Yes. It's an unfortunate fact that few transwomen go undetected. It's usually pretty obvious.

I think the rejection of slavery was evidence of a great democratic uprising and the existence of it was through great democratic suppression — Hanover

Really? But abolitionists made up about 3-5% of the white American population. The rest were either pro-slavery, or pretty apathetic about it.

When Lincoln got to office, all the experienced politicians told him to advocate a constitutional amendment that would permanently protect slavery in the south. That was the the typical northern view. They really didn't want war, and they knew the Supreme Court was about to make the status of free state unconstitutional.

The events leading up to the Civil War are some of the most bizarre in human history. It wasn't a great democratic uprising. It was more like the three stooges fall ass backwards into freeing the slaves.

:up:

At the folk-biological level, yes. At the molecular biological level? No. Not even close. We're all so very different, and don't know enough about our biology to even begin to parse something as complicated as a gender identity or a gender role. — Moliere

I didn't say gender identity comes down to molecular biology. Bodily functions do.

We refer to genetics, to body functions, or even just descriptions of the body. — Moliere

They all line up pretty rigidly. You can use "XX" to describe typical female anatomy and physiology. You'll be talking about the same thing a Neanderthal would recognize as female.

We don't mean that though. We mean "Woman" and "Man". We're not referencing studies about hormone concentration effects on bone density. To be a man is not to have the right chromosomes. In fact, many people who have the right chromosomes are often denigrated as not being real men. Masculinity refers to the penis, but the performance is in defeating someone else -- or at least trying and accepting the outcome if you lose. Like a man — Moliere

We have gender roles and we have biology. The two are distinct. That's the whole point of philosophy of gender.

This is to say the Proclamation was a strategic manuever. — Hanover

Historians say that probably wasn't the real reason. We just know that the only way to issue it was through war power, which required the claim that it would support the war effort. Lincoln held onto the emancipation document for two years into the war. He was torn about issuing because of the prevalent view that doing so would threaten the integrity of the whole American society. We don't know why exactly he decided to issue it, but we know it was after a carriage ride with Charles Sumner, a prominent abolitionist, who supposedly told him that if he didn't free the slaves, he's be dooming the country to future warfare.

The rest, yes. Bla bla bla. No southerners voted for or against the 13th Amendment because there weren't any in Congress at the time. That's not exactly a democratic success story.

"Woman" and "Man" are older than biological classifications. Especially at the chromosomal level. If they are biological then they are a folk-biology which roughly groups together some body functions with gender roles rather than a genetic description. — Moliere

The genetics lines up pretty rigidly with the body functions.

Most of the Republicans running for president say they'll pardon him if elected. :confused:

I agree it is sensible to maintain a distinction between biological sex and gender. — Baden

That's it! We agree. The rest is gravy.

I don't work in an office and in light of the very nuanced view I gave, your characterization seems a little odd. It should be clear I don't believe in aggressively targeting people who are simply a bit ignorant. But maybe you don't mean me... — Baden

No, I was just saying that aggressive wokeness isn't helpful. I wasn't saying you do that.

Recognizing gender identity has nothing to do with the dreaded "wokeness", it's just the ability to understand social reality. Anyhow, we can disagree, but I'm confident the overall trajectory is towards greater understanding and sensitivity to trans people, including recognizing them as women as social science, dictionaries, and the governments of most advanced democracies already do. — Baden

You're absolutely right. The way this ties back to the OP is this:

there are approaches to the topic that blur the boundary (clearly set out by Judith Butler) between biological identity and gender identity. I'm not saying that you do that, it's just that some people do, and I'm sure you'd agree that it's an untenable position. It just makes no sense.

This has nothing to do with the right of people to transition in terms of gender. It has nothing to do with affording those people the same constitutional rights as everyone else. It just means that we don't have the means to transition people in term of biological identity. We just don't. Lets all just get reasonable and recognize that. Right?

Whereas your accusations of "wokeness", dogmatic assertions, and strange talk of office chairs is designed to reduce tension? Honestly, I'm confident I have reason on my side here and I'll continue to debate the topic the way I have been doing in a nuanced and charitable manner. — Baden

I really didn't mean to be taken that way. It's the opposite of what I meant. I was trying to say that before any of us speak, let's try to have a little respect for one another (until someone clearly shows they don't deserve respect, then open fire.)

it wasn't for our elections slavery might of gone on much longer. — TiredThinker

Slavery was made in illegal in the US by a presidential proclamation. Previously, elections had resulted in a pro-slavery Supreme Court that was on the verge of making slavery a national institution. On the issue of slavery, American democracy failed.

Have you been living under a rock? — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, but it's mostly made out of cement and little sticks I found. There's a snake in here. I named him Leggy.

What exactly constitutes transphobia isn't clear cut. — Baden

I think one way you can approach it is empirically, in other words, don't try to read people's souls. You don't have that ability. Plus if you ride in like the Knight of Wokeness, you'll end up creating a problem that wouldn't have been there if you just stay in your office chair tapping your finger tips together.

If someone proposes that it should be illegal to be trans, or spouts violent rhetoric, you have a transphobic on your hands. If they tell you they respect the humanity of trans people, but deny that a transwoman actually is a woman, or that a transman is a real man, that's not transphobia. It's definitely in opposition to certain woke party lines, but it's not transphobia in and of itself.

Don't try to do social engineering with your political views. That's just going to create tension that makes the topic harder to talk about.

Um, no.

I really thought the italics would do it. Adding a note now. — Srap Tasmaner

What makes you think "disgust" is the keyword then? Do people express this to you?

"Disgust" I think is the key word here. — Srap Tasmaner

I'm guessing you experience this yourself. Do you think society should "push back" against your feelings here? Or just let you express how you feel?

Firstly, to give some context, I think society in general is transphobic and many intelligent and genuine people will unknowingly reflect transphobic attitudes. For those whose positions are based on bad information, misunderstandings, and misguided fears, I don't think the label transphobic is always helpful or appropriate. Plus, there is complexity as Hanover is pointing to. Taking all that into consideration, I'd personally want to approach individuals charitably re that claim. However, in a more generalised sense, I do think a blanket denial of trans womanhood that simply designates trans women as men who "like to wear dresses " or change their bodies to look like women is transphobic, though not necessarily ill-intentioned (this seems to be @NOS4A2's stance). Going beyond that then you have hatred, mockery, and disgust which is unambiguously transphobic and needs to be pushed back against firmly. — Baden

There's a judicial sound to this post, or did I read that in?

I mean, I respect your opinion on this, and your right to forcefully advocate for it. I don't see you as a judge on this issue, though.

I think this goes directly to my OP, which is the attempt at the disambiguation of the term "woman." There are XX women and XY women, both rightfully called "women," but two different groups. Claiming that XX individuals are not women because they don't gender identify as women seems as dogmatic as claiming that XY individuals who gender identify as women are not women.

An entire political debate centers around an equivocation fallacy where we then impose ontological status to all women regardless of whether they're XX or XY because we assume "woman" always has the same referent. From there all women play sports together because they are, afterall, all "women." Except they aren't the same type of women. — Hanover

Apparently people on social media are attacked for rejecting the equivocation. It's silly, and I think it will go away eventually.

I think maybe he's going to jail for real this time.

It's not a rational basis as has been explained. Without evidence to show trans women are more of a threat in bathrooms than cis women, it's simply transphobia. — Baden

I think this is the crux of the matter. If I claim that transwomen aren't women, you'd think I'm transphobic?

Where the community is generally opposed to it, they'll act accordingly.
— frank

I'd argue that democracy doesn't work that way, as if a vote occurs and the lovers take their lumps and the winner gets his way. The losers protest and continue to push back. I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing, but democracy doesn't equal harmony. — Hanover

I think as this situation matures, a trans woman will be satisfied saying that she's living as a woman, but that she's not a biological woman.

I think the issue you're pointing out is temporary zealousness. As Judith Butler said in that video, the important thing now is to nurture a climate where trans people aren't subject to violence. Over zealousness doesn't deescalate tension.

What do you think?

Rather than cede the language, the bathrooms, the sports, though, all of which pertain to sex, we should abandon the use of gender altogether. If the sex surgery, the puberty blockers, the desire to compete with members of the opposite sex is any indication, it all has to do with sex anyways, and the use of gender only muddies the water. — NOS4A2

Each state will come to its own conclusions about how to do it. That's democracy.

I've been surrounded by unisex bathrooms for about a decade.

The hike hammer comes down tomorrow:

"On Friday, June 16 the Fed released the semiannual monetary policy report to Congress. The report is inclusive of data available through 16:00 ET on June 14. As such it doesn’t include the May data on retail sales, jobless claims for the week ended June 10, the import and export price indexes, or the University of Michigan consumer sentiment index. Policymakers have access to the data on industrial production since that is produced by the Federal Reserve. These reports don’t really change the picture painted by the data which is one of a still tight labor market and inflation at the core which is mainly in non-housing services.

"The monetary policy report serves as a template for the Fed Chair’s prepared remarks before each of the Congressional committees at which the semiannual monetary policy is delivered. For this round, summer testimony begins at 10:00 ET before the House Financial Services Committee and resumes at 10:00 ET before the Senate Banking Committee. Although not on the official schedule, it is typical for the Fed to release the prepared remarks at 8:30 ET when the House committee leads the rotation.

"While the monetary policy is a product of the Board of Governors and issued by it, the contents will be heavily informed by the most recent FOMC meeting of June 13-14.

"The central points of the summary in the report are two. First is, “Bringing inflation back to 2 percent will likely require a period of below trend growth and some softening of labor market conditions.” Second is, “The Federal Reserve is acutely aware that high inflation imposes significant hardship, especially on those least able to meet the higher costs of essentials. The FOMC is strongly committed to returning inflation to its 2 percent objective.”

"As was the case when Chair Jerome Powell delivered the February testimony, he is likely to get hammered on the potential for job losses in the millions if the FOMC persists in keeping monetary policy restrictive. After the upward revision in the FOMC median forecast for the fed funds target range by about 50 basis points for 2023, he will hear even more about the harm that higher rates does to individuals and businesses. The implication is that the Fed is callously endangering the livelihood of Americans by cutting off credit to individuals and businesses.

"Powell will probably reply along the lines of what he said in February and has reiterated since as recently as his press briefing on June 14. He said, “Without price stability, the economy doesn’t work for anyone.” The Federal Reserve has essentially one tool to fight inflation: raising interest rates — to lower demand and cool the economy. To imply that the central bank should not use it to achieve its Congressional mandate of price stability is disingenuous at best. The Fed would fight inflation without job losses if it could, but its options are limited.

"The Fed has more than enough evidence that the inflation cycle of the 1970’s and early 1980’s was difficult to end and require determined leadership on the part of then-Chair Paul Volcker to accomplish. Tentative monetary policy that tried to avoid unpopular rate hikes and elevated unemployment were unsuccessful. After the Volcker Fed “broke the back” of high inflation, a long period of relative price stability allowed the Fed to keep interest rates at modest levels for a long period. Powell and other Fed officials are almost certainly right to stay the course on tight monetary policy to keep inflation expectations in check and until inflation is tamed even if the lesson has been forgotten in the generation since the last major episode."

If you also roll into this religious positions of putative voters, which support certain politics, and comes with (shall we say) bigoted social views, the trans issue can be readily be used as welcome evidence that liberals are trying to destroy the fabric of society and go against nature and god. — Tom Storm

Something like that, yes. The trans issue really hasn't been a problem in most American communities. Corporate America loves all citizens who have money. Viva diversity. Republicans need to show their asses at every opportunity (some of them, anyway.)

How has it been in Australia?

To state that they are both "women" and therefore both permitted in bathrooms designated "women" is to equivocate with the term "woman," as it has two meanings — Hanover

That's correct. My stance is that in communities where the majority are ok with the ambiguity, they'll allow trans women to use the women's facilities. Where the community is generally opposed to it, they'll act accordingly.

There isn't a clear logical answer to the problem, and people are generally irrational anyway. My impression has been that the recent attacks on LGBTQ have been politically motivated (as opposed to offering solutions to real problems). I think Republican politicians find that they stand out when they approach the edge of decency? I'm not trying to be insulting. That's just really the way it seems.

I think you know much more about Renaissance humanism than I. What influences from Renaissance humanism do you see? — Fooloso4

I don't know a whole lot about it. I've just been struggling to place Descartes in a historical context since we started reading this. I don't think I understood his historical significance as well as I thought. For instance, I'm still trying to understand his relationship with Newton and Hobbes.

A broad, maybe faulty notion about the Renaissance is that it's when our present conception of individuality emerged. The idea is that during the feudal period there wasn't enough community to provide a backdrop for individuality. Later, during the city building era, the drive to create community beyond the manors resulted in super-identities that eclipsed individuality.

Around the Renaissance and Reformation, a more mature social setting appeared, allowing stable bases for individuality: you weren't just a serf, you weren't just a member of the baker's guild, you were a distinct individual in your own right, which would have been a position formerly only held by the monarch and maybe a few aristocrats.

The events leading up to the Renaissance created the conditions for intellectuals like Descartes, Newton and Hobbes, the point being that humanism wasn't invented by Descartes, but rather he was reinforcing a trend that was already in motion in the world around him.

So maybe influenced by Renaissance humanism?

So the reason why your brain understands what is going on in your body is because of nerves which send communications to the brain. it is these nerves which allow your extended consciousness. People who have dead nerves in certain places of their body cannot feel anything there. — Philosophim

What sort of embodied cognition would you say you're defending?

Astounding? Not when it comes to biology, neuroscience or cognitive science

The newer naturalized models are already out there.Lynn Margulis’ work on symbiosis and the new synthesis updates biological thinking, and as far as physics is concerned, writers like Karen Barad, a physicist and philosopher, and Michel Bitbol, interpret quantum field theory in terms that move away from the old naturalism. — Joshs

Ok, so maybe later in this century, but for now, all mainstream science starts with an analytic attitude. That means we can't connect Merleau-Ponty to science as it is today. We might be able to connect him with the science of 2070.

Varela, Thompson, Gallagher, Petitot and others claim phenomenology can be naturalized once we transform and update our thinking about scientific naturalism so as to accommodate it. — Joshs

What an astounding assertion. Do they have any predictions about which century this update will be downloaded?

If sickness is the will of God then medicine, which Descartes took a keen interest in, is against the will of God. . — Fooloso4

Which part of the Meditations inspires you to suggest this?

What about embodied enactivist accounts that, following Merleau-Ponty, make intersubjectivity primary? — Joshs

There's a problem with trying to go from Merleau-Ponty to any of the hard sciences. There's just no bridge from his observations about what we can and can't separate, and biology, or its scientific mother, physics. Science starts with a methodological naturalism where analysis is built-in. There's no room for synthesis. Or if you think there is, you'd have to explain how.

There are non-human animals who adapt in terms of behavior, but not physically. An example close to home is mice and hamsters who escape from pethood. Unlike tame birds, who can't adapt to being wild once they're adults, some mammals can easily transition from dependent pets to independent, wild animals.

Could we argue that the neuroplasticity that allows mice and cats to become wild is also responsible for human so-called psychological adaptation? Perhaps it's just that humans ended up with such big brains that a more primitive adaptability present in all mammals is more pronounced in humans?

Whether or not we decide that it's reasonable to explain complex cooking techniques by an extension of something more primitive, what I'll note is that we've moved to the realm of speculation, not observation of what's actually happening.

Some proponents of embodied cognition would argue that the environment provides the body with all the stimulus necessary for navigation to food and shelter. So there's no need to assign inference to this navigation.

If that were true, then why do humans have a superior ability to adapt to diverse environments without any significant physical adaptation? And whatever the answer to this is, why do humans have this capability and few other animals do?

If I take the position of the embodied cognitionist, I'll have to explain why the traditional answer to this question, that is, that humans adapt psychologically, is wrong.

At the heart of my challenge is a form of multiple realizability recognized by Descartes in regard to wax. Why do we call a melted blob "wax" and a solid cube "wax"? Or as it relates to this topic:

The staple diet of the Guilford Indians was made from the acorns of white oaks, which were abundant where they lived. They would pound the acorns into blobs and then wrap them in the leaves of poison ivy, then bury these items in the sand under a running creek. A day or so later, they would take the items out and put them in a fire until the acorn dough turned black and had the consistency of charcoal. According to English observers, the result was sweet.

On the other hand, the Maasai of Africa eat milk, meat, fat, blood, honey, and tree bark.

So we have two very diverse adaptations. How do I explain how each of these takes place without any inferences? Without any concepts? With nothing but bodily engagement to the environment?

I think in order to adhere to this particular brand of embodied cognition, I'd have to posit some sort of bodily process that has not been discovered yet, but that would explain why there's no psychological adaptation going on.

Or, if I say that I don't have to explain anything because the Guildford Indians and the Maasai were both adapting physically, then I think I'll have to explain why humans have covered the globe in a way other animals haven't. What's special about us that our bodies adapt to diverse environments, but other animals have limited ranges?

The body does adapt, in that the strength of connections in your brain changes every time you learn something. It's simply a matter of us not being able to see and note the microscopic changes in brains hidden behind skulls. The changes to our bodies are there, and can be measured under the right circumstances, but it is easy to overlook such changes because they are hardly obvious. — wonderer1

So you would agree that if "embodied consciousness" refers to the belief that consciousness arises from the whole body, then it must be wrong, since the human body doesn't adapt to diverse earthly environments, but we adapt psychologically. You're saying all that's left is to assert that consciousness is associated with brain states. I agree with that. I don't think any serious philosopher would object to that. :up:

Consciousness is the blackboard (emptiness/space) upon which contents are written. — TheMadMan

I think this is the view of British Empiricists, but I don't know how to line it up with the idea of embodied consciousness.

:up:

Clarification: By consciousness I don't only mean awakening consciousness but whole levels of consciousness, known and unknown.

How would you describe the difference?
— frank

Consciousness is not caused, contents are.
Consciousness is not dependent on time and space, contents are.
Contents are epiphenomena, they can be created and/or ended, Consciousness is not subject to this kind of change (although it could be subject to a subtler evolution).

There are many other differences that are implied by these. — TheMadMan

Could you be more specific? I'm not following. Can you have consciousness without any content? Can you have content without consciousness? If there's a relationship, what is it?

You haven’t mentioned affect, emotion, feeling and mood. These are considered bodily by embodied approaches to cognition, and there is no consciousness that is devoid of affect. “Cognition is constrained, enabled and structured by a background of emotion-perception correlations, that manifest themselves as a changing background of implicit representations of body states.”(Ratcliffe 2002) — Joshs

Mood is definitely influenced by bodily function. I work in healthcare, so I routinely use emotion, feeling, and mood to assess things like CO2 level in the blood. Of course I have to confirm my suspicions by testing because the same combative mood that might reflect hypercarbia, might also be a result of frustration or pain. So we have a multiple realizability issue here. There's no way to map a particular mood to any particular part of the body.

There is an important distinction that needs to be made between consciousness and contents of consciousness. — TheMadMan

How would you describe the difference?

What Trump lacks his supporters simply dream to exist as his abilities. Total bumbling is 4D Chess, remember? And as every negative news article is part of the global conspiracy against him, he is then absolutely fabulous. — ssu

Trump supporters aren't in the majority, though. Trump has never been able to control what information Americans have access to the way Putin controls Russian information. I agree that they both use the firehose technique, but Putin has more power to create that sense of disconnection from facts. I'm not saying Americans are particularly well-informed.