Hunter/ gatherers typically shun those who display self-important attitudes, or try to claim more than their fair share. This is a spontaneous act of community, not something imposed from above by law. — Janus

Sure. Thats why I posted again in response to the same quote by Banno:

Sounds like a true libertarian response. Let the people, not the government, treat cheaters how they should be treated. — Harry Hindu

In Richard Dawkin's book, The Selfish Gene, he explains how intelligent social beings with long memories can communicate their experiences with cheaters within their community so as to eventually shun them from the community.

The problem with these authoritarian socialists like Banno and unenlightened is that they think government is the answer to all ethical problems and that everyone in government is there for serving the public and not themselves. Govt. is made up of people and if Banno and unenlightened are worried about the greed of people in general and propose that greed is the reason you need govt. then why would you give certain people more power over others?

I dont understand the point of your question. To be "part of a family" entails a physical, biological relationship with others, which is the case regardless of the culture you're born into or choices you make.

The name 'transgender' might be new, but people who don't fit snugly in male and female archetypes for their culture and time period are not. — fdrake

Exactly. There have to be these binary archetypes existent in a cultures for there to someone who might want to play the opposite archetype. Eliminate the archetypes and you end up with a gender neutral society and you eliminate transgenderism at the same time. Like I said, transgenders aren't being gender neutral. They are enforcing the binary gender system by claiming to be the opposite sex when performing the acts that some society expects of that sex. In a gender neutral society there would be no acts that make one a man or a woman other than the biological ones that have to do with procreation.

Define define. Define need. Define feeling. Define social construction. Only then will I be able to understand what you write, and I am responding in earnest. If this request seems ridiculous, wonder why such incredulity does not apply to yours. If you seriously don't know what gender is, here is the WHO's definition of it as it relates to social constructions. — fdrake

And self-identity because, yeah... apparently necessary too:

the perception or recognition of one's characteristics as a particular individual, especially in relation to social context. — fdrake

One cannot seem to self-identify by the first criteria as a member of some category in the second definition because the second definition makes it clear such membership criteria are taught and imposed by culture, not determined freely by individuals.

Isn't this the nub of the feminist concern about transgender issues, that society's imposed criteria for 'womanhood' become some fixed biological trait that people are born with, identifiable by the self, not imposed by the culture? — Isaac

It looks like someone else gets it.

Also from Google:

Male: an adult human male
Woman: an adult human female

"Man" and "woman" are terms used to designate not just sex, but species. One's species is probably the most important distinction these terms make. Just as "buck" and "doe" are terms used to refer to male and female deer, we have terms to refer to male and female humans. These aren't social constructions.

Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed.

Seems to me that this is saying that women and men are physical, biological entities that have these ideas imposed on them by culture. Culture has a way of imposing unnatural rules on us - of treating us unequally and differently. It seems to me that changing ones gender entails changing the society you live in, not by changing your appearance.

If gender is imposed on an individual, then how can an individual choose their own gender?

Shun folk who put two cows on the Commons — Banno

Sounds like a true libertarian response. Let the people, not the government, treat cheaters how they should be treated.

Shun folk who put two cows on the Commons. — Banno

Right. Punish people who don't do as they ought. How is this different than fining or taxing for a privilege which Hanover suggested. Shunning people equates to not allowing their cows in the commons or not doing business with them, both of which hurt them financially. You an Hanover seem closer in your thinking than you'd like to admit.

The problem seems more like there was too many dairy farmers and therefore too much competition for dairy farmers in one local area. Maybe the Dairy Farmer should give up Dairy farming and get a Pell Grant from the government to go back to college and learn a different trade, like computer programming.

But it's difficult for them — Pattern-chaser

I was a believer earlier in my life but part of the reason for converting to atheism was the fact that there were so many definitions and beliefs in God which seemed to all coincide with the culture you grew up in, so the beliefs and definitions were inconsistent and arbitrary. Which God should I believe in? Why call it a god in the first place? Most descriptions seemed to describe God as an extradimensional alien.

Start thinking in terms where trans people actually exist and I'll respond in more detail. — fdrake

You need to define gender in order to define transgenders and where they are. Is gender a feeling or is it a social construction?

Why would trans people exist in certain places if it was an internal feeling and individual view of themselves as opposed to a social construction?

Trans people only seem to exist in western countries where a small fraction of parents raise their child as the opposite sex rather than in a gender-neutral environment. But that doesn't mean that they don't exist elsewhere as they could be labeled not as trans but as criminals or delusional. Again it comes down to defining it in a consistent and coherent way.

Raising a child as the opposite sex is limiting what your child wears and plays with based on their opposite sex and is just as egregious if not more so to the gender-neutral movement as raising your child to limit what they wear and play with based on their actual sex. Its all about sex.

I guess what I'm saying is we don't need metaphysical speculation for basic characterisation any more. — fdrake

Sure you do. You are skeptical of so many claims on this forum, yet you aren't skeptical of someone's claim that they are a woman when they were born a man. This is a case of one's skepticism being applied inconsistently, and the reason is because it is a political/religious issue for you, not a scientific one.

Transgender (sometimes shortened to “trans”) is an umbrella term used to describe a wide range of identities whose appearance and characteristics are perceived as gender atypical — UN

Ok, so here "gender" is defined as an identity that is gender atypical. Did you read that over? Gender is an identity that is gender atypical. Sounds like a contradiction to me. How can gender be something that is atypical of gender? Politics.

Gender is a social phenomenon whose archetypes are correlated with the sex of bodies — fdrake

Here's a completely different definition - one where you just reiterated what I already did - that if gender is a social phenomenon, then gender is defined collectively, not by an individual, which contradicts the idea that gender is an individual identity that a person feels like and can decide for themselves.

Especially when you have people like ↪Harry Hindu here who still believe there's no distinction between birth sex and gender, trans people be damned. — fdrake

For most people there isnt one. The difference is as imaginary as the sex transgenders believe they are. For the transgenders there isn't a difference which is why they attempt to change their sex.

Gender has never defined coherently other than as a synonym for sex. If gender were a social construction then society, not indivuals and their view of themselves, determine gender. Gender would be detrmined collectively, not individually.

Why is it inappropriate for one child to wear clothes that it's appropriate for a child with different genitals to wear?

The issue isn't that we should accommodate inappropriate behaviour; the issue is that the behaviour isn't inappropriate at all. Nonconforming, perhaps, but not inappropriate. — Michael

Isn't that what "inappropriate" means? Nonconforming?

It is inappropriate or appropriate based on the culture you find yourself in. That isn't to say that it is right or wrong. That's just the way it is. What you are physically isn't based on culture. It is based on biology - your ancestral species and your sex. What you wear doesn't change what you are, but it can change the expectations of society because society assumes you are biologically that person and not just dressing up as one. Once society finds out they've been duped, they reject that person. They aren't playing by that society's rules. In order to be accepted, they go about changing their physical form to be as much like that person as possible, but can still never get to the true form and function of something that they just aren't.

Transgenderism reinforces those cultural stereotypes. With transgenderism, wearing skirts and having long hair is what it means to be a woman. Wearing pants and having short hair is what it means to be a man. That isn't what it means to be a man or woman. Men and women can wear a variety of clothes and have different lengths of hair and still be a man or a woman. How different societies enforce these rules varies, but that variation doesn't make one more or less of a man or a woman - that is biology.

The socialist left doesn't seem to realize that gender-neutrality and transgenderism are incompatible ideas. You can't have both in the same culture. Either we change our culture as to not assume that a woman is under that dress and that it is okay for men to wear dresses and still be a man so they don't go do something radical and dangerous to their bodies, OR we change our ideas about mental health and that people can actually be other people in their heads even though their physical form says otherwise.

This is just plain wrong. Unless you raise your child on a deserted island without books or music or any other form of human culture, the child is being shaped by society all the time. — Artemis

Society treats the child the way the parents dress and refer to the child. The parents determine how society treats the child.

Just go look ar Dr. Money's experiment. He told the parents to raise the boy as a girl because the boy lost his penis as the result of an accident during circumcision. The parents dressed him as a girl and refer to him as a girl. Society just went along and didnt know any better.

1) Acceptance of gender non-conformity.
=> (2) Parents accept gender non-conformity
=>(3) Children interested in gender reassignment are encouraged to transition early.
=>(4) Lifelong mental scarring. — fdrake

If parents are raising their children in gender-neutral environment then they arent stressing any particular way of dressing as being man or woman because any gender/sex can wear what they want. Children would be raised in a way as to not make a connection with the way you dress and your sex. But that isn't what is happening. These parents are raising them as the opposite sex and the kids have no choice in the matter. As they develop they realize that they don't share the qualities of that sex/gender and this is what caused the mental anguish because they are confused thanks to their parents, not society.

I have doubts about transsexualism, gender dysphoria, and so on, when these terms are applied to adults. Many more doubts when applied to children. — Bitter Crank

Children that young aren't making decisions about their gender. It is their parents. Just look at the case of Dr. Money who was the originator of the idea that gender is a social construction. He tried to force his male patient into being a girl but he knew he wasn't and it ended up messing him up to the point where he committed suicide.

I find it odd that you of all those here are happy to have the contents of one's underpants determine one's social role. — Banno

LOL. It isn't okay, but transgenders reinforce those social roles everytime they claim wearing a dress makes them a woman and then attempts to change what is in their underpants. Why can't a man wear a skirt and still be a man?

There isn't a problem for a man to wear a skirt or earrings or have long hair and still be a man. The problem arises when they claim to be a woman because of these things.

Perhaps you should offer them the same sympathies you do of heart disease and cancer patients, as they too suffer from the effects of an ill environment. — Hanover

Or just tell them the truth like we do anorexic patients. You're not fat, so stop trying to use extreme methods of losing weight. You're not a woman, you're a man, so you dont need to go to a fixture to get cut up and have to wear a stent for the rest of your life to keep the wound between your legs open.

Ok, in this context, scale is related with a point of view. The point of view of a human has a certain scale to it. We do not observe strings, we do not observe the universe as a whole. We have a human perspective which has its own scalar perception. Step outside of the human perception, what is the scale? Well, we probably just project our own scale onto this non-human world. What is the actual scale of something without the human perceiver? — schopenhauer1

I would say that scales are comparisons of properties. The comparison exists in our mind, but the propeties we compare are independent of our minds. With a perspective the world appears located relative to our eyes, but the world is not located relative to the eyes. This is because the senses provide information about the world relative to our bodies.

Except if core drive is to feel special would you make up the existence of entities more powerful than you are. — Coben

How else could they explain their existence? They certainly couldnt have thought that they came about by "random" or purposeless forces. Most people can't come to accept that idea even today.

Humans are inherently self-centered. Without logic and reason to check our special view of ourselves we usually invest in ideas that make us special, or the purpose of creation. It is no wonder that our ancient ancestors would contrive a story where humans are specially made by some super-human(s). Once you believe the story, then you will believe that the world is filled with the signs and symbols of the super-human(s). The special powers of the super-human(s) would be the reason you feel or sense anything.

Ugh, I meant to convey that perspective of the universe without a mind, means what in terms of the scale of the universe? At what scale does the universe subsist? But there is no scale, so "what" is subsisting? — schopenhauer1

There can be no perspective without a mind. I defined perspective as an awareness via the senses. If something doesn't have senses, how can it have a perspective? I would also add that in order to have a perspective you need to have some type of memory, like working memory in order to store and process the sensory information. Our perspective resides in our working memory.

I already stated that in order to know what scale the universe is, you'd have to compare it to something else. Scales are comparisons with other things.

Is the question you are asking more like, "Do comparisons (similarities and differences) exist independent of minds?"

Now you are going to say something about properties. Properties are inherent parts of something. So the parts are what makes the scale? But I thought it was mind. — schopenhauer1

I really don't want to say any more until we get this definition of "perspective" cleared up.

Perspective is the state of the universe without a human perceiving it. — schopenhauer1

I dont understand this definition. A perspective and perceiving seem to be completely unrelated things to you. That isn't how I understand perception at all.

Perception isnt a state of the universe. It is a state of mind - of being aware via the senses.

Properties are defining and inherent parts of some thing.

Right, at what level of scale is the universe operating? — schopenhauer1

We'd have to know if there are other universes, wouldn't we? Scales are comparisons. If there is only one then your question is incoherent.

You mention properties. Please give me your theory of properties and maybe we can proceed from there. — schopenhauer1

I asked you how you're defining "perspective" first. In order to proceed, you'd have to answer that question first. It is part of your title and the OP of this thread.

In what sense can empathy be said to be objective? — Echarmion

We can share feelings because we are members of the same species, but we are also individuals that have goals that can conflict or work together. All humans experience sorrow, but not always about the same thing or in the same circumstance.

Check out recent research on mirror neurons. — Galuchat

We cant see emotions. We see bodily responses and facial expressions which some people can fake or hide. So what is it that mirror neurons are mirroring?

The holocaust is an example of what was an immoral fact (perceived particular). — Galuchat

It's not considered a moral fact by everyone - hence the subjectivity of morality. There are some that deny the event even happened.

Well, I see this as an interesting thing to ponder if there is no scale of the universe. If one were to step out of the human or animal perspective the universe takes the perspective of.... Nothing. — schopenhauer1

Are you saying the universe doesnt exist, or has no properties (which is the same as saying that it doesn't exist), independent of our perspective? How are you defining "perspective"?

Like I said, perspectives don't exist independent of some sensory system. You don't need to have a perspective of something for it to exist. You do need a perspective for you to know it exists. Perspectives are a type of knowledge, which sensory information processors possess.

If we regard moral propositions as purely subjective, enforcing law and order amounts to nothing more than 'might makes right', right? — JosephS

Isn't this the current situation? When have humans ever had a true moral code that was applied equally to all citizens? It seems to me that if you have money and power you can get away with almost anything, or moral codes don't apply.

Moral codes are simply imaginary ideas to keep the general population content and in check, like religion.

not the actual point of view of a plank scale or whole universe or anything else for that matter — schopenhauer1

Uh, a plank scale doesnt have a perspective. Senses exist on our scale, so perspectives only exist on our scale. That isn't to say that the properties of objects don't exist independent of perspectives.

Why would we perceive what we call "differences and similarities in scale" if the objects don't have some inherent properties that are different or similar?

Yes, but what scale is anything without any subject? — schopenhauer1

What scale is anything without objects that have scalable properties? I dont get this subject/object distinction. Subjects are objects themselves with scalable properties.

"Everything is relative" is a universal.

I can't help you with that. — Galuchat

Just because something is relative doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Morality would be the relationship between multiple individuals or groups goals.

RICHARD DAWKINS: I very much hope that we don't revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life. I have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It's undoubtedly the reason why we're here and why all living things are here. But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. It would be a sort of Thatcherite society and we want to - I mean, in a way, I feel that one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives.

Was this quote before or after he wrote The Selfish Gene? In the selfish Gene he explains how altruism evolved naturally. He also doesnt seem to understand that moral codes are a natural outcome of intelligent social beings with long memories.

Moral relativism is absurd, because if morality is different for every person and/or social group, everything and nothing is moral and immoral across individuals and/or social groups. — Galuchat

I dont see how that makes moral relativism absurd. All you did was explain what moral relativism is.

It is different for every person and social group at certain times depending on the situation. Being part of the same species and the same culture can instill similar morals within each person.

Why do we have moral dilemmas if morals were objective? Morals are related to our goals as individuals. When our goals come into conflict we say that we have a moral dilemma. When we share a goal it can be said that we share morals.

I have long held that the world drives us all crazy, and causes us to be deluded, and it has long been noticed that people's feelings get in the way of their accuracy. This is why emotion and reason are so often contrasted, because preference, hope and fear get in the way of things, and we tell ourselves stories to calm down, or feel better when bad unfair stuff happens. — Wosret

We don't need delusions to be happy. We don't always lie to ourselves. We do expect the truth as being lied to makes us unhappy. It is only when the truth isn't consoling that we engage in delusional beliefs. We are perfectly happy to lie to ourselves when the truth isn't consoling but others are not allowed to lie to us.

Apparently this is hard for some people. — StreetlightX

Because youve complicated a simple issue.

Like I said people with different identities come together to support a single idea that they share. When a straight person marched with a gay person does that make the straight person gay? Or does that make them both different identities supporting one idea of being treated equally?

Does your identity define your ideas or do your ideas define your identity? I can see how we can share ideas but I don't see how we can share identities. It seems to be identities are individualistic and unique and something that we can't share, so it is ideas that we do share and is what brings different identities together.

The substance of politics is ideas, not identities.

insofar as the stakes for thinking politically - for understanding what it is we are even talking about when we talk about and of politics - are pretty high. — StreetlightX

Sure. Politics is a branch of ethics and since there is no objective morality then there is no objective, one-size-fits-all political system.

In this sense, politics about promoting ones own self-interests. So we dont promote our identity, we promote our self-interests, which could be goals that we share with others that might have different identities. So it is improper usage if terms when you want to call all politics as such as identity politics.

When you see whites marching with blacks or straights marching with gays they arent promoting an identity. They are promoting the idea of equal treatment under the law.

You'll excuse me if I take the word of a political scientist over some internet rando. — StreetlightX

Just one political scientist. They don't all agree. If you're only interested in the idea of one political scientist and not the rest of us "internet randos" then why did you even bother posting this thread?
:roll:

This is not at all a good definition of identity politics. — StreetlightX

It's the other way around. Your definition is not good at all. Your definition is way to general. If identity politics is just politics, then what use is the word, "identity politics"?

As I explained, identity politics is a form of modern tribalism.

What makes identity politics a significant departure from earlier, pre-identarian forms of the politics of recognition is its demand for recognition on the basis of the very grounds on which recognition has previously been denied: it is qua women, qua blacks, qua lesbians that groups demand recognition. The demand is not for inclusion within the fold of “universal humankind” on the basis of shared human attributes; nor is it for respect “in spite of” one's differences. Rather, what is demanded is respect for oneself as different" (Sonia Kruks, Retrieving Experience). — StreetlightX

It's not about recognition of their identity as a woman, black or lesbian. It is about the recognition of equal rights. Their identity is what is recognized and the reason they are being denied equal rights, so their identities are recognized, but not their equal rights. It shouldn't be about one's identity. That is divisive. It should be about equality under the law, despite one's identity. You shouldn't get special treatment because of your identity either. We see it all the time when the wealthy and elites get a pass instead of doing the time for their crimes.

As it stands, I don't really understand the definition of identity politics used in this thread. — frank

Neither do I.

Now, the civil rights activist's point was quite simple: all politics has an effect on the identity of those involved, therefore, all politics is identity politics. This is, in some sense undeniable. But here's the issue: this doesn't mean that identity politics exhausts what politics can involve. All politics is identity politics, but all politics isn't just identity politics. It's like how all humans have noses, but that doesn't mean that humanity is defined by their noses. So again, how do we cash this out? If not identity politics, then what? — StreetlightX

How about looking up "identity politics" in the dictionary?

Identity Politics per Merriam Webster:

politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group — Merriam-Webster.com

So identity politics has to do with emphasizing a particular feature or property of an individual as opposed to several features or properties of an individual. So if you think of yourself as a black man, or a homosexual more than you see yourself as a human being, then you would probably vote for things that help black men, or homosexuals rather than what helps all of humanity. Essentially, identity political voters are self-centered one-issue voters. How do you see yourself? What is the primary characteristic that defines what you are? Is it your race, your sexual preferences, religion, or is that you are a democrat, republican, socialist, liberal, or do you consider yourself a human being first and foremost and all those other qualities are secondary?

As you can see this can't be a statistical argument since the majority defines what is natural. This may not be completely accurate because to make your case that global warming is caused by unnatural behavior of humans you'd actually need to study the entire biosphere and then, as will be evident, humans stand out like a sore thumb with major environmental impact. — TheMadFool

The planet has undergone numerous changes which includes cooling and heating without any help from humans. If humans contribute to environmental change then humans are just one of those modern causes of changes in temperature. Other organisms have shaped their environments and caused the extinction of other species. Talk of human activity being artificial or unnatural is trying to separate humans from nature which is what religions have been trying to do for millennia. It is a use of language that stems from one's view that humans are special creations or separate for nature.

It can also stem from the notion that Earth was made specifically for humans and that any changes that we make from the way it was created is unnatural. The fact is the Earth what's not specially made for humans or even organisms it just happens to be that way temporarily. Things change.

I also said that is not the normal way knowing works, at least not for me. It's not the important way that knowing works. — T Clark

So this is another of your threads where you are only interested in promoting your version of things and all other versions aren't normal or important. No thanks.