallacious in it's meaning and application in which case it seems rather pointless. The fundamental view of feminism is that sex should not be determinant of one's opportunities in society. This is based off on the fundamental premises of egalitarianism. The idea that we can all be equal and that it's our choices which make us different. Obviously the oversimplification of nature vs nurture is at play here. There are most certainly biological deteriminants of gendered behavior but the choice that on one hand gender is constructed vs the idea that gender arises axiomatically from chemistry itself are both problematic and truly neither are likely to be the answer. In a long form I'm certain chemistry is the answer and I could expound upon the neurology of this system but to put it in simple terms, most behavior seems to be pre-programmed and instinctual, however we can at any moment for any variety of reasons alter this behavior through the fundamental mechanisms of our chemical brain. Which is to say, should we stop to think about any activity a plethora of options that are not what we've programmed ourselves to accomplish subconsciously can arise. You can think yourself depressed, just as you can think of an alternative strategy which itself acts like a mutated idea.

In this there's dozens of biological factors that I know of which strongly bias someone's behaviors towards one gender or the next, I'd imagine there's far more factors which are as of yet undiscovered.



This is a simplified representation of what that variance over multiple loci creates. As you can see despite only 3 genes and on and off, the potential phenotypical expression of those genes grows exponentially. The genes which influence our behaviors are not much different. We can certainly draw broad conclusions but those conclusions are almost without exception going to be prone to errors and exceptions. This is why the perception of gender being rather fluid had begun to take scientific hold especially in the fields surrounding human behavior and neurology. Furthermore each of these potential outcomes can be further skewed by environmental factors. Food choice can drastically affect gendered personality expression. Climate can affect gendered personality expression. Early childhood, trauma, society, media, all of these impact the biological deteriminats skewing them this way or that. What you end up with is someone taking a handful of pennies and tossing them in the air. Something which is mathematically and chemically underpinned which has the phenotypic expression of a continuum. However a continuum is not correct either. The reality of the situation is our concept of sex or gender are far too vague to fit what biologically exists objectively. In this a continuum is closer in reality to what we observe, a bellcurve with most people expressing the typical gendered behaviors and smaller and smaller numbers of people expressing those behaviors which are dramatically different but entirely objectively valid.



To summarize while the definitions of what is man and what is women do intersect the objective realities of those things, they misfit more and more the more and more specific we get. This is because our definitions of gender are constructions which have been overgeneralized and applied to apple/oranges situation. The problem here is that because they often do fit a majority of our expressions and a majority of our interactions they become shorthand for truth. This is where the issue lays, the people traditional gender ideas do not fit are not the people who can alter what those gender roles or definitions are as definition is inherently populist.

Such ideas tend to lead to mob morality and a type of spiritual totalitarianism in where one gets hounded if he expresses views contrary to the subjectivity of another person (see the whole safe-space and "triggering" debate, for instance).

I do not agree with your composition here. I like to use a chemistry and biology metaphor. In biology compartmentalization allows chemical reactions to occur which ordinarily would not be able to occur. Which is to say in society safe spaces allow societal development which ordinarily could not occur to do so. There's various levels of safe space which vary from very general to very specific. With regards to triggers, triggers are emphatically only relevant to trauma treatment. A trigger is not shorthand for mildly offended, but rather a directly reference to the fact that certain subjects and methods of discussion can trigger traumatic memories. Just as our physiology does not work if you take our raw ingredients and mix them in a blender, our social interaction does not necessarily function or withstand the mixture of topics without regard for the environment or audience.

Now directly to your hypothetical situation. First of all, it's important to keep in mind that the family is only one level of society. It is not self-contained. It is not its own state.

Indeed, furthermore what defines or creates a family in of itself is again constructed and far more so than gender ideas itself. It seems problematic to ground your definition of gender in the family when gender itself is a more robust definition than family is and you end up with a movement of the goalposts from one ill-defined concept to an even more ill-defined concept.

Thus, what is considered objective in a marriage, ideally, should have been taught to you as you grew up.

Furthermore there is no necessity to connect the definition of marriage with the definition of family. When responding to family you've immediately supposed your own definition which seems to include marriage.

In other words, society as such would have the same ideas about marriage as you.

However, if we reduce marriage to objectivity (what definition is held in common throughout society) it moves towards meaninglessness. We can create a cut off point and say, only those whose definitions are in common with X Y Z group but this becomes nothing more than special pleading.

I kind of misled you here, because I gave the dishwashing and laundry example, which of course is not something socially determined but tends to be determined by couples on an individual basis.

However, you've also misled yourself here because certainly societal expectations of these chores do indeed influence the gendered behavior surrounding them. It's entirely real that dishwashing and laundry are more likely to be performed by those who are more feminine in their gender identity. At the same moment individual discussion also biases that behavior. A couple who holds egalitarian views may split the chores 50/50 in defiance of societal expectation entirely.

In this sense, couples sometimes create their own unique universal spirit, in order to feel freer in their marriage.

I would even challenge your conception of freedom. Maximizing individual freedom, group freedom or really freedom of any sort is not necessarily a goalset which is applicable to every person. I would debate whether it's even applicable to most people.

In any case, if, as you say, I hold on to subjective views on gender which subsequently restrict the gender role of my wife, then divorce should occur.

However, you're likely to hold views which simultaneously enhance and restrict the gender role of your wife. Her own personal perception of that and her patience with it will also affect whether or not a divorce occurs.

Either that or I be taught that my subjective views are simply subjective and therefore not conducive to my wife's freedom.

However, again freedom is not the ultimate goal of most people or even society. For example it's not those who have the most freedom who are the most happy, in actuality the freedom to choose creates uncertainty and leads to trepidation, confusion, and uncertainty all of which trigger negative feelings at varying degrees.

So if I have sex with other women, this is most likely going to violate the contract, the universality between my wife and I.

Even if it does it's not certain that this will end the relationship, furthermore it's not even certain that it would violate that contract. That contract is a construction between you and your wife and to make things even more difficult regardless of the contract and the rationality and carefulness employed in its construction one or neither of you may ever follow it. The number of relationships which end due to hot emotions in complete violation of every agreement or rational understanding you could employ is astonishing.

I will immediately feel guilt, because I know that my subjective views were bad, not in congruence with objective good. The problem isn't subjective views as such, but my subjectivity should remain universal. That is, my subjectivity should be realized through what is universal.

This seems clunky.

For example, as a man, as I was raised into society, I came to develop a variety of dreams, etc. I have developed a subjectivity. However, this subjectivity, because it developed socially, can only be realized socially. So if I want to become a successful businessman, that is only because I know, through the universal principles of my society, that this is possible to begin with.

This is where some of the more complicated social behaviors seem to come up. Deception, manipulation, and leveraging of your own power. Your navigation through society is a complex interplay between your own subjectivity and the mean subjectivity of your environment at any given time. What is appropriate in a group of men, may not be appropriate in a group of women, or in church or etc. These microenvironments create an exponentially expanding shift between you leveraging your beliefs against society, with society, or building a compromise therein. Some things you will change, some things society will change, somethings neither of you will change and some things neither of you will act as expected.

Thus my very subjectivity is intermeshed with universality. That's why I would feel my subjectivity violated if suddenly people would tell me that I cannot become a businessman because I am black, for example.

I like this summarization. Very much so.

And society as such would be outraged to find out that a black man was denied to become a businessman, because we all know what is good. In this sense, the universal facilitates the realization of my subjectivity precisely because my subjectivity was tempered by the universal.

That's a very good description but it's rather frustrating how many exceptions to it exist. There are microenvironments whose subjectivity you simply won't care about, there's societal systems which allow you to do so with rather little impact on your own subjective expression, and there's inhibitions to other's subjectivities which don't in turn exist for you, both real and imagined.

However, I think it is important to point out that the suppression of subjective elements is a limitation of freedom.

True enough, but your expression of subjective elements may in turn inherently suppress the expression of another's subjective elements. In fact by definition it does.

That's why ideally you want subjectivity to be in a mutually reinforcing relationship with objectivity, as described above. But I am not an utopianist. I know that there can never be a perfect congruence of particularity and universality.

Why?

Or to put it succintly, do you disagree that there can be a better congruence? What sort of things do you imagine inhibit that congruence? Why? To put it another way, imagine the world as clocks. In the yesteryear our clocks were accurate to quater of the day depending on the sun, however through invention and adaptation those clocks became increasingly more accurate. Just as characterising a behavior which occurs in a second is nearly impossible in a world where your congruence between time's actuality and your ability to represent that time is limited to the passing of the sun, characterising what is right or wrong about transgender in a society which does not possess the fundamental knowledge to represent the difference between male and female is also nearly impossible. To me the solution is knowledge and education. Through this our best fit approaches slowly get tighter and tighter.

It is an unending struggle of Spirit against itself. Subjectivity will at times be destroyed by the state, thus reaffirming the objective over the subjective. But the thing is, society will move on. In time, if that subjectivity which was suppressed was indeed good, it will assert itself more and more.

For example, sexual orientation. Throughout history, throughout law, throughout society it's representation has been more or less constant. My contention is that it's only recently that our understanding of sexual orientation has become nuanced enough to entertain the validity of it's expression. Our societal clocks have gotten better so to speak.

Eventually it will enter the objective. But this is a process of trial and error, which takes place over a long period of time. Western countries have arrived at their values through a long hard trial, and because of this, we are not going to reject them so easily. Socrates' subjectivity was suppressed. He died. The state asserted itself over his subjectivity. But Greek society went on just the same.

True enough. However this process is prone to mistakes and the suppression of truly great objectivity can be accomplish through the action of the subjective. Atomic theory versus aristotle's ideas is a great example of this interplay gone awry. Which means that while in the vast history your idea is probably a trend line we can rely upon, when it comes to lifetimes, decades, years, months or days which behavior advances that trend line is impressively difficult to extrapolate. This is why I find Basil's idea that western society won therefor it is the best to be highly problematic. Not to mention the fact that it seems to ignore how it can be better, but also the supremacy of our particular subjective society is relatively insignificant to the trend line you speak of. Could it be correct? Of course.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

See, the thing is - if gender is linked to sex then there are around 2 genders (a biological definition must still account for hermaphrodites etc.). If it is, it's a pointless concept - we have sex for that. If it's not, then what is it linked to other than personality? We can't make a definitive list of personalities. Again, it's an irrelevant concept - we have personalities. The entire meme around "did you just assume my gender" is so tired the horses' family has buried and forgotten him. Gender is nothing but a distraction - I say ditch the concept altogether, because there is no concept.