We have nothing to lose but our blockchains.

I've felt in reading along we've been in concert in our thinking, just from different angles. It's been great to read along.

Cool. I guess I am anxious not to be or sound disrespectful or needlessly antagonistic when I post. — Tom Storm

In this libidinal economy?

Totally understandable.

Ok, yes I can see some of this in Epicurus. From my modest exposure, I've certainly found Epicureanism more congenial than Stoicism. — Tom Storm

Glad to hear it :) -- though I'll give stoicism to the truly stoic, I think it's lessons are over-emphasized for how it interacts with most humans.

A good point. Philosophy is a word used with various meanings. One of the hallmarks of our time is the oversaturation of ideas and possibilities, lifestyles and worldviews available to us, whether it be as a social media influencer and shill in spandex, or a bushy-bearded Thomist contemplative pondering infinities. I often wonder how people choose what they will settle on. — Tom Storm

Right! So can one be a philosopher outside of academia, or are they just another YouTube personality, guru, or self-styled life coach?

For my part I'll say I'm not even a guru, because I'm still uncertain about so much and all I can bring you is uncertainty. Not reasons to do, but reasons to not do. A totally useless philosophy. Or so I hope. :D

OK I see that context wasn't in this thread -- guess I should have waited a bit in thinking out the OP after all. Oh well.

It's the metaphor I reject from the outset, at least. Though it seems we're in agreement on the limitations of the PLA, too. So I think it just makes me confused.

I'm sorry, I'm out of the loop on what the original disagreement was. If the question is asked: "Is that a dog?", the meaning of the uttered sentence is partly a matter of context and partly about what we pick out as dogs by convention. — frank

Probably best to leave the context behind. That was the idea behind starting a new thread -- I didn't want the conversation on identity in the masculinity thread to become a conversation on the meaning of statements of identity. But the creation of this thread was a bit extemporaneous from my usual approach: trying to spin off into another discussion that is more suitable to the question of meaning.

"By convention" is doing a lot of work in that sentence, with that in mind. Isn't that like pointing to the public shelf of meaning?

Like "Jack is a dog"? That kind of statement? — frank

Yup, that fits the form. The original question was with respect to gender-identity, but the form is there.

The one thing about the form that might elude the original disagreement is that "Jack is a dog" can be read not just as an identity-statement, but also as a description. It'd depend upon the context -- if the question is "Did you buy a cat or a dog?" then that's a description, but if Jack is running around the yard barking like dogs do, and so you express "Jack is a dog" then that's an identity-statement.

Not trying to be provocative, but none of that means anything to me. Reads likes some motherhood statements. What exactly is the connection between philosophy proper and its relationship to the 'problem's' of life? Can you provide examples? I understand that philosophy might be a source of some aphorisms or concepts which can be collected and blended into a kind of belief system casserole, but is that philosophy at work or just a kind of shopping for ideas that resonate? — Tom Storm

Please, by all means, be provocative. I don't mind. You're not wrong: Epicurus' philosophy comes across as aphoristic and motherly, especially in my emphasis of the letters (Cicero and Lucretius formulate more coherent arguments). The task for his interpreters is to turn it into something more than that, which I believe it is.

With regards to Epicurus' philosophy I think one problem of life is the fear of death -- how to deal with that? Then there are also fears of supernatural beings, that we need to touch the roof three times before saying "Happy Holidays!" or else the Banshee will eat your first born. I think the human mind has a tendency to find patterns that are unreal that cause fear or anxiety. Addressing one's fears and anxieties is much of what Epicurus means by the practice of philosophy and the search for wisdom.

Then there's the desire for things, and the desire to avoid things which, because we are human, can become compounded by the very words we use to understand those desires -- I don't just want such and such I must have such and such. Or if I am to lose tomorrow I cannot live with myself, and am miserable now because of that misery!

However the fear I have is that it's not philosophy at work, but instead is just a shopping for ideas that resonate. One of the questions I still ask is about what philosophy proper looks like outside of the academy, and I do not have an answer.

Sorry I must have missed your reply earlier, didn't mean to ignore it. — Isaac

No worries.

Yeah... I think that's guilt-based too, though. No one genuinely buys that shit... do they? — Isaac

Yes, and not just yes, but absolutely yes. The reason politicians can get away with saying what looks like obvious bullshit is they know what people like to hear, and that's what wins elections. The reason good union members with a strong foundation in solidarity vote for Republicans is because they can speak to the issues a union member believes are important -- like abortion, gun rights, and God. I always summed up Republican politics in the red states as revolving around God, guns, and babies -- you need God in your life to get you right, you need guns in your life to defeat the bad guys, and if you're going to have sex then you should take care of that baby no matter what.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of it is guilt based. Guilt is an emotion which builds institutions -- it makes people predictable enough that you'll have the numbers you need. Catholicism got by with that for over a millenia, so clearly guilt is an important motivator in building long-lasting institutions.

I just don't think it's going to be a guilt based in Marxism. The starving kids in China, as Mom would say to guilt trip us into eating vegetables, don't seem to have much to do with an individual's life, which is circumscribed by nationalist politics. Especially in the USA, I think people view themselves as having won the lottery by being born here. And if they just work hard enough they can be rich like Elon Musk, and they don't want to pay taxes because they know how to manage their own money on the stock market better, and all the other individualistic nonsense people really do believe.

There might be an underlying guilt for those with the conscience -- but that there's a carrot at the other end where you're in charge of your own destiny, I think, is what distracts from the reality of an industrial society. Plus there are all these reasons to reject Marxism, such as the violence of its political movement which is very real. (and capital's violence is intentionally designed to be easy to overlook, I think)

That's a more charitable way of looking at it that maybe I could adopt. I'm not sure I'm ready to excuse the lack of perspective relative to the major victims (the destitute), but I'm willing to go as far as to see genuine victimhood. — Isaac

That's pretty much where I'm at. If there's somehow, miraculously, a reasonable chance to actually change international conditions I'd sign up. In the meantime there are victims nearby who certainly aren't the destitute, but aren't doing too good either.

We do. So many threads to pull on here, not sure which to follow and which to save for later... — Isaac

Honestly I'm pretty happy with where we've ended up -- if I can complete the reduction to philosophical disagreements then there are future discussions to be had, and I think we agree there at least.

Well, then I'd be wrong! Again, supporting an active inference model of language is probably another thread we could pull on, but it's been combed through on other threads. — Isaac

Heh OK makes sense.

The thing I'm most vexed about is the victim culture, the way that not adhering to this (or any other) scheme is treated as an act of oppression. That I think is dangerous because it undermines attempts to address actual oppression. Most of what I'm doing here is showing that it's not oppressive. It might be old-fashioned, clumsy, but not an act of abuse. — Isaac

I think that makes sense.

For what it's worth, I believe you. I don't think it wise to jump at people for every possible slight. I said earlier on I believe there are some egos that need deflating. I can go that far ,because I don't like self-righteousness when it comes to politicking. It's far too gray to really go full-on into one's own self-righteousness unless one hasn't reflected enough.

But, hey, I was young enough once to have that feeling, too.

Then it what sense is it a 'social' creation, if others play no role in it and are overruled by the individual? That doesn't, on the face of it, sound very social. It sounds entirely private. — Isaac

This is going to get into the conceptual territory I've already admitted I'm uncertain about. But I'll take a stab anyways.

One of the things I like to remind people about Marx who are starting is that his scope is something a new reading is unlikely to be familiar with -- political economy. It's a jump even from standard sociology which tries to find some scientific explanation for phenomena -- it's an attempted scientific explanation for all social phenomena including the genesis of the state. It's a scope wider than countries, because it deals with the economies of countries and their transition from feudalism to capitalism.

The socially constituted subject is at a scope of explanation that doesn't impinge upon conversations except to say something about higher level rules that might explain why we're talking about this or that, but once we get down to the level of identity the scope is different.

But how to differentiate the scopes? Well, that's exactly where I'm stuck. The old question for me is finding the difference between social and psychological entities. I haven't answered it yet.

Your title reminds me of Martha Nussbaum's The Therapy of Desire.

And I'm a lover of Hadot's take on ancient philosophy. He's definitely worked his thoughts into my own.

The one name unlisted that I'd highlight is Epicurus. I've posted this quote before, but I'll do it again because I love Epicurus.

Let no one be slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the search of it when he has grown old. For no age is too early or too late for the health of the soul. And to say that the season for studying philosophy has not yet come, or that it is past and gone, is like saying that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more. Therefore, both old and young alike ought to seek wisdom, the former in order that, as age comes over him, he may be young in good things because of the grace of what has been, and the latter in order that, while he is young, he may at the same time be old, because he has no fear of the things which are to come. So we must exercise ourselves in the things which bring happiness, since, if that be present, we have everything, and, if that be absent, all our actions are directed towards attaining it. — Letter to Menoeceus

Which is really just a way to say -- yup. I love the study of philosophy in its relationship to the problems of life.

That's absurd, but there are people on this forum who will blow through that absurdity and assert it anyway. — frank

I thought that at one point, though sometimes I flirt with the notion too. But it is absurd, I understand. (though the world is too by my reckoning, so there are worse conclusions)

One of my pet peeves is the way the Private Language Argument is misinterpreted on this site. Some people do it over and over and that misinterpretation spreads. The argument only suggests that you can't have a language that is untranslatable even in principle. This has no bearing whatsoever on whether you can make up your own words for things, or have your own private thoughts which you never share with others. — frank

I think I'm tracking. This is why I thought going down the PLA was different from understanding Identity -- but I do think the PLA has a bearing on some common thoughts about the meaning of identity-statements. Of course we have private thoughts we can keep to ourselves, but this doesn't speak against the argument basically. In defense of this interpretation it's common for people to go the other way with it, too, and claim that Wittgenstein is wrong because we obviously have a private life, or some such.

When the truth is that Wittgenstein was such a philosopher's philosopher that it's best to reserve judgments from thinking he supports this or that thing we care about. (early on cutting my teeth on W. I did the same thing -- seeing connections to leftist politics and all that. Eventually I figured out that that part was all me just trying to grasp the thoughts of a genius mind. It's an easy mistake to make with the greats)

Yes, that was the idea. We are the avenues by which meaning accrues, but, in some real sense, it must also be external to us since it is objectively encapsulated and shared. It is a bit of an enigma. Possibly the notion of a collective entity solves this? — Pantagruel

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "collective entity", I think that's the idea behind Propositions. But I thought your original proposal more interesting because it makes meaning dependent on even more than context, but also one's knowledge of a particular language. So this multiplies meanings even more while sensibly saying how it is they are multiplied -- since meanings are changed by what they are couched in, not just the meanings that are around the sentence but even the knowledge of a speaker is relevant.

Which would really put a number on determining identity-statements -- the very same phrase in the same context spoken by two different speakers, even in the third person, can mean different things. "He is a cautious man" so rest assured vs "He is a cautious man" so don't expect him to do much.

My penalty is too heavy to bare! :D I probably have earned the sentence, though, given how often I wonder about meaning.

I like the relationship between poet and philosopher -- subversive to put the poet as the maker of what the philosopher needs to do his craft!

Meaning evolves as it accrues new experience. Barring simple ostensives, the meaning of words derives from their function in sentence-level constructs (or larger). Average vocabulary ranges typically from about 10 to 30,000 words. What any given (non-trivial) word - duty for example - means for a person with a vocabulary of 10,000 words must be different from what it means for a person with a vocabulary of 30,000 words. Except if the former is in the military, and the latter is a cloistered academic. So meaning must be complex function of both social activity and linguistic competence. — Pantagruel

Your opening sentence is a bit cryptic. Is it the meaning which accrues new experience, or is it the speaker?

:D I'll only take a minute of your remaining fame.

Yes; "home" has numerous Public Shelf meanings and usages.

a) baseball (home base)
b) the 'home' keys on the QWERTY keyboard--'f' and 'j'
c) magic (rub your ruby crocs together 3 times and say "get me the hell out of here and back home."
d) a place to die ("Home is where, when you go there, they have to take you in." The Death of the Hired Man by Robert Frost
e) retail (Home Depot; the Home Store; HOM;
f) medical (a facility you may be sent to possibly against your will) old folks home; nursing home; a home for the very bewildered
g) a trait of animals -- homing instinct

Words have recognized usage. Where can you find a record of current and past word usage? In the 20 fat volumes of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Words have denotations (their plain most direct meaning) and connotations (their nuanced, shaded meaning). "The armored car weighs a ton" is denotative. "She weighs a ton" is connotative.

Take away: The Public Shelf meaning of words has plenty of room to maneuver. It isn't necessary or desirable for each individual to supply his or her own meaning nor for each use of a word to have a unique meaning.

You could be like Humpty Dumpty: 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

Fine for the cracked egg. — BC

We both agree that words have a recognized usage. Meaning is public. I think the part of the metaphor I dislike is the "shelf" part, as if it's in a garage somewhere or containable in a Museum: language-as-bicycle. I certainly don't subscribe to the Humpty Dumpty theory of meaning, though.

But let's take a gander to a time before the Oxford English Dictionary was invented. The "shelf" part of the metaphor looses potency, though we might have to gander further back before the printing press to take the wind out of its sails. And before ships how were journeys and transitions talked of? What of the record of the metaphors before the script, when all writing was phonic?

My uncertainty is more to do with how meaning becomes public than whether it is. Or, since private meaning is a nonsense a how question for publicity is likewise nonsense, how is meaning shared?

Bullshit:(Creative---Orthodoxy):Bullshit

Is Bullshit on the left-hand side the same as Bullshit on the right hand side?

And do you mean Bullshit like Harry Frankfurt?

In the spirit of the original thread, though, I'd ask what is the meaning of identification statements?

Is there a Public Shelf Meaning to:

"I walked home"?

I suspect that's not an identification statement in the sense of identifying-with, except for how we might interpret "I"

"Richard Nixon was a good Democrat"

doesn't sound like an identification statement to me. It sounds like a statement written to make people angry.

But it is of the form of an identification statement, complete with the "way" modifier "good".

Thanks :)

I agree it's a rare conversation. We should have doxxed one another by now while rallying the rabble to burn eachother at the stake ;)

I'm not saying that we ought select from publicly available narratives, I'm saying we do. I'm making an empirical claim about the way the human psyche works. We do not construct unique and detailed identities from scratch through some internal interrogation. We pick from the stories we see around us, the identities, like parts in a play. I'm not making an ethical claim. You are ethically free to construct your identity from scratch. I don't believe you either can or will. — Isaac

I agree that identity doesn't come from scratch. Though I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that identity comes from the human psyche, either -- the subject is constituted socially, in my view, but that doesn't make it any less real (and it also doesn't mean that someone else is in a better position to declare the identity of another) Rather than a claim about the general structure of the human psyche this is an aspect of humanity that is largely social: a kind of reason that's beyond the brain, shared across bodies and brains through our practices.

It's not an 'or else' but yes, I'll stand by that. We have a victim culture, and I believe guilt is at least a major part of the reason. We all know how much better off we are and we all know it's grossly unfair. If that didn't have an effect we'd be zombies, and if that effect was universally positive we'd be saints. I don't believe we're either. — Isaac

I don't know if we all really do know that in the sense of who is culpable. My point in bringing up the popularity of Marxism was that this claim of guilt largely depends upon a person's relationship to Marxism -- for most they'll accept the line that capitalism is what will set us free, and that it's just a matter of progress and time for the less fortunate to be lifted up by its magic insofar that we're able to curb the excesses of capital (themselves measured by a nationalist, rather than internationalist, measure)

A usual component of guilt, perception of one's self-culpability in doing wrong, just isn't there for most people. They'll look at you like you look at the gender-benders, complete with stories as to why you'd commit yourself to an unpopular worldview.

I don't think we have a victim culture in the sense of desiring to be a victim, except perhaps for those bored enough to really crave pain -- but rather I think there really are just that many victims. Capital is violent.

Your second second half belies the first. You claim "we utilize it not on the basis of our shared language, but on a day-to-day basis for understanding one another and ourselves". That's a scientific claim. It's making a statement about how humans (a clearly empirical object) think. You can't claim the concept isn't scientific and then give a detailed account of how it works. — Isaac

I can if the detailed account is not scientific, which I've been denying. History is empirical, but not scientific -- so just that something is empirical is not enough to qualify it as a scientific subject.

Plumbing is the example Massimo Pigliucci likes to use to distinguish between know-how and science, and how empiricism is much wider than scientific practice -- it requires concepts, it requires testing out the pipes, and doing plumbing requires some knowledge of scientific concepts but the trade itself isn't exactly a science in the sense that we usually mean. But it's certainly knowledge.

In fact it's my position that most of our world, which is real, isn't really amenable to scientific practice, given how science relies upon prediction and universality for its force of persuasion. Anything that is real, not-universal and not-predictable will escape its purview, and as it happens a lot of the things we care about seem to fit in there -- plumbing, politics, how to drive a care, how to ride a bike, conversing, politicking, acting, the law... much of our performances, be they on the world-stage or a venue, fit here. Which is exactly the sort of practice I imagine the identity is -- real, but not-scientific.

So I'm guessing that we also have different notions about science's relationship to ontology and philosophy in addition to our respective stances on The Subject.

I don't see how language could possibly work that way. We'd never understand what each other were saying if we just allowed new meanings to constantly spring forth. I wouldn't get five minutes into my day if those I'm speaking to had no foundation to judge my meaning. Sure, language evolves, but that's not that same as saying anything goes. Some neologisms take, others don't. None just spring forth fully formed from day-to-day. — Isaac

The problem with transcendental arguments is that they can always be constructed in reverse.

We'd never deal with novelty if we were stuck using the same words, and so on.

But what if language is always-already this ambiguous judgment between what has been and what will be? And what if lowering surprise isn't the social goal for linguistic use? Most of the time, in creative use, we look for what will surprise rather than what will conform. The dance between conformity and novelty is a social dance, which just so happens to also include language (as a social practice).

And why does 'charity' get invoked with new meanings but not with the retention of old ones?

Because even using the old meanings in a new context is already a new meaning, under my notion of language at least. So it's a failure of charity on both parts, in terms of mis-communication at least.

But also sometimes people revoke charity because they've had enough, and decide that you're not part of the language-group they are. That is the words are not conceptually incommensurable, but the practices are. We understand one another just fine. We just disagree. (and some, recognizing that, simply refuse to extend charity -- they're not interested in understanding in that case, and language ceases to work)

But that's not what's happening here. I'm not being asked to merely understand a new use of gender terms, I'm being asked to partake in it. And not just that, I'm being asked to entirely replace my previous use with this new one, and further in many cases being accused of hate speech and bigotry if I don't.

I really think it's stretching credulity to lump all that under mere request for charitable interpretation. — Isaac

In terms of language use I think that's exactly what sees us through, though. What charity explains is why miscommunication occurs here -- it's because charity is not being offered that language breaks, and language-games become incommensurable through the practices they are a part of.

The new gender-bender sees the old uses as bad, and has a community that understands the value of the new uses.

You don't have to convert to the new religion. But you might need to offer some persuasion as to why the old system which punished people for being themselves is preferable in order to earn any charity to be extended to the old uses. In general the radicals tend to see the old world as basically bad, so it's an uphill sell. And on the whole people who adopt new ways don't see much value in the old ways, almost like they were already dissatisfied with how the old language-game played out and from that dissatisfaction crafted a philosophy that expresses that dissatisfaction.

But me -- I think there's value across generational divides, and that we'll be able to work out our differences. And at least you have being a Marxist going for you ;). Hence my pointing out the need for charity. But if you don't want to offer it, I don't think anyone can force you to. That's the way conversations work. I don't think we can say at this time that it's a lack of understanding one another, though. I've provided a schema complete with a marker that says "this is what needs more work". We understand one another fine. What we disagree upon is which way is a better way for our life-practices -- which language-game of gender should we play? Well, I'll pick the language-game that recognizes who I am. And being the bridge-builder that I tend to be I'll play the old game for as long as needed to catch people up to the new game. I don't think it's quite as much on its way out as I put it before -- religions have a way of sticking around even after they fragment, and I'm thinking gender is much like religion in its social dimension.

Yes, were on the same page here. It's why I'm comfortable saying there's no such thing. Identity isn't a psychological state one 'discovers' by interoception, it's part of our naming and storytelling practices, like 'hippy', or 'geek'. We collect performances into useful groupings and name them. The utility is about them playing a role in our stories so they're less surprising, and that works both ways - it's not imposed, it's agreed upon. — Isaac

I definitely don't think identity is a thing -- hence my rejection of the Cartesian subject. More like a collection, but not a bundle. It's a specific collection that's important to whatever identity is.

I agree identity is not a psychological state one discovers by interoception. That's maybe a first step for some, but not all -- what's important is how one comports themselves with others. My thought is identity is a social creation entirely, but that it's also entirely real and we can be right or wrong about it. The person whose in the best position, most of the time, for making that judgment is the person whose identity it is.

My claims come back to whether you accept there is a standpoint for identity, rather than the metaphysical claim, or even empirical claim, about identity.

Yes, I agree. There's a tension between the expectations of public roles and the utility of having them at all. It's not all one way though. Knowing what to do next is fiendishly complicated and fraught with uncertainty. A device for resolving some of that uncertainty isn't always a bad thing. — Isaac

Cool. Then while we began with trans identity, it might be better to finish with some other kind of identity -- like identity in general (as if that were easy....) -- because I think our disagreements are very much philosophical. And not finish in this thread -- just more like bookmarking "OK, interesting ideas to explore are identity in general, the relationship between science and ontology or philosophy, and the significance of science at large"

I think this is at the core of how we see things differently. I just don't believe in this notion of a 'true self'. — Isaac

There are ways in which I believe in it and ways in which I do not. There's the Cartesian full-blown subject which I reject, which already puts me on shaky footing with some of my favorite philosophers. My coming back around to the subject has more to do with realizing how attached people are to so much that the metaphysical subject "explains" or at least encapsulates into a tidy concept.

And there, looking at it as a concept only rather than a metaphysical reality -- and how the concept relates to individuals within a social environment -- I think I see a sort of reality to the true self, though girded underneath with the ethical commitment that the true self is content with itself (while acknowledging that this is simply taken for granted -- that other philosophies could posit other values. That is what philosophy does, after all).

It's not the immutable, immortal, or even necessarily epistemically privileged subject. The reasons we accept standpoints have much less to do with our conceptual machinery and much more to do with how we understand ourselves, others, and our relative abilities with respect to such and such. And further it seems to me that there is a kind of broaching of the subject through our relationship to others, such that our inter-relations a/effect our identities, or can depending upon how we relate to one another. An ideal relationship being the face-to-face, which is not a conceptual proof but a phenomenological encounter.

But for that to even be approached there needs to be trust, which in turn means ceding ground to others to hear them. And in denying someone their identity it's certainly not the case that you're unheard -- far from it. Your meaning is clear -- my identity is a lie because I ought select from the binary on the shelf like everyone else so that we can get onto the important things, at least until the parties that be can invent a science of the self to my specifications, or else you're just clearly playing the victim so you don't have to deal with the guilt of living in the global north but can instead play the victim of the people you sympathize with while simultaneously not realizing your material life depends upon their suffering.

At least that's the message I've received thus far.

Which is why I've been trying to highlight how identity isn't a scientific concept, and that we utilize it not on the basis of our shared language, but on a day-to-day basis for understanding one another and ourselves. Truth may not enter into it, but significance does. And we get by with these shoddy meanings by granting charity, sometimes interpreting towards what is true when that's apparent, and sometimes interpreting towards significance when that's apparent. Since meaning is use, after all, new meanings are invented daily as we re-encounter new contexts. Every use of the word is itself a new meaning which isn't fixed by a Public Shelf of Meaning, but is instead invented as we provide charity for creative uses in new contexts.

There's a sense in which identity is performance, and so it's not truth-apt. But that's not to say it's not real. All conversations are performances, but they're real conversations. They could be insincere or inauthentic, perhaps, but that's getting into the territory of identity rather than prediction: neither a trait nor a behavior will tell you if a statement is sincere or authentic. That'd depend upon how you see the person as a person.

That is, I don't think the difficulties of specifying identity are unique to trans individuals, but have always been there -- it's just that this topic has highlighted these difficulties for people.

OK that's interesting.

My thought is that as soon as you have an option then you'll leap at it, as I did. It's not that people weren't somewhere on the gender-bender spectrum, it's that it has become acceptable in some circles to be yourself in that way. In another time people would re-express in various ways, but -- in the positive spirit of capitalism that Marx likes -- we've invented new social forms because it was profitable to do so.

Also, I feel empathy for trans people because I feel like I'm both sides of the gender-spectrum -- I suspect that many people are, but I've learned to reserve my judgment over time as I talk to people. People really are different in their various ways of relating to their gender, their body, and their identity or gender-identity.

This seems like an oversimplification. why would no one play victim? We're on a thread where half the human population are being at least implicated in oppressing the other half. We've heard the insensitivity of white folk to their privilege. there doesn't seem to be any hesitation in assuming all sorts of malicious (conscious and subconscious) behaviour on the part of the currently vilified (whites, men, cis), so why would minority groups suddenly become so angelic? — Isaac

OK, you're right -- not no one no one.

I don't think most are, though. I wouldn't reach for guilt-removal/repression-expression as much as I'd reach for learned callousness -- people learn to be selfish and pursue their own needs. There's probably a few who've felt connected to the zeitgeist who are mistaken -- and I certainly don't think anyone is angelic. I just think looking at the benefits/cost analysis of declaring yourself trans and living that out that there's not really a lot of advantages, and so people who are confused will figure it out and move on.

Is there even a side? Or are there a multiplicity of sides being generated in order to keep people coming back?

Either way, no one is immune. I think it affects us all pretty equally. It's like when you learn there's this cognitive bias called such and such: just because you know about it doesn't mean you're immune to it. Even if you have a ritual, as I've outlined with absolute skepticism, the propaganda still effects feelings -- Propaganda works.

I must be wrong, not merely behind-the-times. I must be wrong so that they can be wronged. — Isaac

Well, I wouldn't make this claim, at least. But I don't think anyone is playing victim either -- I think trans people are victimized through violence against them. The bit on pronouns is kind of a test: how do you view me? If you reject me then there's no reason to trust you. But it's not like misgendering someone is a mortal sin. It's just rude. Or, if you're wanting to know if you're safe, valuable to know who doesn't believe you.

So the correct application is to sex (reproductive capability, here), not gender (a much wider grouping of expressions and roles)? You seemed to be saying earlier that the correct usage was to apply it according to individual preferences. — Isaac

In the beginning there was the binary, and it was judged good. The binary stated that our biological make-up accounted for our mentality which accounted for our social role.

Then, lo and behold, Kate Millet turnethed the binary on its head and said -- no! It is the role which is the foundation, the mentality which is the excuse, and the biology which is the marker.

In the beginning there was no gender, there was only sex used in a gender-wise fashion. But the beginning is at an end, and so we have this new distinction called "gender" to highlight differences in the use of "sex". Furthermore there is "gender" that shall be distinguished from "gender-identity", where the former is the social role and the latter is whatever identity is.

I was saying pronouns work by referring correctly. They were correcting your usage with regards to themselves. We make slip ups (not even related to this topic) all the time, and usually charity is what sees us through. Further, anyone whose asked me to change my use has been charitable and gracious. So that saw us through. Now I can use the word still.

This is how pronouns work.

I can't see any more good reason to limit your assessment of the general trans movement to the people you've met that you would limit your assessment of masculinity to only those men you've met. We have means by which we can expand our knowledge of how larger groups act. — Isaac

People often remark that philosophy is useless. One favored thought experiment to demonstrate its uselessness is the Evil Demon scenario. Of what use could absolute skepticism be?

One thing I learned from my time doing activisty things is that the newspaper is pretty much always picking a side. Further, that social media would rip groups apart -- useful as tool for communication, but not as tool for organizing (at least my style of it). The organizers task was half planning half counseling, like a priest of modernity.

Absolute skepticism is useful when we encounter a scenario where we have good reason to disbelieve almost everything, or at least be doubtful of almost everything. And I pretty much take that stance towards the news, social media, and so forth. Almost always there's another side to a story if you want to dig into it, a way to justify one side or the other, a deeper reason than the one presented -- and sometimes, as in the cases of police violence, there are outright lies.

Now, people go around reading this stuff thinking it's real. In part it is. You can't write good propaganda without truth -- this is something that's often missed. Propaganda is a mixture of truth and non-truth with an emotional message intended to reinforce or flip people's attachment to their beliefs.

When all the messages we're receiving are from the propaganda machine then absolute skepticism is warranted. Not that these things don't exist -- but there's a reason I'm being told this story. For my money I think the propaganda machine is automated now, not even caring about what beliefs people have but caring about what people will do. To make people predictable, going back to Machiavelli, you use fear. And capital "wants" people to be predictable because then you can plan profit flows, have workers show up on time, and so on. Or maximize engagement -- the propaganda machine automatically selects for any belief which will maximize engagement.

EDIT: This really is a sermon on Marx. I love it.

But that wouldn't explain why we both got the joke.

So no, if someone who is male thinks they ought to be referred to as 'she', they've misunderstood how the word is used. Doesn't mean they can't wear dresses, doesn't mean they can't wear make-up. It's just an odd facet of our language that we use a different form of address for different sexes. — Isaac

I think it's a pretty common distinction across languages, though my familiarity is European languages: English as primary with some studies in German and Spanish. So it's not the linguist's viewpoint.

I don't think it an oddity at all though because patriarchy -- the patrilineal descent and control of property -- is a common among the cultures which utilize these languages. We mark distinctions which are important, and being able to tell who is going to own the stuff after I die is important. I'd say that patriarchy is so deep that it's influenced our very way of speaking, and thereby, thinking.

. But right now, one is not misusing a word because a particular group want it used differently.

Of course, I've no intention of traumatising anyone by deliberately doing something which is going to upset them, but honestly, if people are going to be upset by the fact that the entire world does not jump to it in support of their preferred treatment, I think they have much bigger issues to concern themselves with than my habits of address. — Isaac

In real life, and not on the internet (which is different), any trans person I've known has been gracious towards me figuring out the customs they prefer.

Probably why I'm pro-trans. I've never really had a problem with any trans person I've met in real life. (the internet, though, as I said earlier -- I really think it changes the way we relate, at least on the social media pages with algorithms designed to increase engagement no matter what)

A joke, yes, but with a point -- it's true we understand one another in this conversation, I believe.

Given the indeterminacy of translation, how do we understand one another?

My answer is we're not translating. (there's also something about gavagai that's not right as an example -- it focuses too much on mereology and less on usage)

I agree.

:D

It looks like we agree. How would you determine that we really do think the same things? As opposed to just appearing to? — frank

I think we assume truth and trust in communication until we have a reason not to trust. So insofar that there's no reason to disbelieve then you're probably close enough to count for "really agreeing" as opposed to "apparently agreeing".

And I think it reasonable to suppose that this case can be generalised, such that if in any conversation we were to list the points of agreement against the points of disagreement, it would be unusual to find the former to be shorter than the latter. — Banno

In any conversation -- I think that makes sense. We usually end conversations when there's too much disagreement or we're confused.

And truth be told, given the intuition I presented on beliefs -- that they evaporate rather quickly -- that'd be enough to counter my example.

This is of course a simplification of Davidson's more rigorous argument concerning the incommensurability of conceptual schemes, from which I am convinced, contrary to the popular view, that talk of the map not being the territory mis-pictures what is going on; that in the case of language one cannot distinguish the map and the territory in this way.

And that's what I think is in error in the posing of the question in the title.

I think you're right in the case of language. The closest thing to a map of language is something like the OED -- but they keep on adding things because we keep on coining new words. So you can't really go back to the map to figure out the meaning of a word -- you have to use it.

The peculiarity of gender and sexual identity in this culture is that what Nature contrives must first be hidden from public gaze, and then indicated by conventional signs of hairstyle, clothing, and behaviour. This invests sex and sexual identity with totemic power that makes this thread significant in a way that a discussion about, say, eye colour is not. Genitals are hidden like The Holy of Holies, and other such religious mysteries. Sex is the religion of modernity, and this thread should belong in the philosophy of religion section, except that no one here is questioning the foundations of practice and belief. — unenlightened

I agree that sex is the religion of modernity. Individual romantic love with a sexual partner is constantly shown not just as the positive relationship that it is, but as a kind of cure-all for life.

Also I think I'd like to develop this relationship between gender and religion more. There's a strong analogue there -- it could be that religion satisfied needs which gender now does, which would explain why people dig in. Also I like that religion doesn't have traits or behaviors really associated with it, though partially so -- much like gender.

I'm asking why it's only society that has the mandated role to play, why is my responsive behaviour socially restricted along gender lines, but not the performative behaviour of the actual person whose gender it is? — Isaac

I think that's just how pronouns work. If you misgender a cis person then you are corrected, right?

It's the same correction.

I think perhaps the problem with the term 'toxic masculinity' is that it is not clear-cut. From previous posts, we can see how meanings vary with more or less violence attached. It can suffer from vagueness and being overgeneralised.

That is why I try to supply real examples. I read current news. What's going on? To bring it back to your question of 'Ethics'. However, the post re Iranian women and the 'morality police' was ignored. Why? — Amity

I read it, couldn't think of a response, moved onto the next post and then continued to pursue that thread.

Basically I got distracted.

Yes. Isn't that why you posted the thread in the 'Ethics' subforum?
Why is it hard to get to a 'should'? Is this all Hume's fault? The is-ought problem? — Amity

It is why I put it in the ethics subforum.

It's hard to get to a "should" because most will feel that any "should" is either obviously true or obviously false. People's minds are usually solidly made up on matters of ethics, and they're not interested in changing their mind, so they're not interested in exploring the logical or conceptual relationships between their ethical beliefs.

I think it's our attachment to moral commitments that makes it hard to get to a "should" -- we can easily accept the is-ought problem and then proceed from there (I tend to favor moral anti-realism via error-theory, but clearly I care about ethics even though I'm more "pro" is/ought distinction these days -- it's something I go back and forth on though)

And so it goes with gender, sex, and identity.

When you see something that is clearly wrong, isn't there an impulse to do something about it?
But not everybody knows or cares enough about whatever 'it' might be.
Some believe it is above their pay grade.
Sometimes, we feel helpless, frustrated, and impotent. After all, what power do we have?

However, when enough people are adversely affected, there can be spontaneous collective action. Sometimes there can be coordinated efforts by different activist groups.
Unfortunately, even after apparent success or progress, the problem is shown never to have gone away.

Today, I read of Iran's 'reinstatement' of the 'morality police': 'to deal with civilians who “ignore the consequences of not wearing the proper hijab and insist on disobeying the norms”.
This comes 2 months ahead of anniversary of the death in custody of Mahsa Amini for not properly wearing the Islamic headscarf.

Among those killed during protests after Amini’s death was Minoo Majidi, a 62-year-old mother who was shot with 167 pellets. She reportedly said to her family before attending protests in Kermanshah: ‘If I don’t go out and protest, who else will?’ Her daughter Mahsa Piraei said her mother always valued women’s rights and freedom.
— No other option but to fight - Iranian women defiance against morality police

***
I admit my ignorance. I had wrongly assumed that those policing the women, in what some term 'gender apartheid' by the clerical regime, would be a male-only force. So, I was surprised when I looked at the Guardian's headline photograph of 'Two veiled ‘morality police’ approach women on the streets of Tehran.' Then again, there is nothing new about women v women. Females are not all 'sisters'. Just as males are not all 'brothers'.
So, who are the morality police?

For most of the 1980s and 1990s, the Komiteh was comprised of religiously devout followers of the regime who joined the force at the encouragement of clerics. However, by the early 2000s, Iran’s population was comprised mostly of young people. When Ahmadinejad made the Komiteh an official police force, a number of young men joined to fulfill their mandatory military conscription. This younger generation was more lax than their older counterparts, leading to inconsistent patrolling.
— Who are Iran's Morality Police? - The Conversation

And here we have it. A question for wonderer1: Is this a result of 'evolutionary psychology'?
A changing sense of morality? Young men unwilling to act against their modern (possibly secular) beliefs yet are forced to do so.

A line from the film 'Australia':
Just because something 'is', doesn't mean it should be.
Who polices the 'morality police'? — Amity

This is the part that threw me off before. I'm not sure what to connect this to. So mentally I marked your post as "get back to" -- but then got distracted.

But in terms of "What is to be done?" -- my answer, as ever, is to organize.

But on this site I think all that can be done is to philosophize. And that is as it should be. There really should be more spaces where people can express their weird thoughts and pick them apart.

I'll gladly follow along with a parents' observations over my own thoughts, though offer my thoughts if asked for.

I can definitely see the thumbing your nose stance. I often times feel that, but then I'm drawn back because so many people are attached to these things in various ways.

Gender is more important than I thought it was, at least, as a has-been abolish-gender international class-first anarcho-marxist.

if I make predictions using my model and they turn out relatively unsurprising. If they don't, I've been dishonest — Isaac

So this is different than I'd think -- the predictions are beforehand, and if it feels right to break your predictions then I'd say that's more honest than trying to predict ahead of time if I'm going to do this or that.

Though I'm a creature of habit and am certainly predictable in many ways -- I just think honesty with self has more to do with being in tune and less to do with predicting yourself. I'd say when we're honest with ourselves that's when we're most likely to find out what's different from our predictions about ourself.

If the trans woman can say to me "use 'she' that's what you say to women", why I can't I say "wear a dress, that's what women wear". — Isaac

Because men and women and all the others can and do wear dresses -- and women also don't wear dresses. That is, the behavior doesn't define the identity, nor do traits. Whatever identity is, it's not those (though some identities identify with those). There are some roles which are slotted for the genders which people are attached to, but people also overcome these along with traits-based views while maintaining their gender identity: Think here not of trans but of cis -- how many cis people have you known who undergo physical and occupational changes which don't align with their self-picture, but still manage to identify as their gender? Does a man cease to be a man if he doesn't have a job? Does a man cease to be a man if he has erectile dysfunction? Does a man cease to be a man if he has feminine feelings?

Who is best to decide these things other than the person whose identity it is? How could you possibly answer these questions for someone else ahead of time without talking to them? Remember the scenario posited was a stranger -- there's something to a point of view being important to a person's identity. It'd be awfully odd to conclude about a person's identity without ever talking to them, but instead making predictions from afar? If not then functionally I'd say the algorithms know us better than we know ourselves -- but there's a sense in which measurement of a person changes how they are. The very presence of a standard changes how we think and act.


I'll go back to the Morman's as a community with a public notion of gender which at least was strictly binary: publicly "I'm not that" is an available locution, even there. If the public is ignorant of how I am, which they certainly were, then I can always reach for that publicly known meaning. And when given the option between two choices I can always say "neither" -- even if it leads to contradiction in the concepts in play, the option is available. In a way I'm asking the community to shift how they use words to accommodate me, sure. And when it comes to something basic like my own identity the ask is on pain of rejecting the community -- I may not have a lot of power, but I can at least leave and make my own community with other people who agree with me.

And the people who disagreed? Well, now that we have a publicly available meaning, we can say -- as they did -- that they're just wrong. If it's your safety that's at stake, then "they're just wrong" is a remarkably easy justification.

But that's exactly what I want to avoid. I don't think we're incommensurable, in principle -- though we like to put up our barriers in practice, I believe we'll be able to weather the tide of gender changes and find ways to communicate again (while, of course, capital will try and use any identity conflicts or differences to split us up)

Of them all, I think this one: 'artificial lights resemble the frequencies of light emitted by the sex pheromones of female moths' is quite apt with regard to 'the man playing at philosopher'. — Amity

The origin of philosophy as the artificial satiation of sexual desire?

Or the act of philosophy as mating ritual without an object?

What do you mean by 'identity'? — Amity

Something important to a person which orients them in the world. In particular an identity is not traits-based or behavior-based, in my articulation, but is more akin to being-in-the-world, but I'd rather not rely on that formulation because it concerns itself with equipmentality which seems different to me than identity.

What to mean by "identity" is a more general version of the question, what is a man? Whatever a gender-identity is, an identity is a generalization from even that.

What is the malformation, how does this present and who gets to diagnose it? — Amity

I'dd say the malformation is at least related to the definition of toxic masculinity offered, the way toxic masculinity presents is violently, and we are the ones who get to diagnose it. I'm not sure the term can be used in terms of self-identification unless someone feels penitent, but for the most part I think it's a diagnosis from the outside rather than a self-identification. It is a kind of violence, as I said earlier to @unenlightened -- but given the violence of the world it's justified. In some ways the psychological-type is an attempt at understanding how someone could come to make the decision of hurting their romantic partner. What's up with the continued violence women are subjected to in our society? One possible explanation is that we have unhealthy identities which makes it feel right (enough, at least) to use violence.

So, the characteristic of being 'masculine' in mind, body or spirit can be 'malformed'.
If it means not fitting what is usual, the correct shape or way of being, this could be applied to any person without it necessarily being toxic, ugly or frightening. It depends on perspective and context. A group identity related to ethnicity, culture or country. — Amity

Right. So the focus is on harm to self and others, not difference. Even if most people are not malformed, in this way, the one who is would be better off -- or at least more content -- if they weren't.

The undesirability of systemic 'toxic masculinity' concerns more than what a 'real man' is, or is not. — Amity

True.

Though I don't think we'll be able to encompass all concerns with a single antidote, right? This answer more in the spirit of answering the original question, or riffing on the notion of real man which I reject at the outset.

What would you propose as antidote?

Yup, definitely in the wheelhouse of where I'm coming from.

Clearly at least listening would be a good start. — Srap Tasmaner

It's the hardest thing to learn and teach and practice, in my opinion.

Levinas' phenomenology is what comes closest to an exposition of listening, but it's also part of the Bad Guy philosophy so it's hard to float with people who prefer the Good Guy philosophy.

A lot of my own personal thoughts revolve around the concept of listening as primary, which means it plays a central role in my thinking but I have no good articulation for it -- which is why I come back to it.

Okay so this is exactly analogous to "Believe women". It's not that you can't exhort people to hold some belief, but the basis being offered -- and reasons will be required here -- is essentially that you can't be wrong about this, that identity beliefs are special and incorrigible.

I'd really love to see a different solution. — Srap Tasmaner

Me too. What do you think I'm doing here? Scratch padding my way to that. I don't think "can't be wrong" or "incorrigible" are the right predicates. Those are obviously fatal in that we can be wrong, and we can improve our own self-understanding. A standpoint, yes, but not incorrigible. And I believe there is something to defending standpoints in other scenarios too -- such as the case of expertise, for instance. And it's not a case of the knowledge being special, but the more mundane part of having more knowledge or being in a better position to not make mistakes (though experts also make mistakes)

But I'm not sure how to articulate it. I'm still unsatisfied with my attempts here.

when was the last time you were honest with yourself? — Isaac

This is a perfect question to get at what I'm trying to get at.

How could I tell if I am honest with myself or not?

One way would be to set up a standard for myself -- the beliefs which make me feel sad about the world and myself are the ones which are more honest, and the beliefs which make me feel happy about the world and myself are the noble lies.

But I'd be lying to myself in setting up that standard since honesty with yourself isn't about sorting yourself into categories but being in tune with who you are.

So another way would be to allow an outside observer have a standard.

The problem there is that the outside observer is in a relationship with me, but is being asked to pretend that they are not in a relationship with me to make objective determinations about whether I am being honest with myself or not. So they'll stop listening to me while listening to me from the analyst's perspective. It's no more honest than the self-determination I started with because the analyst would be lying to themself about what they see, denying the relationship that we're in.

Which is to answer your:

Better how? — Isaac

It's better at building a relationship, which I think is how we come to feel our identities in the first place. The conversation is two-way at all times, even if we are using words slightly differently. We come to learn more about ourselves as we learn more about others, just like with history we come to know about the past just as much as we come to know the storyteller and it matters both the topic and the speaker.

In a relationship it takes two, and identity is found in relationship with others.

For me I always believe we should respect the self-expression of others. I've been in enough situations where I've had to figure out how I'm supposed to act to know how alienating that feels, so I tend to favor self-expression over whatever categories I happen to hold to at the time. But what this has taught me also is that listening to another's story is better for learning more about the world and yourself -- otherwise it's very easy to get trapped in my little web of thoughts.