Tweeting politics and science.

[Iskar]

I think we are talking at cross purposes a bit.

What you describe as gender is all linked to biological characteristics and predispositions, so I would count that under sex rather than gender. Meanwhile the cases of people like Hatshepsut show sufficiently that there is another category, a purely societal one independent of the biological sex. You may call that category what you will, but generally the word "gender" is being used for it. (Mind you that people did not deny Hatshepsut being a woman by sex, even if she acted as a man by gender/social role: She had a daughter that was even officially named in documents as such.)

Where it gets interesting is the sphere of behaviour, because that can be influenced both by social roles, expectations and early life experiences as well as genetical predispositions. As such both sex and gender certainly have an influence on it and it is no easy task to sort that apart due to humans being "really ing complicated" as makawa so fittingly put it.

[Cope]

I think we are talking at cross purposes a bit.

What you describe as gender is all linked to biological characteristics and predispositions, so I would count that under sex rather than gender. Meanwhile the cases of people like Hatshepsut show sufficiently that there is another category, a purely societal one independent of the biological sex. You may call that category what you will, but generally the word "gender" is being used for it. (Mind you that people did not deny Hatshepsut being a woman by sex, even if she acted as a man by gender/social role: She had a daughter that was even officially named in documents as such.)

Where it gets interesting is the sphere of behaviour, because that can be influenced both by social roles, expectations and early life experiences as well as genetical predispositions. As such both sex and gender certainly have an influence on it and it is no easy task to sort that apart due to humans being "really ing complicated" as makawa so fittingly put it.

What you're talking about is gender expression, which is the way that gender manifests itself culturally. If gender was simply a "social construct" then people who understand themselves as transgender would not be seeking biological changes via hormone therapies and surgery.

[mishkin]

I'm curious to know how many of the valiant trans activists in this thread would be willing to walk the walk and actually date, and possibly marry, a "trans woman" themselves. I suspect it's all just hot air and virtue signalling.

Also, when can we expect those who proclaim that "transwomen are women" to date a transwoman?

First of all, I believe (how can I be sure?) that I have never personally met any transsexual women. Here we talk a lot about them, but in reality they are quite scarce, a tiny proportion of society.

Secondly, and responding to the question that you do not dare to ask directly, if I find a woman with certain characteristics (minimally intelligent, good person, sexually attractive ...) and who feels attracted to me, I hope I'm not stupid enough to reject her for, sorry if I can't find more correct words to express myself, her medical history.

What you're talking about is gender expression, which is the way that gender manifests itself culturally. If gender was simply a "social construct" then people who understand themselves as transgender would not be seeking biological changes via hormone therapies and surgery.

as far as I know gender change often goes hand in hand with sex reassignment. If you feel like a woman and you want to be treated as such (gender), you usually (not always, this is not maths if you know whta I mean) find it horrible to wake up every day with a penis between your legs.

[Iskar]

What you're talking about is gender expression, which is the way that gender manifests itself culturally. If gender was simply a "social construct" then people who understand themselves as transgender would not be seeking biological changes via hormone therapies and surgery.

Why? They might want to adjust their biological sex (at least partially) to their gender.

[Sir Adrian]

That's like saying they might want want to undergo lobotomy to adjust their brain structure to their new cultural identity. If gender is a social construct, there is nothing tieing it to biology, like every other social construct we have (nationality, culture, profession, level of hatred for Bayern Munchen). If gender acceptance is tied to biology, then gender cannot be a social construct as it stems from, and it is intrinsically tided to, nature.

[Iskar]

Nobody claimed social constructs were entirely unrelated to biological or otherwise "given" characteristics. There is a strong correlation between sex and gender and that is not coincidental, but the important point is that the coefficient is not necessarily 1.

[Sir Adrian]

Social constructs ARE uncorrelated to anything biological or natural by definition.

A social construct is something that exists not in objective reality, but as a result of human interaction. It exists because humans agree that it exists.

If a social construct is derived even in part from something intrinsic to nature it ceases to be a social construct. If gender is a social construct it cannot have any connection whatsoever with biology. If the coefficient is >0 gender cannot be a social construct because it becomes based on biological differences and thus not born purely out of human interaction.

[Iskar]

No, that definition is nonsense to begin with: Epistemologically there is no qualitative difference between "results of human interaction" and so called "objective reality". The notions and perceptions we form to describe the phenomena we call "reality" are themselves inescapably products of human thinking and communication of that thinking.

[Cyclops]

Isabella and Ferdinand, Reges Catholici. Those damned post modern popes and their gender confusion.

[Iskar]

Yes, how did King Isabella dare assume Queen Ferdinand's gender?

[Sir Adrian]

Isabella and Ferdinand, Reges Catholici. Those damned post modern popes and their gender confusion.

Societal rankings and titles, unlike gender, are a social construct. We did not evolve kings and queens.

No, that definition is nonsense to begin with: Epistemologically there is no qualitative difference between "results of human interaction" and so called "objective reality". The notions and perceptions we form to describe the phenomena we call "reality" are themselves inescapably products of human thinking and communication of that thinking.

But not exclusively of that thinking, that is they key you keep missing. Of course everything is ultimately filtered thought human understanding and interaction, we have yet to evolve (or give ourselves) genetic memory, but that is not the point. Something is a social construct if and only if it is purely the result of human interaction and nothing else. If we agree that each monday we shall meet and greet each other with lalalalala, that is a social construct. It is an artificial agreement between me and you that is born exclusively out of the interaction between us, with no outside factors. If we both evolved, or were told by God, or zapped by aliens to go meet each other and go lalalalala every monday, that is no longer a social construct because it is the primary result of factors outside of the interaction between the two of us. We may understand it by interacting, we may even try to alter it but at the end of the day the interaction between the two of us is not the sole factor and therefore it is not a social construct.

The exact same principle can be applied to anything and everything you want, from nationality to mathematics to anything else. Nationality is a social construct because it cannot exist outside the scope of human interaction. Mathematics is not a social construct because x' = 1 even if all humans are gone. Same for gender. As long as it has a root in biology, and not even human biology but mammal biology in general, gender is not a social construct. Gender will become a social construct when we all evolve into greys.

[Cope]

No, that definition is nonsense to begin with: Epistemologically there is no qualitative difference between "results of human interaction" and so called "objective reality". The notions and perceptions we form to describe the phenomena we call "reality" are themselves inescapably products of human thinking and communication of that thinking.

The term "social construct" is used in this debate (and similar debates esp. regarding race) as described by Adrian. The argument that all categories or "constructs" are a product of the brain's physiology (and are therefore rooted in biology) is a philosophical one. As is the counter argument that all categories, being products of human thought, are "constructed" (or artificial).

[Pontifex Maximus]

It's the most regressive possible argument I've ever heard that if a biological female has any masculine traits/proclivities, she is actually a man. "Gender and sex are closely related" well, you don't say???.

[Iskar]

Societal rankings and titles, unlike gender, are a social construct. We did not evolve kings and queens.



But not exclusively of that thinking, that is they key you keep missing. Of course everything is ultimately filtered thought human understanding and interaction, we have yet to evolve (or give ourselves) genetic memory, but that is not the point. Something is a social construct if and only if it is purely the result of human interaction and nothing else. If we agree that each monday we shall meet and greet each other with lalalalala, that is a social construct. It is an artificial agreement between me and you that is born exclusively out of the interaction between us, with no outside factors. If we both evolved, or were told by God, or zapped by aliens to go meet each other and go lalalalala every monday, that is no longer a social construct because it is the primary result of factors outside of the interaction between the two of us. We may understand it by interacting, we may even try to alter it but at the end of the day the interaction between the two of us is not the sole factor and therefore it is not a social construct.

The exact same principle can be applied to anything and everything you want, from nationality to mathematics to anything else. Nationality is a social construct because it cannot exist outside the scope of human interaction. Mathematics is not a social construct because x' = 1 even if all humans are gone. Same for gender. As long as it has a root in biology, and not even human biology but mammal biology in general, gender is not a social construct. Gender will become a social construct when we all evolve into greys.

Your example fails to be entirely removed from that which you might call "objective reality": "Monday" is a concept that is closely linked to the periodicities in the day-night cycle and the lunar or solar cycle, "meeting" comes with the precondition of having a physical body and the physics of movement, as well as the neurological/psychological aspects of communication.

On the other hand even mathematics is a construct. If there is no intelligent observer to posit that x = 1 then you cannot meaningfully claim that it holds. (You can treat it as if it was independent of us, but that is another thing.) Same goes for any social, scientific, everyday, etc. concept you can come up with. Biology is not "just there" it is a theory we developed to organise certain perceptions and make predictions about future perceptions. "Sex" is a category in that theory we developed. "Gender" is a category in another theory (sociology) which serves a different descriptive purpose, but is closely correlated to the biological category, though not identical (a single example like that of Hatshepsut is enough to prove that two categories are not the same).

In toto, the distinction you want to set up between the "natural" and the "constructed" does not hold, and as long as people refuse to see that all our "natural" categories are constructed, but also that being "constructed" does not mean "entirely at our disposal to change at will", the discussion about sex/gender will always be an example of people talking way past each other due to having no sound common philosophical basis for their notions.

The term "social construct" is used in this debate (and similar debates esp. regarding race) as described by Adrian. The argument that all categories or "constructs" are a product of the brain's physiology (and are therefore rooted in biology) is a philosophical one. As is the counter argument that all categories, being products of human thought, are "constructed" (or artificial).

You cannot just opt out of philosophical considerations, especially where understanding the notions we work with is key to the problem.

Cum grano salis, much of the left-right division in politics in more recent years is based on two philosophically flawed extremes:
The right tends to naturalise categories, claiming that nations, races, cultures, are "just there" and have some right to existence of their own. From this they falsely deduce that these categories have not just descriptive, but normative value and try to model society to them.
The left on the other hand tends to view categories not just as a construct, but as an arbitrary construct (gender, ethnicity, science, etc.). From this they falsely deduce that any negative experience associated to such categories is a form of oppression, denying it even descriptive value, and putting the offended subject's perception as the absolute.

Both are wrong, and horribly so, and make for extremely boring debating in the long run.

It's the most regressive possible argument I've ever heard that if a biological female has any masculine traits/proclivities, she is actually a man. "Gender and sex are closely related" well, you don't say???.

This is the perfect example of arriving at absurd conclusions due to starting from imprecise premises. Your post only works rhetorically because you conflate sex and gender in the word "man" and use both associations to create a supposed contradiction. The easy and unspectacular resolution is that a biological woman can socially act as a man and vice versa. Of course things could get awkward in the bedroom if you consider social interactions leading to intimacy, but that is precisely where society has to literally and metaphorically stay out, so it's only biological sex and personal preferences there. Problem solved.

[Pontifex Maximus]

This is the perfect example of arriving at absurd conclusions due to starting from imprecise premises. Your post only works rhetorically because you conflate sex and gender in the word "man" and use both associations to create a supposed contradiction.

Ugh god. Ok, your post's thesaurus.com, let's do this. I amend my initial post to the word "woman." What now? God, take a position instead of relying on this ridiculous, nebulous "nuh uh that's not what I said" argumentative .

The easy and unspectacular resolution is that a biological woman can socially act as a man and vice versa. Of course things could get awkward in the bedroom if you consider social interactions leading to intimacy, but that is precisely where society has to literally and metaphorically stay out, so it's only biological sex and personal preferences there. Problem solved.

Your post's ideological hypocrisy is on full display. Your posts would claim, correctly I might add, that someone's private bedroom behavior is not something worthy of public comment/critique. This is true. Yet your pozzed, leftist ideologically possessed posts demands that these private bedroom behaviors be made public, judged, and publicly approved of. If your posts, as a commentary of society, should "literally and metaphorically stay out" of these considerations, your posts would have done so. Unfortunately your ideological mandates (posts) demand you do not, and spew this nonsense. This is just more virtue signaling and white knighting. Nobody with any modicum of agency is impressed. Your posts are probably just another result of straight white male lecturing the rest of us about what we should believe. Yawn.

[Cope]

You cannot just opt out of philosophical considerations, especially where understanding the notions we work with is key to the problem

The philosophical questions belong to a separate debate. At the very least they should be raised consistently (as part of a complete argument) rather than appealed to when convenient. For example, one might easily derail the above point regarding "left-right divisions" simply by asserting that left-right categorizations are themselves philosophically invalid. It won't be long before you start spiraling toward the semantic and ontological abyss in which the original discussion is completely forgotten.

[Iskar]

Ugh god. Ok, your post's thesaurus.com, let's do this. I amend my initial post to the word "woman." What now? God, take a position instead of relying on this ridiculous, nebulous "nuh uh that's not what I said" argumentative .



Your post's ideological hypocrisy is on full display. Your posts would claim, correctly I might add, that someone's private bedroom behavior is not something worthy of public comment/critique. This is true. Yet your pozzed, leftist ideologically possessed posts demands that these private bedroom behaviors be made public, judged, and publicly approved of. If your posts, as a commentary of society, should "literally and metaphorically stay out" of these considerations, your posts would have done so. Unfortunately your ideological mandates (posts) demand you do not, and spew this nonsense. This is just more virtue signaling and white knighting. Nobody with any modicum of agency is impressed. Your posts are probably just another result of straight white male lecturing the rest of us about what we should believe. Yawn.

Where did I say anything of the bolded part? (To cut it short: Nowhere. If you want to rant, at least rant about something actually contained in the post you respond to.)
Also, "with any modicum of agency" is just throwing words in here. Agency has nothing at all to do with the current discussion. I'd prefer a more precise use of language.
I'll just take the mindlessly thrown around label "leftist" as "people that disagree with me".

The philosophical questions belong to a separate debate. At the very least they should be raised consistently (as part of a complete argument) rather than appealed to when convenient. For example, one might easily derail the above point regarding "left-right divisions" simply by asserting that left-right categorizations are themselves philosophically invalid. It won't be long before you start spiraling toward the semantic and ontological abyss in which the original discussion is completely forgotten.

I gazed into the abyss. It gazed back and raised an eyebrow.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Where did I say anything of the bolded part? (To cut it short: Nowhere. If you want to rant, at least rant about something actually contained in the post you respond to.)
Also, "with any modicum of agency" is just throwing words in here. Agency has nothing at all to do with the current discussion. I'd prefer a more precise use of language.
I'll just take the mindlessly thrown around label "leftist" as "people that disagree with me".

I gazed into the abyss. It gazed back and raised an eyebrow.

So your objection is to my tone and nothing else: how very predictable to the intellectually shallow left. You gazed into the abyss and found that the vast majority subjected to your audience of, realistically, nothing more compelling than some drag queen reading Clifford the big red dog to scream about how very moral your opinion of gender ideology is. Quite frankly it is sad, but I'm willing to play ball in the faint hope you're not entirely convinced your social decaying policy is open to be questioned.

Please do me the favor...drop the facade of the intellectually superior uber brain and just talk to me. Failing to do so isn't going to impress me....

[Iskar]

You might wish to actually read what I wrote: My main objection was not to your tone, but to the nonsense you claimed to be my position.
I don't think we'll get to talking to each other very soon if you keep crassly misrepresenting my posts. I don't even know what most of your latest post is about (drag queens, dogs???), it certainly has very little to do with the positions I advanced.
In light of that, feel free to keep practising ranting on strawmen. I've got better things to do than reading intellectually dishonest word salad.

[Cyclops]

You might wish to actually read what I wrote:.

Just a polite caution not to assume someone's comprehension skills. OMG Iskar thats a little insensitive, your interlocutor may identify as Orange.

Jokes aside its a most uncomfortable subject. My family members are ranged around a number of trans individuals struggling with their will to live right now, and they get bodyslammed (figuratively but also physically, one poor individual is sporting a serious back injury from a clash) all the time by unhelpful ideologues. Pretty sure I have been unhelpful through sheer ignorance and I can't blame people being uncomfortable on the subject.