I'd like to see what others on this forum have to say about Essentialism in general, and Gender Categories in particular. — Gnomon
If God created Man & Woman for distinct roles in the world, then where do LGBTQ humans fit into the scheme of things? Are those who refuse to remain in their rigidly-defined physical and social niches, somehow defying the law of God? Even for those who are not concerned about the laws of God, what about violating the laws of Nature? — Gnomon
We are one race. The entire humankind. — god must be atheist
If God created Man & Woman for distinct roles in the world, then where do LGBTQ humans fit into the scheme of things? — Gnomon
I can understand why the Bronze Age Bible condemned homosexuality. First, they had no knowledge of genetics, and judged gender only by obvious characteristics. Second, at least 90% of the human population seemed to fit neatly into the two basic sex categories --- both physically (innies vs outies), and behaviorally, (masculine vs feminine norms). So those persons who didn't fit their normal natural niche, were deemed abnormal unnatural perverts. Third, humans and animals have an innate revulsion or disgust reflex toward strange (queer) or suspicious (dangerous) things and behaviors. Consequently, until modern science began to study such atypical anomalies in detail, the safest course for people was to avoid them, to quarantine them, and to label them as taboo or cursed. Most world cultures had similar attitudes toward perceived perversions and deviations from cultural norms : gender/behavior misfits, left-handedness, extremes of skin color, witch-like improprieties, and so forth.'God'/Bible gets shown up again, as always. — PoeticUniverse
Yes. "Innate is better" is a nutshell version of the Naturalistic Fallacy. But that seems to be a very common assumption ("pervasive and persistent"; "ubiquitous and irresistible") throughout history, even among philosophers and scientists. Aristotle's appeal to the authority of nature (Causes) has been assigned that judgmental label by some modern philosophers.The second problem is ethical. Even if it were possible to distinguish innate from acquired, there is no rule that innate is better. — David Mo
Although my moderate worldview does not divide the world into simplistic dualistic categories, it also can't abide the absurdity of infinite regression. — Gnomon
Relative to the topic of this thread, Naturalism would find homosexuality to be, not only unnatural, but unethical. So, who's to say what's right : Darwin or God? — Gnomon
the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform. — dict
Excellent first post. However I feel compelled to ask, could it have been composed and written by a non-human? — Wayfarer
Apparently what has changed in recent years is our attitude toward Nature itself, since Darwin discovered its fallibility and amorality. — Gnomon
I suppose I could write a text like this if I were a computer programmed by a human being. — David Mo
I think you casually assume that there's nothing special about being human. — Wayfarer
As for human nature in general, I view it as dynamic and historical. We are radically cultural and historical animals. Our nature is to have no nature, or our nature is to always be developing our nature. — softwhere
Bula!I'm pretty sure human gender identification is a bit of a continuum rather than either an essentialist dichotomy or an infinite array - like a rainbow - you can easily pick out a red bit, but where exactly is the boundary between red and orange? — Siti
Just for the record, I was putting words in the mouths of non-theists, who treat Nature as the ultimate moral authority --- as in the Naturalistic Fallacy. Unfortunately, it's not that simple, because the power of Nature has recently been diluted by the power of Culture.How can one violate the laws of nature? I think you're framing nature Nature as another god. — softwhere
That may be true. But as I said, "After a brief review, I get the impression that today the notion of fixed categories in nature is held primarily by Conservatives, both political and religious". Of course, the majority of people will have attitudes somewhere in between the extremes. Can you point me to some card-carrying Liberal/Progressives who espouse the rigid categories of Essentialism?This is an essentialist view. It isn't the sole property of conservatives. There are progressives who are also essentialists and conservatives who are constructionists. — Bitter Crank
It doesn't make sense to take an extreme essentialist or a constructionist position. Clearly, both methods of shaping behavior are in play, — Bitter Crank
I think you casually assume that there's nothing special about being human.
— Wayfarer
You draw excessive consequences from my short comment. — David Mo
There is no denying that human psyche is variable and mutable, both on the historical and the individual human scale, but that doesn't make us blank states and empty vessels at birth, to be filled and shaped entirely by culture. — SophistiCat
Now we have this absurd list of 50 genders — Bitter Crank
Thanks for the warning. I do intend to stay out of gender politics, and any other bi-polar forms of human interaction. At the moment I'm just trying to get some background on Essentialism, to inform my reading of the book on Human Nature. :cool:The politics surrounding whether x, y, or z is determined by essentialism or constructionism is a swamp one does well to stay out of. — Bitter Crank
What the "bo" will tell you is that, for the practical purposes of reproduction, the gender rainbow is reduced down to three colors : 1. male, 2. female, 3. other. Apparently, they have no religious or political scruples about "other", which is not practical, but just for funsies. Perhaps the fun aspect is not an evolutionary adaptation, but just a "spandrel".The world simply doesn't work like that (even if a couple of billion humans think it does) - if anyone doesn't believe me, they should pop down to the local zoo and ask a bonobo. — Siti
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.