I think you've equivocated between inheriting an identity and being subject to its systemic vectors of oppression when you count as it. If you look like a duck, people will treat you like a duck. — fdrake
There were so few non-overlapping elements in the public conception of things, anyway. Those instabilities were going to implode as soon as anyone shone light on them. I think it's a good thing this is happening. — fdrake
Aye. I think if this was a choice on the ballot, I would take it. More categories, more protective laws, more tailorable specificity.
I imagine you believe the same of masculinity, it's not an "all or nothing" thing? It's instead a big wibbly wobbly ball of manny-mascy stuff? — fdrake
Fair. I wasn't terribly confident in the analogy as I was writing it, but thought 'fuck it, it's going in anyway — Isaac
For example, I don't think "It's a girl" is something like a scientific categorisation by a midwife - it's a declaration, a use of the term 'girl' (she looked at the reproductive organs and used the word 'girl'). — Isaac
but when later that girl decides she expresses herself more like a man, then she'll use the word 'man' and ask others to do so too. That also is a use of the word. Both legitimate uses of a word which has different felicitous uses in different contexts. The midwife wasn't wrong, nor the trans man later in life.
It's just that gender terms are not fixed to one use in one context. Nor do I see the slightest reason why they ought to be.
I can read that and know you intend the bolded "she" as a continued reference to the person with female natal sex who was declared a woman at birth and then identified as/behaved as/became a man later. I don't think I immediately need to read you as intentionally misgendering. Which could well have happened. Since my Internal Twitter picked up on it, and it is usually quite good. — fdrake
Unless there was further context that the EHRC report's recommendation came out for purely political reasons as a curtailment of rights (which I can imagine being the case, since I don't know what knock on effects this will have on current trans protections). — fdrake
As an aside, I do hope that we can keep TPF able to have these kind of discussions in a respectful manner, it's something we've needed to argue about in the mod thread on numerous occasions. — fdrake
Do you think? It's funny how from different sides (only slightly different, I hope) the world looks so different. I can't, off the top of my head, think of a single act on the part of any institution at all in Britain that's been aimed at curtailing trans rights. I can see how the trans community might think the necessary changes aren't happening fast enough, but changes in the wrong direction...? I certainly don't know of any. We only narrowly avoided the Scottish bill to have birth certificates replaced. Maybe they should have been, that's a legal argument, but the bill was pro-trans and it didn't progress. It wasn't that an anti-trans bill did progress. — Isaac
I think it's clear (from where I'm sat - leather wing-back armchair in ivory tower, of course), that the political climate is pro-trans but with the brakes on. Anti-trans I just don't see. — Isaac
And the mods shouldn't have to work so hard to maintain it — Isaac
But I'd also say that Goldwater was striking a masculine note with his remarks, entrenching the connection between the right and a particular view of masculinity. — Srap Tasmaner
By curtailing I also meant to suggest "blocking the advancement of". We could talk about rejecting the Scottish Bill if you like, my understanding was that the official reason was largely "we haven't changed the law in England yet, so making this easier in Scotland would cause some chaos down here". — fdrake
I saw a lot of people donating to an anti trans charity just before the bill. They were getting donations on the streets of Edinburgh. People would go by and tell them all kinds of things. I know they were anti trans because of their pamphlets, and the "all trans women are rapists" rhetoric they were spewing onto the street. I can understand why people would get that impression. — fdrake
My org kept poaching their punters though, they soon left. Buggers also couldn't stand light rain. — fdrake
I like this because "should" finally entered the theory -- I really believe this is a topic in ethics more than ontology/epistemology! But it's hard to get there. — Moliere
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
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
Do you mean trans women? With trans individual you're in danger of falling into the very caricature Tzeentch was painting where 'patriarchy' is simply a rather misandrist catchall term for every bit of oppression going on, and misogyny likewise for just 'being a dick'. — Isaac
The point of Baroness Falkner's argument, the point of the Equalities Act itself, is to protect a group of people who've been abused, both historically (and so in need of reparation) and currently. That group is defined by the abuser, not the abused, and it is based on biological characteristics (mostly to do with reproduction). That group need protection from that abuse, which means they need to be identified as a group. — Isaac
Women can be just as committed to their bliblical understanding of gender roles as the men they marry and whose children they raise. — Srap Tasmaner
We need to know when it's D-Day and when it's not, but that decision is viewed through the lens of our political position and our right-wing neighbours aren't going to have the same answer as us. — Isaac
trans people are targets because they are living counter-examples to the belief that one's identity is determined by one's trait-based biology. — Moliere
Women are the declared targets of this enforced gender binary, as the group which is born to be subservient to men. Trans individuals, as living counter-examples, are also objects of patriarchy. Trans men aren't really given any more credence than trans women by our hypothetical misogynist, and it's still a disgust, at least, born from this view -- not quite resentment, but disgust, another ugly emotion. — Moliere
as soon as we write it into words then the original method I proposed for knowing a person's identity -- asking them -- can no longer be relied upon. If a law is written then there's usually a reason to lie somewhere because the law is not a reflection of our identity, or even anywhere close to what an identity is. — Moliere
there are two problems with that: one is that there's some overlap I'm afraid with what people I don't like take as their ideal of being a "real man"; — Srap Tasmaner
there's no definably masculine "content" to the ideal -- what it's good for a man to do is generally good for a woman to do as well, so it's really more a matter of style, of a man's way of being good, of enacting the generic ideal, what it is to be good as a man. — Srap Tasmaner
the left says they're obviously standing up to bullies -- racists and sexists and the rest -- and the right says they're standing up to the bullies on the left. — Srap Tasmaner
What's really uncomfortable about this whole analysis though is that it does accept that the world is divided into strong and weak, and while the good man stands with the weak as a matter of choice, he is with the bully as a matter of nature, being strong. That also means that as a matter of psychology, choosing to see yourself as a protector of the weak is choosing to see yourself as not one of them, but as strong. And that means unavoidably making strength a part of your self-image rather than incidental to it. The other famous superhero line fits here: with great power comes great responsibility. If you accept the responsibility, it's a way of seeing yourself as powerful. — Srap Tasmaner
being a good man is a man's way of being good -- if you recognize that your society has given men privileges and authority, and that includes you, then you ought to recognize you've been given power to act for the good. That power is situational, not inherent to you, but it's real. And it's not necessarily something you wanted, but you have it. — Srap Tasmaner
There may also be something in the inherent differences in physical strength between men and women, on average, and using that relative strength responsibly too. — Srap Tasmaner
Being a good man is an adaptive behavior, a way to be as good as you can given that the society you live in has given you unequal power, something like that. — Srap Tasmaner
It takes dedication and training to be the sort of person who can fight. A bully is never going to commit to that because if they were prepared to make that kind of self-sacrifice, they wouldn't need to bully. — Isaac
boys growing up need some narrative options that will suit them, and that requires a culture to have some archetypes, even if they don't apply to everyone — Isaac
The thing I'm being asked to refer to is a thing I don't think exists. Can you see how that's a problem for me? — Isaac
Yeah. I can see that. I'm wary though of putting too much stock in 'that sounds plausible'. I've had too many theories that sounded plausible turn out not be the case on examination. But still, for what it's worth... that sounds plausible. — Isaac
And because the whole point is to pick on those who are weaker. The stereotypical bully is a big guy who just takes advantage of his god-given advantage, with no effort. (Hence the way older brothers treat their younger siblings.) More important is the guy who's smart enough to spot people's weaknesses and manipulate them, bullying them through psychology. That's Trump, that's Finchy in The Office. — Srap Tasmaner
it's not just archetypes but your father that is your primary exemplar of manhood, so it's inevitable that you chose to emulate his example or reject it, and for most a mix of both they don't recognize until they're older. A child's first definition of woman is going to be "someone like my mom" and of man "someone like my dad". — Srap Tasmaner
Yes. That would certainly make everything confusing! You'd have to more or less ask the other person to make clear what we're talking about, and here I am saying "it's not clear, but it's not that -- you have to take people at their word" — Moliere
gender is one of those things which gets re-expressed in many different ways throughout various cultures. — Moliere
So I see it as there being something very basic, which is hard to get at that underlies this re-expression (what I've referred to as a way-of-being, in contradistinction to both traits and behaviors). I'd say our identities exist, but maybe not in the same way, or at least the way we usually talk about existence doesn't seem to work here since it's neither traits nor behaviors. I'm not sure that identity is amenable to scientific analysis, though I think historical analysis works. I've been situating gender within culture, because I think that's what gives shape and meaning to gender identity.
But when I do that -- that's when I land on these notions which are far from the lock tight demonstrations. The concepts are fragile, half-formed, and morphing along the way. How does anyone describe a way of doing things? We can say, in general, Being-in-the-world -- but that's the ontological expression rather than an expression of identity.
What I'm brought back to is that I think we all do this with respect to identity. How we relate to others isn't so much about the traits they hold, and is only partially dependent upon behaviors (consider how you can judge the same behavior as good or bad -- the perception of a person's overall reputation will guide how a perceiver judges a behavior). — Moliere
Do I? That seems to be begging the question. If there's such a thing as an 'identity' and it's as important as you claim, then yes, I'd obviously have to take people at their word on it, it'd be mean not to. But that's only if such a thing exists. If it doesn't, then taking people at their word on it would be saying that I have to buy into their model, but they don't have to buy into mine, ever. Is conversation not a two-way cooperation? — Isaac
The point here is that it's not bigotry to disagree with the world-view you've just so carefully laid out. It's fine you think that way, but others don't. You can see, surely how those couple of paragraphs of nebulous uncertainty cannot drive even mandated social relations, let alone law. I can't justifiably be compelled to act in accordance with a notion you can even explain without resort to "hard to get at", "not sure that identity is amenable to scientific analysis", and "Being-in-the-world"...?
Why ought I believe someone who believes in the notion of 'identity', any more than I believe someone who believes in the notion of 'an eternal soul', or 'innate evil', or 'destiny'? — Isaac
So you'd commit to error-theory, then? Or at least the analogy that all identity talk is as existentially important as talk of horoscopes? — Moliere
Toxic masculinity is an identity of the masculine which identifies itself with power, and the feminine with love, and denies itself the feminine. If you feel love, the feminine, then that is a weakness which the powerful wouldn't need to succumb to, and insofar that you feel love you should act to purge it to become a real man. — Moliere
I like this because "should" finally entered the theory -- I really believe this is a topic in ethics more than ontology/epistemology! But it's hard to get there. — Moliere
What I don't believe for a moment, is that a) some constitution of this mental goings on is correct, immutable and sacred, and b) known only to you and not picked off the shelf of publicly available models associated with the word you choose.
I don't believe (a) because we see too much the same mental goings on interpreted as different constructions by the same people at different times. We're wildly unfaithful even to our own models and we've absolutely no better idea what's going on than the person sat next to us.
I don't believe (b) because we don't just pick random words to describe these 'identities', we pick words we've learnt, and we can only have learnt those words from a community of language users, who must, therefore, know what the word means, which means, by definition, you could be wrong. — Isaac
I'd like it more if you aimed at the level of narratives instead of going all the ways down to words -- though I understand it looks like it's the use of individual words that's at stake, of course it isn't, they're pieces of a larger puzzle. — Srap Tasmaner
identity is always something you perform, rather than something that you are — Srap Tasmaner
and your ideas about yourself play a part in that performance but are also a reflective simplification of that performance. — Srap Tasmaner
Yeah, that's right. Insofar as there's something immutable and sacred there. I mean, you made a really good showing, but you'd have to admit that your paragraph explaining what an identity is was hardly clear. I don't think it's beyond reason to think that the reason you're having trouble pinning it down is because there's nothing there to pin. — Isaac
Let's say I ask you - what is your identity? How did you learn what word would do the job to explain to me what it is? Why 'Woman', or 'Man'? Why not 'cat'? How did you learn that 'Man' and 'Woman' were legitimate answers to that question, but 'cat', or 'the capital of France' didn't make any sense?
It's from you language community, right? So 'woman' has no meaning outside of what we use the word for -we, the language community. It can't mean only what you use the word for, that wouldn't make any sense, the word wouldn't do anything and you couldn't possibly know that you were using it to mean the same thing one day to the next (messy rehash of the private language argument).
But 'woman' is not like 'cat', it seems to be used to do different things in different contexts. Sometimes pretty biological taxonomy, sometime social roles, sometime behaviours... but these thing all have one thing in common, the one thing all language does... the terms are publicly available. I can learn from you what 'woman' means in your language game, and you can learn the same from me. That way we can use language in our cooperative ventures.
It's my belief that when we describe aspects of ourselves, we're reaching for these publicly constructed models to best explain what are essentially just interocepted nerve signals, memory re-firing of past neural patterns, and no small amount of random noise.
What I don't believe for a moment, is that a) some constitution of this mental goings on is correct, immutable and sacred, and b) known only to you and not picked off the shelf of publicly available models associated with the word you choose.
I don't believe (a) because we see too much the same mental goings on interpreted as different constructions by the same people at different times. We're wildly unfaithful even to our own models and we've absolutely no better idea what's going on than the person sat next to us.
I don't believe (b) because we don't just pick random words to describe these 'identities', we pick words we've learnt, and we can only have learnt those words from a community of language users, who must, therefore, know what the word means, which means, by definition, you could be wrong. — Isaac
It's my belief that when we describe aspects of ourselves, we're reaching for these publicly constructed models to best explain what are essentially just interocepted nerve signals, memory re-firing of past neural patterns, and no small amount of random noise.
self-knowledge isn't exactly history — Moliere
But I don't think that identity-talk relies upon a notion of a private language as much as it relies upon a standpoint of some kind, which is much more defensible than a full-blown Subject. — Moliere
In terms of how we converse people will know more about themselves than you know about them because they've been around themselves the whole time — Moliere
the simple fact that people will be better able to construct a story about themselves than strangers who know nothing about them. — Moliere
even though all identity is a kind of performance that doesn't make it false -- or, rather, the truth and falsity isn't as relevant as the significance of one's identity — Moliere
Oh! You should have said the opposite. Identity is precisely an issue of the autobiographical self. — Srap Tasmaner
But it is a story and serves a purpose. It's not just the unvarnished truth. — Srap Tasmaner
Right. It is just not one of the purposes of the autobiographical self to be a truthful record of your life. So yes truth and falsehood are irrelevant to its function -- for you. Not entirely irrelevant to other people I think. We do tend to make judgements about how self-aware people are, because we need to know how seriously to take what they say about themselves. — Srap Tasmaner
I think what I've found is that it's far too easy to believe you have judged another's self-awareness when there's something missed. — Moliere
That is excellent, because the way it enters is via the devilish wrong understanding, like wot da Bible say. — unenlightened
But I think there is also a simpler, and much more general explanation of the conflict which is that identification is necessarily divisive. No us without them. No male without female. Hence the famous story about the Buddhist visiting N.Ireland being asked insistently, "Yes, but are you a Catholic buddhist of a Protestant buddhist?" The very idea of being both or neither threatens everyone's own identity and the very laws of logic themselves.
As an old hippy, I well remember the horrified complaint about men with long hair – "but you can't tell whether it's a boy or a girl!" And as I have said at tedious length, sex is of fundamental importance to a patrilineal society, and not so much if at all to a matrilineal one, thereby allowing more focus on which end one opens one's boiled egg at breakfast (all right thinking folk, men and women alike, are obviously little-enders), and other such vital issues.
But to come back to the point Isaac was making, there seems to be a demand that we all not do what we all do, that we not even consider the possibility that particular sorts of stories people tell about themselves are not perfectly true. You argued that we need to just ask and take people's word for it when they answer, but we don't do that for anything and it's an unreasonable demand. — Srap Tasmaner
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.