Modern gender theory, by associated gender with sociology, has collapsed gender into something that is not real: it is inter-subjective, which is not real. — Bob Ross

Lets define real. Normally 'real' means 'what is'. I don't think you're claiming that the concept doesn't exist, but you are claiming the bases for the gender expectations have nothing substantial to point to beyond subjective opinion as to why they exist. I might start another thread analyzing the 'whys' of gender, but for now we can agree in this thread that gender as a social construct is a purely subjective opinion based purely on emotions, nothing rationally substantive.

In my view, as a realist about gender, your examples highlight the real disputes between cultures about what the gender facts are where one can be truly wrong or right, more correct or less — Bob Ross

You and I might hold identical views, the key here is you are using gender in my mind as a synonym for sex. And if that is the case, I think we agree. But as language evolves words sometimes take on different meanings in different contexts. In the context of 'trans gender' and gender theory, gender is not a synonym for sex or sex expectations, but the subjective cultural expectations tied to a sex. "Warriors vs Scholars".

And to your point, as of our current analysis there is nothing substantial behind gender beyond opinion, prejudice, and sexism. As such it most definitely has nothing behind it to compel the idea that cross gender should mean a person can cross sex spaces. The fact that gender has been enshrined in law at all is rationally circumspect and morally questionable.

n my view, there is real, rational disagreement we can have about what gender is and how gender roles work; and so I can admit that cultures have gotten it wrong, some have gotten it sort of right, and some have gotten it sort of wrong. — Bob Ross

Again, if we replace your term gender with 'sex', then we have an objective place to reason from. If we use 'gender' as subjective cultural expectations, then I agree: there is nothing objective to base any reason on. It is one of the many reasons I see gender ideology as a secular religion. It wants to create precepts and ways of living based entirely on a subjective notion of reality.

I would say it is a gender fact that women are the one’s that have the role of wearing makeup, although it is morally permissible for them and not obligatory, and as such any culture that said otherwise got the facts wrong, and this is because women a procreative role that makes them the object of sex. — Bob Ross

Is that backed by fact or opinion Bob? Ever see a woman fall in love with a kpop star? They're men who wear make up, and are intended to appeal to female sexual fantasies. Women can be enamored with men just as much as men with women, and properly applied make up can make a man more attractive in many women's eyes. Perhaps what you mean is the intend of make up application. Obviously men who wore make up in Egypt wore it to enhance the beauty of male features, not feminine ones. We know that 'blush' and lipstick for example are used because women's lips and cheeks take on higher blood volume when they are aroused. So a man in Egypt would use make up for their physical features that women would be interested, or to convey health in their position. The specific intent of using make up in this case is a sex expectation based on biological reality, not cultural expectation. Whereas the idea of "Men cannot use make up even if its applied to accentuate male features" is a gendered expectation.

With all due respect, I think you missed my point. I agree that you are freely choosing, in these examples, to cultivate the virtues: my point is that you are freely choosing to make yourself less free. — Bob Ross

No, I get that. My point is that is a choice we are free to make. A choice that is responsible or recommended by others to make? No. But a free choice nonetheless.

The reason I don’t find this compelling is because the vast majority of human history has used freedom for excellence—not your nor our society’s modern understanding of it. — Bob Ross

I don't think this claim is necessarily true. I agree with you that freedom can be used with the contextual bent of 'responsible freedom', but if we are going to accurately discuss the terms, its our job to break words apart where we can into as simple and agreed upon terms as possible. I see a very simple and unambiguous use of freedom as "The ability to make a choice within one's capabilities", and then adjectives can come in to modify it so that we both clearly know what each is referring to.

So again, I don't object to your notion of 'Freely choosing virtues", I just object that this is the base term of freedom that is least ambiguous and accurate to all the concepts invovled.

Lets define real. Normally 'real' means 'what is'.

In colloquial speech, ‘to be real’ and ‘to exist’ are interchangeable; but there is a substantial difference between the two. Not everything that has being is a member of reality. For example, the color red that I see exists as a construction of my consciousness but has no membership in reality: if you were to omit my consciousness of the, e.g., red block there would be no redness in the block.

I think we need to use a more sophisticated definition of ‘reality’ here, because otherwise we erode the meaningful distinction I made by simplifying terms. Money is not real: it is inter-subjective—not objective. Money exists, of course! However, it is not a member of reality. E.g., the $100 price of the diamond does not have being like the diamond does. Likewise, the existence of gender, if it is just sociological, does not have membership of reality—it exists as inter-subjective agreement and that is it.

for now we can agree in this thread that gender as a social construct is a purely subjective opinion based purely on emotions, nothing rationally substantive.

Agreed, relative to your theory.

You and I might hold identical views, the key here is you are using gender in my mind as a synonym for sex

Effectively, yes: I hold they are the same. Technically, no: I am leaning more towards sex and gender being virtually but not really distinct.

Is that backed by fact or opinion Bob? Ever see a woman fall in love with a kpop star?

Firstly, I should clarify that men wearing makeup is not always immoral: it is the act of objectifying the face as a man that is immoral, and most of the time that is what makeup is for so it is usually immoral for a man to do. Some men need to wear makeup for TV podcasts not to objectify the face but to avoid camera issues or makeup is done for dead people in coffins so they look more lively, and that doesn’t seem to be threatened by my critique here (unless I am missing something). Kpop stars that are male are engaging in something immoral, under my view, which goes back to my claim about gender realism: in your view, there simply is no right or wrong answer here—it is just people’s tastes—whereas in mine there are facts about this.

Likewise, I agree that women and men can be sociologically or even psychologically conditioned to be attracted to social cues that they should not be; so I have no problem simultaneously admitting that women fall, in modern times, for men that mimick femininity—such as men that wear makeup and do their nails. This is in no way a refutation of the biologically underpinning of such things (like makeup) that I noted before.

No, I get that. My point is that is a choice we are free to make.

With all due respect, this is an unintentional red herring. My point was that if we hold your view that freedom is about making choices and virtues limit choices, then virtues make you less free—irregardless if you freely cultivated them or not. Most people would have the opposite intuition: they would say that virtues make you more free despite them making you have less options. If this is true, then we need to re-evaluate what freedom fundamentally is, because it can’t be focused on having options to choose from in accord with your own will. Your response here has been to note that we can freely choose to cultivate virtues; but I am noting that the virtue itself, once established through free or unfree means, is a restriction on ‘freedom’ in your sense of the term.

I see a very simple and unambiguous use of freedom as "The ability to make a choice within one's capabilities", and then adjectives can come in to modify it so that we both clearly know what each is referring to

I was just providing a rejoinder to your argument that we should hold freedom of indifference because it is more common; by just noting that historically freedom for excellence is much more common.

The classical way of thinking about freedom is that it is the ‘capacity to act with virtue and achieve the human good’ going all the way back to Plato; and during the Age of Enlightenment, which was the precursor for classical liberalism, they started taking liberty of indifference more seriously. Now, we live in a post-classical-liberal world; and we take for granted that ‘freedom’ has to do with making choices, like your definition, when it classically did not mean that. This is doesn’t mean your view is wrong, but that’s why I also gave my counter-examples to show hopefully how your view can be counter-intuitive, such as in the case of having to admit that virtues cause a person to be less free (which is a consequence of your view).

Not everything that has being is a member of reality. For example, the color red that I see exists as a construction of my consciousness but has no membership in reality: if you were to omit my consciousness of the, e.g., red block there would be no redness in the block. — Bob Ross

See your consciousness is part of reality however. Everything you personally experience is objectively real. It is when we claim things about that experience beyond the experience itself that we can assert things that aren't real. For example, if I said, "This color I see is the exact same experience everyone else has when they look at it," that's a claim to what is real without any evidence. In the exact same way a man can have their own subjective experience and they may feel that 'This is what its like to be a man, if they only refernece themselves in 'man'." The moment they say, "Every man experiences what I do, and if they don't they aren't a man" they make claims about reality without evidence.

Money is not real: it is inter-subjective—not objective. Money exists, of course! However, it is not a member of reality. E.g., the $100 price of the diamond does not have being like the diamond does. — Bob Ross

Ha ha! You and I have had different views of subjective and objective in the past, so it might be irreconcilable here. I'll still propose that money is objectively real. But that is because thoughts are objectively real. "The mental" is real. Objective is a claim that taking all the evidence into account, leads to one or more outcomes every time. Subjective is a claim about reality apart from your personal experience, using only your personal experience. So it is objective that my favorite color is blue. It would be subjective for me to claim, "Its the best color in the world." based on this information alone.

To your example, the price of the diamond is whatever is decided between two parties when an exchange of money occurs. If I sell a diamond to one individual for 20$ and claim that all diamonds are worth 20$, that's subjective. If I sell a diamond to one individual for 20$ and claim, "I sold that particular diamond to him for 20$, that's objective".

Technically, no: I am leaning more towards sex and gender being virtually but not really distinct. — Bob Ross

In my opinion it is this very muddying of unclear terms that promotes confusion and unclear thinking on the subject. People are mostly confused when it comes to gender terminology, and I believe at this point it is encouraged to stay that way by design. The best way to think is to have clear and unambiguous terms. Perhaps you are describing sex expectation. Or perhaps you are describing a blend of sex expectation and gender as gender theory defines it. Perhaps its better to create a new word to describe the concept at this point while keeping with the definitions that have been established and are used within the trans gender community and policies.

Kpop stars that are male are engaging in something immoral, under my view, which goes back to my claim about gender realism: in your view, there simply is no right or wrong answer here—it is just people’s tastes—whereas in mine there are facts about this. — Bob Ross

This is a subjective view of yours Bob. I cannot see how you can objectively demonstrate that a Kpop singer wearing make up is immoral. But that might be a better subject for another thread.

With all due respect, this is an unintentional red herring. My point was that if we hold your view that freedom is about making choices and virtues limit choices, then virtues make you less free—irregardless if you freely cultivated them or not. — Bob Ross

I think you're joining the consequences of a free choice to 'free choice'. Freedom does not involve the analysis of the consequences of what a person does. I'm just using freedom like "walking". Walking is a mobility of the feet at a casual pace. Its not a descriptor of why, how, where, when, or should one walk. Same with freedom. Freedom is just a basic descriptor of actionability. It is not a judgement of when, how, what, or should we use that freedom for. I'm not saying we can't apply those to freedom, but before we apply them to freedom we should be able to define what it is as a fundamental and basic definition.

The classical way of thinking about freedom is that it is the ‘capacity to act with virtue and achieve the human good’ — Bob Ross

Yes, that is both outdated and you have to remember that it was written in an era in which 'free speech' was not a thing. Write about freedom as, "The ability to do what you want independent of the state," and you might find yourself in jail and your works banned. Remember that Aristotle was paid by and worked for a king. Its extremely important that we do not simply accept the words and concepts of an era without carefully considering them over the accepted words of this era.

Good philosophical practices rely on clear, unambiguous, and fundamental definitions. If you can take a word, find two distinct concepts within that word, and break them apart, that allows clearer communication and thought about the concepts involved. As I've presented 'freedom' above, it is clear, unambiguous, and fundamental. Aristotle's is not, and his thinking was possibly compromised by the politics of his day. So I see no rational argument for taking 'the classic' view of freedom in virtue of mine being concurrent with good philosophical practice and which easily fits into the modern day use and understanding of the term.

This is doesn’t mean your view is wrong, but that’s why I also gave my counter-examples to show hopefully how your view can be counter-intuitive, such as in the case of having to admit that virtues cause a person to be less free (which is a consequence of your view). — Bob Ross

No. My statement of freedom has nothing to do with consequences. If you wish to argue that choosing virtues makes you less free, that is your claim, not mine. I would simply say the consequences of choosing a virtue may or may not lead to more or less choices in the future. If I freely choose to maintain my health, I have greater choice in activities in life over the restrictions that poor health brings. Of course, if I choose to not steal 1 million dollars, I have far less options in regards to monetary decisions than I do if I steal it. A free choice is about now, not the future consequences. Discussing the future consequences of a free choice is again, separate from the fundamental concept of freedom itself.

See your consciousness is part of reality however. Everything you personally experience is objectively real.

What you experience is a construction of your brain of what it thinks the world is; which means it necessarily is not identical to reality itself. Knowledge of reality is not a part of reality: it is the comprehension of that reality.

To be fair, I think you are just using ‘real’ to refer to ‘existence’; so I understand where you are coming from. However, this over-simplifies the conceptual landscape here; as we cannot say things like ‘money exist but is not real’ but instead ‘money is real and a chair is real’. It reduces everything to having the same status of existence in virtue of existing.

I'll still propose that money is objectively real. But that is because thoughts are objectively real.

I think you use ‘objectivity’ to refer to that which the subject experiences; and ‘subjectivity’ is anything pertaining to the subjective experience. If this is true, then even in your own terms money is not objectively real since it only exists insofar as two or more subjects value something at a particular amount.

Would you at least agree, semantics aside, that money does not have the same kind of ‘existence status’ as a chair?

In my opinion it is this very muddying of unclear terms that promotes confusion and unclear thinking on the subject. People are mostly confused when it comes to gender terminology, and I believe at this point it is encouraged to stay that way by design.

It might be better to collapse gender and sex for the sake of the masses; but technically I would say that using the Thomistic concepts of virtuality and reality can really help sublate the two mainstream positions (one being that sex and gender are divorced and the other that they are the exact same).

This is a subjective view of yours Bob.

With all due respect, this is just an assertion that begs the question. I outlined why objectifying the face is ontologically grounded in female nature (as the object of sex); and this does entail, if this is true, that men wearing makeup like women do is feminine and immoral. There’s nothing about this argument I am making that purports subjectivity (e.g., “I think it is immoral for men to wear makeup because I feel like they shouldn’t be”).

In your view, of course, gender isn’t ‘real’ in the sense that it is something that exists like a chair: it ‘exists’ insofar as it is merely the agreement between subjects of what they feel or think should be the case with no objective basis. So, naturally, in your view, I understand why you would push back here and reject it.

Freedom is just a basic descriptor of actionability

True, but freedom is not the kind of capacity for action where one just chooses from options; it is the kind of capacity to will in accord with reason, and this entails that we are more free the more virtuous and biased we are towards what is good.

Think of it this way, to use your example, walking itself is a capacity to move the legs to move around. When properly understood, to be maintain this capacity you have to do things to keep the legs in shape and healthy. There are ‘oughts’ which arise out of the maintenance of that capacity. You are a saying ‘this capacity is not itself normative’, but to me it does entails norms because there is a way it is designed to operate. Even just hypothetically, if you reject that the mere way legs are entail how one should use them, if you want to maintain your capacity to walk then you have to exercise your legs (e.g., you can’t sit 100% of the time: they will be neglected and fail to work properly).

Analogously, freedom is a capacity to will in accord with reason; and this does entail, to maintain and have it, cultivating virtues, an environment conducive to it, and the knowledge of what is good to will in accord with. My main point was that your view entails necessarily that we are less free when we do these things; and this is counter-intuitive. Moreover, my second point is that you lose your freedom by expanding your options in this liberty of indifference kind of way.

Yes, that is both outdated and you have to remember that it was written in an era in which 'free speech' was not a thing

It wasn’t an argument for liberty for excellence in a substantive sense: I was rejoining your claim that implied that we should accept liberty of indifference because it is common now. If that is your view, then you should actually accept liberty for excellence. We aren’t really in disagreement here I don’t think.

Good philosophical practices rely on clear, unambiguous, and fundamental definitions.

Correct, but we have to go beyond clear definitions to determine the truth. We both have clear definitions of freedom here: we must venture beyond mere definitions to determine which gets it more right about what freedom is.

To be clear, freedom for excellence defines freedom as ‘the capacity to will in accord one’s nature’ which is the same as ‘to be in a state most conducive so one’s flourishing’.

If you wish to argue that choosing virtues makes you less free, that is your claim, not mine

I thought you were saying that freedom is about the capacity to choose: do you believe that, in principle, someone can become more free while simultaneously having less options to choose from?

This is the issue that I do not feel is a proper demand for rights, much less an argument rooted in logic or fairness. This just seems to be discrimination and sexism wrapped up in a male desire to get things they want. But feel free to point out if you disagree. — Philosophim

I agree with that. I think it's a social reaction to the current political and social climate. There is no rigour in the thought processes of most of it. IMHO.

To be fair, I think you are just using ‘real’ to refer to ‘existence’; so I understand where you are coming from. However, this over-simplifies the conceptual landscape here; as we cannot say things like ‘money exist but is not real’ but instead ‘money is real and a chair is real’. It reduces everything to having the same status of existence in virtue of existing. — Bob Ross

I feel we're getting off topic. I'm not saying that everything we claim to be real is real. I'm just noting that thoughts and subjective experiences are real in themselves. Money and chair are both the same type of general mental concept. 10$ on a table and a mahogany chair model #235 from Ikea are specific real things. I'm not saying that imagining 10$ on a table mean that the 10$ and table are real independent of the thought of it, but that the thought of it is real.

Lets bring this back to trans gender issues. A person who has gender dysphoria has the real feeling of discomfort with their own gender. Does it mean that they're really 'the other gender'? No. Someone can really think they're the opposite sex, but it doesn't mean they really are the opposite sex.

I think you use ‘objectivity’ to refer to that which the subject experiences; and ‘subjectivity’ is anything pertaining to the subjective experience. If this is true, then even in your own terms money is not objectively real since it only exists insofar as two or more subjects value something at a particular amount. — Bob Ross

This is close. I'm noting that what a person experiences is objective in itself. "I feel sad" is an objective reality a person has. If through that feeling alone they say, "I feel sad because I was born in the wrong body." that's not objective. One can feel sad for many different reasons. It could very well be that the reason the person feels sad is because they have a poor diet and are depressed. Fix their diet and depression and suddenly they aren't sad anymore. Subjectively they feel sad because they were born in the wrong body, objectively they feel sad because they had a poor diet and were depressed. "The wrong body" had nothing to do with it.

Would you at least agree, semantics aside, that money does not have the same kind of ‘existence status’ as a chair? — Bob Ross

No, they're actually the same type of word. Money and chair alone are real concepts. Specific denotations of money and chairs are real things.

It might be better to collapse gender and sex for the sake of the masses; but technically I would say that using the Thomistic concepts of virtuality and reality can really help sublate the two mainstream positions (one being that sex and gender are divorced and the other that they are the exact same). — Bob Ross

One can argue that we only use one context for gender, but the reality is that if a person wants to use a particular context, there's nothing to stop them from doing so. What we can do in such an instance is ask if the definitions within the context are reasonable, and if the conclusions that follow from that context are also reasonable. If we are to talk about trans gender, it must be understood that the term 'gender' in this context refers only to social expectations and not biological expectations.

With all due respect, this is just an assertion that begs the question. I outlined why objectifying the face is ontologically grounded in female nature (as the object of sex); and this does entail, if this is true, that men wearing makeup like women do is feminine and immoral. — Bob Ross

You gave an assertion that has no truth bearing Bob. Both men and women objectify the other sex's face. They may not necessarily find the same features attractive, but a woman can swoon over a handsome face as much as a man can swoon over a beautiful female face. If make up enhances the ability of a person to appear attractive in the eyes of the opposite sex, it cannot be said that its only moral if a woman does it but not if a man does it.

True, but freedom is not the kind of capacity for action where one just chooses from options; it is the kind of capacity to will in accord with reason, and this entails that we are more free the more virtuous and biased we are towards what is good. — Bob Ross

People choose to freely smoke cigarettes all the time. It is completely irrational to smoke cigarettes. Yet people we would generally call rational, do so all the time. Freedom is not only about the capacity to make reasonable decisions, but emotional one's as well. Sometimes the two are not aligned with each other. Again, you can say, "That's an irresponsible choice," but the other person was free to make it. No one is arresting a person for smoking a cigarette in their own home.

Think of it this way, to use your example, walking itself is a capacity to move the legs to move around. When properly understood, to be maintain this capacity you have to do things to keep the legs in shape and healthy. There are ‘oughts’ which arise out of the maintenance of that capacity. — Bob Ross

No disagreement here! But you have the freedom to maintain, or not maintain your legs. Should we maintain them? Yes. Are you free not to? Yes. If we were not free to, then someone could legally come over and force us to maintain our legs against our will.

My main point was that your view entails necessarily that we are less free when we do these things; and this is counter-intuitive. — Bob Ross

Its only counter-intuitive because you are adding consequences to the idea of freedom. Freedom, as a word alone, does not consider the consequences. Freedom is simply the capacity to choose either A or B. The next step is to consider the consequences of a choice, or how to use our freedom for our own benefit opposed to our own destruction. You're blending two separate concepts together, and I'm noting that if we separate freedom into its most fundamental definition, this allows us clearer thinking and reasonable use of the term.

To be clear, freedom for excellence defines freedom as ‘the capacity to will in accord one’s nature’ which is the same as ‘to be in a state most conducive so one’s flourishing’. — Bob Ross

I have no disagreement with the phrase 'freedom for excellence'. I'm simply noting what 'freedom' is as a concept apart from 'for excellence'.

I thought you were saying that freedom is about the capacity to choose: do you believe that, in principle, someone can become more free while simultaneously having less options to choose from? — Bob Ross

Again, this is about the consequences of a person's free choice. I am not using freedom to describe consequences, only that one has a choice. We can absolutely talk about whether someone uses their freedom in a way that helps or harms them, but I'm not going to use the term 'freedom' alone as if it address the consequences of its use.

I agree that we seem to have gotten off topic. I was hoping to make some headway on the other points and then reel it back to the topic of transgender rights; but I think we are now doing circles unfortunately without any headway. With that being said, if there's anything about your topic of transgender rights that you would like to discuss further, then I am all ears.

I agree that we seem to have gotten off topic. I was hoping to make some headway on the other points and then reel it back to the topic of transgender rights; but I think we are now doing circles unfortunately without any headway. With that being said, if there's anything about your topic of transgender rights that you would like to discuss further, then I am all ears. — Bob Ross

Not a worry Bob! Still good points to think about. I think I've made my points, but feel free to say anything you still need to.

not gonna lie, I stopped reading at around group rights and said ... "man, that message 'trans rights = human rights,' really went over dude's head, probably just like BLM." That's when I realized there's probably some other prejudice at play.

↪Philosophim not gonna lie, I stopped reading at around group rights and said ... "man, that message 'trans rights = human rights,' really went over dude's head, probably just like BLM." That's when I realized there's probably some other prejudice at play. — DifferentiatingEgg

If you didn't read the entire OP, then you really can't say if I missed anything or not. If you feel there's prejudice at play after reading the OP, please point out where. Otherwise wouldn't it be that you ironically had prejudice and judged the post before you gave it a chance?