The fact you will never engage with me on any topic and continue to gate-keep, superficially name-drop, and posture makes me believe, if I am being honest, that you don't have a metaphysical theory you adhere to.

I think I have built enough rapport with you for you to know that I am sincere in my efforts and I will happily and unapologetically concede any points I think are good from my opposition. You are saying, as many times before, that I am simply ignorant of some newer metaphysics that would swipe Aristotelianism off its feet and I am, as usual, asking you for what they are. You refuse to lead the horse to water, and the horse is parched....

What do you mean by transgenderism being a legal framework? It’s a ideological view that one can convert to a different gender. — Bob Ross

The examples you gave of playing sports with the opposite sex, going in women's bathrooms, and changing the sex on a drivers license are legal in the sense that these conventions already shape what we're allowed to do and not. It's actually certain feminists (who tend to be overwhelmingly liberal) who reject the idea of transwomen being in their bathrooms, or getting social services as women...these women tend to be insulted as "T.E.R.F"s by trans supporters (trans exclusionary radical feminists). With the sports, its always a case by case basis, and i personally am fine with that and trans women should not always expect to be able to compete with women...it's up to them. The bathroom issue is a liitle more dicey, because kicking them out of women's bathrooms means forcing them to use men's bathrooms, something people shouldnt do to each other. If i really have to take a crap, im running to whatever is there.

I dont get hostility towards putting something different on your drivers license or the drag shows: in the former, it just makes it even easier for the police to identify you (i.e., sally with a beard, or explicit trans labeling), and drag shows are only entertainment, i don't get why people get offended....

Thanks for articulating your views further. To me they seem to be founded in bigotry, but no doubt you think I’m wrong too, so I guess we’re a microcosm of our times.

Re abortion: I'm not concerned where life begins.

The issue for me is that no one has the right to use another person’s body without their consent, even to preserve life. For the pregnant, this means a person is not morally obligated to sustain a fetus, regardless of whether it is considered a “person,” because a right to life does not include the right to forcibly use someone else’s body. And this principle applies universally: just as no one is required to donate a kidney or remain attached to life-support to save another, no one can be compelled to maintain a pregnancy, making abortion permissible on the basis of bodily autonomy and self-ownership.

For you, then, what are the ‘major issues’ related to transgenderism? — Bob Ross

Well, unlike you, I don’t have any “major issues” with trans people. It’s pragmatic: social policies can negotiate this one. Let them be. Are there some assholes and bizarre activists among them? Sure. But the same can be said of Christianity, Islam and almost every identity.

Your idea that we can “cure” them seems antediluvian or Stalinist. Let’s cure gay people too, huh?

Do you think gay folk need to be cured of their homosexuality?

Do you get your moral views from a particular interpretation of Christianity?

- Keep offering philosophy to those who don't rise above name-calling. :up:

Your argument is not valid, though ): — Bob Ross

Oh, you mean I can be a man but not masculine? Fuck! That's weird! It's almost like they're not the same thing!

Sex - Expected social behavior based on biology. It is statistically more likely for men to be aggressive — Philosophim

What biological mechanisms make men more likely to be aggressive than women? Would you say it’s the same mechanisms that produce myriad sex-based social behavioral differences between males and females in other species? What do you make of animal findings showing that hormonal exposure can “feminize” or “masculinize” neural circuits? For instance, certain brain regions, such as the hypothalamus, bed nucleus of the stria terminalis and amygdala, show sex-related patterns that are influenced by hormones.

Animal research shows that sex hormones organize and activate the brain systems underlying many sex-typical behaviors, such as mating motivation, aggression and territorial behavior, empathy or affiliative tendencies and caregiving. In songbirds, estrogen exposure in males can alter or reduce song patterns that are normally testosterone-driven. In some cases, it can alter vocalizations to produce simpler songs or calls more typical of females. In mammals, male parental behavior, such as grooming or caring for pups, can increase when estrogen is introduced. Female maternal behavior can be enhanced by estrogens and progesterone in combination.

Some studies in humans have shown that prenatal exposure to sex hormones influences later interests, play preferences, and some aspects of sexual orientation. Some neuroimaging and postmortem studies suggest that in transgender individuals, the structure or activity of brain regions sensitive to sex hormones may more closely resemble the gender they identify with than their sex assigned at birth.

I recognize that gendered behavior in humans is strongly influenced by social-cultural processes which are absent in other species, but aren’t you contradicting yourself when you assert that, on the one hand:

1) “Expected social behavior is based on biology. It is statistically more likely for men to be aggressive” ,

and on the other hand:

2)It is cognitive dissonace for factions within the trans activist community to argue that ‘gender is sex' while also redefining the term to allow 'not sex' into it as well.

Why is it cognitive dissonance when some trans activists claim that both biological and social factors are involved in sexually-related social behavior but not when you make the same claim?

...we should scrap treating people based off of their nature
— Bob Ross
And who is the arbiter of this "nature"? — Banno

Nature. Have you never heard of Natural Selection?

I'll leave the thread to you for now. — Banno

You're so predictable.

Gender theory views 'sex' as 'the biological characteristics of a being that defines its procreative role in the species', whereas 'gender' is 'the socially constructed roles, identities, and expressions of people'. — Bob Ross

And what do we actually mean when we say that "gender is a social construction"? Wouldn't that mean that for a person to transition between genders they would have to transition between societies (as in moving from one country to another, or from one region to another)?

And how is a social construction equitable to a personal feeling? By declaring gender as a social expectation we are defining gender as the expectations of society as a whole, not the feelings of an individual that run counter to those expectations. The whole transgendered movement is based on a misuse of terms.

What biological mechanisms make men more likely to be aggressive than women? — Joshs

I believe testosterone, sex hormones, and brain structure. This aggression is also focused in certain areas like mate seeking and physical altercations, so 'aggression' overall isn't necessarily accurate. If it helps, a better example would be overall average height differences. The point is that any points about a sex that are based on biology are sex expectations, not gender. Gender is only cultural.

Would you say it’s the same mechanisms that produce myriad social behavioral differences between males and females in other species? — Joshs

No, because in this context a man and a woman are human adult males and females.

What do you make of animal findings showing that hormonal exposure can “feminize” or “masculinize” neural circuits? — Joshs

Nothing. First, the female/male brain dichotomy is still nascent. Some papers see clear distinctions while others do not. Its obvious that the introduction of any hormone which affects brain tissue will affect the brain. Most any drug which emulates or provides hormones that pass through the blood brain barrier all effect the brain. Depression meds, opiods, psych meds, etc. all change the brain.

Animal research shows that sex hormones organize and activate the brain systems underlying many sex-typical behaviors, such as mating motivation, aggression and territorial behavior, empathy or affiliative tendencies and caregiving. — Joshs

That is biological expectation, not gender.

Some neuroimaging and postmortem studies suggest that in transgender individuals, the structure or activity of brain regions sensitive to sex hormones may more closely resemble the gender they identify with than their sex assigned at birth. — Joshs

I have checked a few of these studies. First, there's an issue of labeling a brain as masculine or feminine as I noted prior. Three factors need to be taken into account. Sexual orientation, non-transitioned brains, and post transition brains. The reason sexual orientation needs to be considered is that gay men's brains have areas of the brain that are more 'feminine' then straight men. Of course, we wouldn't say that gay men are females right? That would be homophobic.

When non-transitioned brains of gender dysphoric individuals are analyzed and compared by sexual orientation, there is no difference in the brain between a person with gender dysphoria barring a very slight statistical variation in one area of the corpus collosum. Other than that, the brains are identical. Gender dysphoric brains are not feminine brains.

Post transition, hormones affect the brain and bring more 'feminine' brain areas. But its the drugs that do it, not that the brain itself was a female brain to begin with.

Regardless, all of this is biology, not gender.

aren’t you contradicting yourself when you assert that...
)It is cognitive dissonace for factions within the trans activist community to argue that ‘gender is sex' while also redefining the term to allow 'not sex' into it as well. Why is it cognitive dissonance when trans activists claim that both biological and social factors are involved in sexually-related social behavior but not when you make the same claim? — Joshs

No, because that's not what I claimed. I claimed that gender is a non-biological cultural expectation of a person's behavior in relation to their sex. Biological factors that affect behavior are not gender, period. The cognitive dissonance is defining the term gender from a synonym of sex into something completely divorced from biology, but then implying that in cases where it is convenient to them, that it somehow also applies to biology.

So yes, I agree that biological and social factors go into a person's behavior in relation to their sex. Biological patterns of behavior are sex behaviors, not gender behaviors. Social factors are gender behaviors, not sex behaviors.

Nature. Have you never heard of Natural Selection?

Yes I have: what’s your point?

And what do we actually mean when we say that "gender is a social construction"? Wouldn't that mean that for a person to transition between genders they would have to transition between societies (as in moving from one country to another, or from one region to another)?

Not necessarily; but I am not interested in defending gender theory. My position was against gender theory; and your role as a critic would be to defend it (unless you are agreeing with me or have an alternative theory).

And how is a social construction equitable to a personal feeling? By declaring gender as a social expectation we are defining gender as the expectations of society as a whole, not the feelings of an individual that run counter to those expectations

It’s a confusion of both. The individual sees that other people are treated differently than them based off of their nature (e.g., a man noticing a woman can wear a dress); they want to be treated that way (e.g., he wants to wear a dress); so he starts mimicking what normally would be associated with being female. Gender theory tries to rationalize this by saying that gender is just those social cues and expressions—not the expectations of society—and so someone can legitimately present themselves and thereby be that other gender (so now you are allegedly irrational for thinking the man should not be wearing dresses because he is a woman now qua gender). It’s sophistical nonsense.

Maleness and masculinity aren't the same and I never suggested otherwise: they are conceptually distinct. Gender and sex, under my view, are not. Being male is having a nature of the procreative type that serves the role of providing, protecting, impregnating, etc. a female: it is based off of sex. Masculinity is the traits that males naturally gravitate towards, but are not traits that only males could exhibit: same for femininity. Everyone that is male is a male fully in essence but is imperfectly one in existence.

:up:

I don't know why @Banno never wants to engage. :confused:

Yes I have: what’s your point? — Bob Ross

That was a response to Banno's quote, not yours.

Not necessarily; but I am not interested in defending gender theory. My position was against gender theory; and your role as a critic would be to defend it (unless you are agreeing with me or have an alternative theory). — Bob Ross

Yes, I was agreeing with you - at least the part of the OP I was responding to - and I was just elaborating on the confusion of transgenderism as stemming from a misuse of terms.

To me they seem to be founded in bigotry, but no doubt you think I’m wrong too, so I guess we’re a microcosm of our times.

The difference between us, I would suggest, is that I don’t think you are a bigot for thinking there is a difference between gender or sex; or even holding stereotypical liberal views I reject (if you do). A bigotry charge is a serious accusation: why do you think people who disagree with your political views are all bigots? Or is just those who reject gender theory? Or perhaps my account of gender and sex?

The issue for me is that no one has the right to use another person’s body without their consent, even to preserve life. For the pregnant, this means a person is not morally obligated to sustain a fetus, regardless of whether it is considered a “person,” because a right to life does not include the right to forcibly use someone else’s body. And this principle applies universally: just as no one is required to donate a kidney or remain attached to life-support to save another, no one can be compelled to maintain a pregnancy, making abortion permissible on the basis of bodily autonomy and self-ownership.

I hear where you are coming from; but you are overlooking a consideration of how one can uphold their rights. You are not wrong that one has the right to not have their body used against their consent; but this doesn’t mean that someone can do anything they need in order to avoid their body being used against their consent. By analogy, I have a right to life: I have a right to not be directly intentionally killed when innocent. However, I do not have the right to do everything in my power to avoid getting murdered. For example, imagine someone is going to kill me but gives me the option to go murder someone else to get out of it; and let’s say I know with 100% certainty that I will get murdered if I do not commit this murder (so I can’t escape or something) and if I murder this other person then they will honor the agreement (thereby avoiding my own murder). Can I do that? No. The ends do not justify the means. What you are missing here is that a person is not permitted to violate someone else’s rights to uphold their own.

For example, if you were kidnapped by an evil scientist and this scientist surgically connected you to another innocent victim whereby you could live without being connected to the other victim but NOT vice-versa. If you were given the option to either surgically remove this other victim from you and thereby re-gain your bodily autonomy (assuming you do not consent to the situation) OR you have to continue to have your bodily resources being used to supply life to this other innocent person, is it morally perimissilbe for you to cut the cord? Of course not. You cannot violate this other person’s right to life to uphold your own rights: that’s a bad means for a good end.

Your idea that we can “cure” them seems antediluvian or Stalinist. Let’s cure gay people too, huh?

I don’t support Stalin: that’s a blatant straw man. Wouldn’t you agree that being homosexual or transgender is a result of socio-psychological disorders or/and biological developmental issues? Do you really believe that a perfectly healthy (psychologically and biologically) human that grows up on an environment perfectly conducive to human flourishing would end up with the desire to have sex with the same sex? Do you think a part of our biological programming is to insert a sex organ into an organ designed to defecate?

Do you get your moral views from a particular interpretation of Christianity?

I get it from Aristo-Thomism.

Banno, if you were paying attention, you would know I have noted many times in this thread that someone could make a virtual but not real distinction between sex and gender and I wouldn't have any major issues with it. The bottom-line is that gender is not a social construct.

Can you come up with examples of liberal agendas? There are liberals, there are agendas, but "liberal agenda" paints a unified conspiracy when political agendas always have to do with money and power. — ProtagoranSocratist

Liberalism in America tends to want the social and legal acceptance of:

1. Sexually deviant, homosexual, and transgender behaviors and practices;
2. The treatment of people relative to what they want to be as opposed to what they are (e.g., gender affirmation, putting the preferred gender on driver’s licenses, allowing men to enter female bathrooms, allowing men to play in female sports, etc.);
3. No enforceable immigration policies;
4. Murdering of children in the womb;
Etc. — Bob Ross

"Liberal agenda" in the true sense of the phrase appears to be an oxymoron, as liberals (in the true sense of the word) often disagree on many things. It is only their shared view that we are all entitled to our own opinions and freedoms, but those freedoms stop when they infringe on another individual's freedoms, that unite them, or would be considered a "Liberal agenda".

Libertarians are true liberals, not the leftists masquerading as liberals while imposing limits on speech and thought (speech and thought that does not line up with their views) and their identity politics.

If you are a man and want to wear a dress then wear a dress. But your freedoms stop when they involve telling others what they can or cannot say, or reinforces your views at the expense of their own.

And, just to be reiterate what I have said before, society's acceptance of a man wearing a dress just means society no longer has those expectations. It means that society is now gender-neutral, which means that there is no longer a spectrum of binary expectations to transition between, which effectively leads to the extinction of transgenderism.

You refuse to lead the horse to water, and the horse is parched.... — Bob Ross

There are some groups of secular people who have imbibed certain moral/social doctrines in a quasi-religious way. In religious contexts a central dogma is usually protected by concentric "fences." So for example, in Judaism one is not allowed to speak the sacred name, and because of this a "fence" is erected by replacing that word in the sacred texts with "Lord." This makes it that much easier to follow the dogma.

What your OP does is transgress one of the fences of the religious beliefs of the secular left. The central dogma is something like, "Trans people must be respected" (which is of course fine at far as it goes). One of the fences is something like, "Trans people's claims about what they are must be accepted as true," and that fence in turn requires that one draw a very strong distinction between sex and gender. The distinction must be sufficiently strong to support the trans person's claim that they are a man or woman. This is done by making the claim a gender claim, and this of course requires separating gender from sex. This is but the most common way to logically justify that self-identity claim.

In any case, you are in effect committing heresy against one of the fences which sits around a dogma of the secular left, and that is why you are being attacked and insulted. The response one would give is salutary, "But why must I believe that trans people's claims are true in order to respect them?," but the religious reason for erecting the fence is not logical per se. Instead it is practical or communal or a matter of sacred centres. What is at stake is not exactly a logical entailment so much as a matter of protecting a quasi-religious dogma. The core of the issue probably turns on disambiguating what is meant by the word "respect" within the central dogma that is driving the whole fence system, but it should be seen that for the one who reads the claim in a dogmatic or sacred sense, "respect" must be given the broadest reading possible, in order to provide the dogma with sufficient life-shaping force.

I touched on the rationale for refusing to rationally justify one's dogmas or taboos in <this post> as well as in the following one. That move actually exists in all religious and quasi-religious traditions to different extents. Usually, though, we see a healthy religion as one which does not impose its views by force on those who do not accept them, and that is why I believe that the religion in question is unhealthy.

It is uncontroversially true in America that what I explicated is the liberal agenda — Bob Ross

That's true, but outside of the context of American politics liberalism qua philosophy refers to classical liberalism, and classical liberalism requires one to provide reasons and arguments for their position. For this reason what is happening on the secular left with their quasi-religious fences is quite different from classical liberalism, and this is why classical liberals of various stripes have opposed the secular left or the progressive left (e.g. Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, Jonathan Haidt, and even pundits like Bill Maher). A well-known conservative classical liberal and professor at Princeton is Robert P. George, who was recently interviewed by Jordan B. Cooper. At one point in the interview George is talking about the way that non-sectarian and sectarian universities both have a place within society. From about 52:24-54:38 he speaks to the question of whether there could be a sectarian university which favors the quasi-religion of what I have called the "secular left," and what he says there is much to the point in understanding the difference between classical liberalism and the secular forms of sectarianism that are often called "liberal" in the American political context.

If you are interested in the arguments and philosophy undergirding the sacred cow then I would encourage you to have a look at Cooper's video on Judith Butler that I linked <here>. There are philosophical antecedents and groundings for these views, even if they are not being enunciated by the folks who are attacking you within this thread.

The only complex aspect of abortion is whether or not one believes personhood begins at conception—not if autonomy “trumps” the right to life. — Bob Ross

It certainly trumps a right to life in cases of rape. Would you force people to stay hooked up to the violinist?

Animal research shows that sex hormones organize and activate the brain systems underlying many sex-typical behaviors, such as mating motivation, aggression and territorial behavior, empathy or affiliative tendencies and caregiving.
— Joshs

That is biological expectation, not gender. — Philosophim

You seem to be making two points . First, that the aspects of social behavior which are purely cultural and those which are due to biological factors are cleanly discernible through observation. Second, that practically none of what are considered feminine or masculine social behaviors in humans are related to the pre-natal effects of sex hormones on brain function.

I agree that biological and social factors go into a person's behavior in relation to their sex. Biological patterns of behavior are sex behaviors, not gender behaviors. Social factors are gender behaviors, not sex behaviors. — Philosophim

Using gay men as an example, I consider examples of such sexual behaviors as having a feminine voice, throwing like a girl, gestures, postures and ways of walking which appear feminine, being predominantly sexually attracted to other males, choosing professions which tend to be more associated with women, etc. Do any of these behaviors by themselves indicate a biologically-produced sex disposition? No, it is the larger pattern that points to a sex-associated behavioral style. Are professions and behaviors which used to be categorized rigidly by gender now in the process of dissolving their rigid categorical boundaries? Yes, absolutely. Do the very definitions of the masculine and the feminine change over time? Indeed they do.

But this doesn’t mean that when a gay child says that they have known they were gay as long as they can remember, that they didn’t choose to be gay, that they didn’t learn to be gay by absorbing it from their culture, that they are talking about gender as opposed to sex. And when they say that what it means to be gay for them is much wider than simply who they are sexually attracted to, that what ‘others’ them with respect to their males peers are a wide range of ‘feminized’ behaviors they may despise and certainly have no control over, what they are referring to is predominantly sex-based rather than culture-based ‘gender’.

Do you think a part of our biological programming is to insert a sex organ into an organ designed to defecate? — Bob Ross

Straight man like anal sex too. In fact, men of all sexual persuasions will often stick their organ into just about any orifice handy.

You seem to be making two points . First, that the aspects of social behavior which are purely cultural and those which are due to biological factors are cleanly discernible through observation. — Joshs

No, I'm not implying they are cleanly discernible through observation. I think they require scientific reference to clearly delineate what is biological vs sociological.

Second, that practically none of what are considered feminine or masculine social behaviors in humans are related to the pre-natal effects of sex hormones on brain function. — Joshs

I don't see how you concluded that. If its known that men are taller than women biologically, it may be an uncommon surprise to see a man shorter than most women. Vice versa with a female taller than most men. This is not a cultural expectation, this is a biological one. The cultural expectation would be, "You are not a real woman unless you are shorter than most men." That has nothing to do with biology, but a subjective view of what a woman should be. There's a difference between biological expectation, and cultural expectation. You can have behaviors that are sex expected behaviors vs culturally expected behaviors.

In some areas, the expected behavior may be dominated by sex or gender. Lets look at clothing as an example of gender dominated behavior. There does not seem to be any biological reason why a man would not wear a bow in their hair, while a woman would. Make up is another clear example of gender. While a female will use makeup to enhance attractive biological features on a female, men could just as easily do the same to enhance features that are considered attractive as males. Society generally does not expect men to do this, so many don't.

Of course, a bra is a culturally accepted bit of behavior that relies on biology. A bra is used to hold breasts in place. Men can grow large and fatty pecs, yet they would be socially discouraged from wearing anything that would keep them in place. The biology in this case is having a chest area that needs to be kept in place, the social expectation is that only women wear something to keep them in place. So while breasts are sexually expected of women, the expectation that only women wear a strap to keep the pec area in a certain form is a gendered expectation.

A man should hold a door open for a lady. There is no biological reason for this. A man should give up their seat for a woman in public if there is no more room. No biological reason for this. A man should act aggressive even though they naturally aren't. That's a cultural expectation. A woman should be demure despite naturally being confrontational. Not a biological imperative.

But, if a woman is pregnant, there can be a biological reason beyond cultural expectation to let a woman have your seat. A woman in late pregnancy is in a more physically compromising position than a healthy man. It makes sense from a biological perspective to allow someone in a more compromising physical state to sit down. We would more often give this to pregnant women over men, as men are not often in physically demanding positions when standing.

Using gay men as an example, I consider examples of such sexual behaviors as having a feminine voice, throwing like a girl, gestures, postures and ways of walking which appear feminine, being predominantly sexually attracted to other males, choosing professions which tend to be more associated with women, etc. — Joshs

First, lets assume for the purposes of reasoning this through, that these are biological behaviors. These would be biological behaviors that are not normally expected by a member of the male sex. Does that mean that men cannot have these biological behaviors? Of course not. Its a sex expectation that is simply not met because this is not the norm. That doesn't mean that it is unexpected that there will be men who biologically have these behaviors without cultural intervention.

The cultural aspect would be whether society expected, as a matter of being male, to suppress their biological behavior because the cultural idea of a man should never act that way. There is no biological reason why a male should not have those behaviors. Society frowning on that is purely cultural and subjective, and a subjectivity that counters the objective reality of those men's biological nature.

A sex expectation is only that, "An expectation". It is not an assertion of what must be to define the behavior and actions of a sex. A gender expectation does not care about biology beyond the sex that is observed. A gender expectation is an assertion of a cultural norm. It is cultural prejudice, discrimination, and/or sexism, and not based on biological reality at all.

Are professions and behaviors which used to categories rigidly by gender now in the process of dissolving this rife categorical boundaries? Yes, absolutely. — Joshs

Correct, because these professions and behaviors were not constructed due to expected biological differences, but cultural gender expectations. And if there's anything we've learned over the past few decades, discrimination, prejudice and sexism are terrible things to encourage in society.

But this doesn’t mean that when a gay child says that they have known they were gay as long as they can remember, that they didn’t choose to be gay, that they didn’t learn to be gay by absorbing it from their culture that they are talking about gender as opposed to sex. — Joshs

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with gender. It is biological. It is not 'gender orientation'. It is 'sexual orientation'.

And when they say that what it means to be gay for them is much wider than simply who they are sexually attracted to, that what ‘others’ them with respect to their males peers are a wide range of ‘feminized’ behaviors they may despise and certainly have no control over, what they are referring to is predominantly sex-based rather than culture-based ‘gender’. — Joshs

First, being gay only means your sexuality is oriented primarily to members of the same sex. That's it. Though we assumed these behaviors were biological to reason through a point, an actual claim of biology would need study. Is it the case that every single gay person in existence has a biological reality that naturally makes them talk in a feminine way whereas all straight men biologically only speak in a masculine way? Because in inner city black communities, men often speak with what many other Americans would consider a feminine manner. We have to be very careful when we make claims of biology without carefully ensuring that it is not cultural. That's the conflation, the cognitive dissonance that confuses people into thinking cultural behavior is actually a sex based outcome.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with gender. It is biological. It is not 'gender orientation'. It is 'sexual orientation — Philosophim

Now we’re getting somewhere. How do you imagine a brain mechanism works to produce sexual orientation? Any hypotheses? What I am arguing is that such a brain mechanism shapes and organizes how we process affective and perceptual information, giving each of us a perceptual -affective style which is both biological and subject to cultural shaping, and shapes much, much more that sexual orientation. Put differently, sexual orientation is one among many results of a brain filter which gives us a certain sex-based style of perceiving . Think of it as akin to Chomsky’s transformational grammar. Just as he theorized a brain module which filters , processes and organizes language into patterns which can be assessed statistically, I am arguing that your brian mechanism for sexual orientation is such a module , and that you’re missing the organized, patterned way in which experience is filtered and processed by this biological module when you look at biological sex-based behavior reductively.

Its as though I hand you an intricately patterned glass sculpture, and you throw it on the ground and shatter it into a thousand fragments. You then study those fragments individually and look for statistical patterns in the arbitrary behavior of each fragment to explain the nature of the sculpture’s overall pattern. That’s how Skinner studied language before Chomsky came along. You look at fragments of a pattern and , without recognizing what organized those fragments into the patten in the first place, treat them as independent. Here we have sexual orientation. There we have aggression. Elsewhere there are myriad other behaviors, each of which is seemingly arbitrary and unconnected to a larger originating processing module which could tie them all together on the basis of a single organizing principle. We the. apply our statistics to this assumed random and arbitrary pile of behavioral fragments. What we get out of this is what we put into it: people randomly falling into social roles and behaviors.

How do you imagine a brain mechanism works to produce sexual orientation? Any hypotheses? — Joshs

There are some, but last I looked we truly don't know the full picture. Do we know that sexual orientation is biological? I believe there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate that in the majority of cases, sexual orientation is biological and not culturally enforced. Regardless, sexual orientation would be an orientation towards a sex, gender orientation would be an orientation towards a gender.

We can see this clearly in culture. If you are attracted to women, there is no biological underpinnings that women shave their arm pit hair or must dress a certain way. Yet society may frown on a person who would be attracted to those things, and the person may deny their sexual orientation for a gender orientation. A gay person forcing themselves to sleep with a woman is probably the clearest example of gender orientation vs sexual orientation. Sexually, gay people are attracted to members of the same sex. Culturally, society may frown on this and expect them to have sex with members of the opposite sex despite their sexual orientation.

I confess I did not understand the rest of your post. With what I've posted above, does this address or help you to clarify what you were trying to tell me?

Being male is having a nature of the procreative type that serves the role of providing, protecting, impregnating, etc. a female: it is based off of sex. Masculinity is the traits that males naturally gravitate towards, but are not traits that only males could exhibit: same for femininity. Everyone that is male is a male fully in essence but is imperfectly one in existence. — Bob Ross

It is rather difficult to make sense of all this decarative definitional stuff, because your definitions are not clearly distinguished, and at the same time fail to account for the variety of human behaviour and social relations. Males can include gays, cross dressers, celibates castrati, none of whom tend to 'serve the role of providing, protecting, impregnating, etc. a female.' The best I can understand is that your 'essence' of maleness is a moral ideal that you present as if it were a natural fact, from which every deviation is an 'imperfection' - by what fiat, I do not know.

- Suppose we take the male sex and the social role of begetting/impregnating. Begetting is not merely a social role, but it is also a social role. If we say that social roles pertain to gender, and gender is separate from sex, then we would not be able to say that the social role of begetting/impregnating is uniquely performed by males. But that seems entirely incorrect, doesn't it?

And again, the argument is not that every male must perform the act of begetting/impregnating in order to be a male, but rather that begetting/impregnating is a male role which is inaccessible to females, and therefore there do exist social roles restricted by sex. One cannot beget/impregnate without being a male and one cannot become pregnant without being a female. In Aristotelian language we would say that males have the power of begetting/impregnating precisely in virtue of their maleness; precisely in virtue of their sex.

Suppose we take the male sex and the social role of begetting/impregnating. Begetting is not merely a social role, but it is also a social role. If we say that social roles pertain to gender, and gender is separate from sex, then we would not be able to say that the social role of begetting/impregnating is uniquely performed by males. But that seems entirely incorrect, doesn't it? — Leontiskos

Why do you want to say that impregnating is uniquely performed by males? Why do you want to call it a role? Do you not think that women have a rather larger 'role' in impregnation than men? I'm not so much arguing with you here as bemused and befuddled. As if sex is what men do to women, and what women do is 'lie back and think of England' (other nationalisms are available). And anything else is a deviation, and thats why it's called "the missionary position".

Why do you want to say that impregnating is uniquely performed by males? — unenlightened

Because I do not think non-males impregnate. Do you?

Do you not think that women have a rather larger 'role' in impregnation than men? — unenlightened

Females (or if you like, women) do not beget/impregnate, but are rather impregnated. The small, mobile male gametes move to the female's large, immobile gametes rather than vice versa. The male's gametes are given; the female's gametes receive what is given by the male. The male is the active giver of gametes; the female is passive receiver of gametes. The sperm moves from the male into the female, in order to fertilize the ovum. This is what it means to say that the male begets/impregnates and the female becomes pregnant, and it is basic scientific biology.

Is there something in this account that you object to? Or is all this talk about "lie back and think of England" an emotional red herring?

I'm here, Bob. Happy to continue - I held off because it looked to me as if might be about to do something in accord with the guidelines, but it seems not.

Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them. — Site Guidelines

You claim your approach is neo-Aristotelian, but apart from the name, there's nothing to indicate why. I'd presumed you were making some reference to essences, but you might like to explain what you mean.

You say sex is "a distinct type of substance", a very odd phrasing; as if we could put sex on a scale and measure it's mass, or wash it down the drain. You appear to claim sex and gender are the the same substance, whatever that could mean. Anachronistic Aristotelian bullshit, it seems.

More recent work uses possible world semantics and talks of essential properties rather than substance. An essence here becomes a predicate attributed to an individual in every possible world in which it exists. That is a much more workable definition than the nonsense of "that which makes something what it is, and not something else".

Do you follow this? Should I dumb it down a bit more? Sex is physical, gender is social. Your insistence that they are the same substance is ridiculous.

And there's this: "The divorcing of sex and gender renders gender as merely a personality type that someone could assume, which is an ahistorical account of gender", which is inaccurate. The latin genus referred to the classification of nouns — masculine, feminine, or neuter. So historically, neuter is one of the categories that “gender” originally encompassed.The original meaning of “gender” already included the notion of “neither male nor female”. "Sex", from sexus, is historically binary.The terms are not interchangeable.

So again, you are stipulating that there are two genders, determined by sex, and then pretending that this is a discovery, that it could not be otherwise. Your basis for this is the resuscitation of an ancient metaphysics and logic that relies on ill-defined notions of essence and substance. Not that strong a case, it seems.

Keep offering philosophy to those who don't rise above name-calling. :up: — Leontiskos

That had me laughing out loud. No way to talk about our god-king Horus, though.

A bigotry charge is a serious accusation: why do you think people who disagree with your political views are all bigots? — Bob Ross

I'm not saying you are a bigot i said what you wrote was bigoted. But you may well be a bigot too.

Notice your language:

1. Sexually deviant, homosexual, and transgender behaviors and practices — Bob Ross

I think we should have government programs for studying transgenderism to cure it and they should have programs that help transgenders be cured — Bob Ross

Both of these read like bigotry. "Let's cure those deviants."

I don’t support Stalin: that’s a blatant straw man. — Bob Ross

I didn’t say you support Stalin, I compared that re-education approach to a Stalinist one. I think that’s fair; he was big on re-educating dissenters. What you think about Stalin is irrelevant to my point.

Wouldn’t you agree that being homosexual or transgender is a result of socio-psychological disorders or/and biological developmental issues? — Bob Ross

No, and this is another bigoted position.

Do you think a part of our biological programming is to insert a sex organ into an organ designed to defecate? — Bob Ross

I don’t know you to establish how seriously you offer this, but that sentence reads like something a child would write, surely? I can't help but feel some compassion for you that your religion appears to have made you so reductive and homophobic.

I could be wrong but from what I read here my view would be that it might benefit you to stop hiding behind theories, metaphysics, and fundamentalist religion, and get out into the real world. Spend time with lots of different kinds of people for a few years. Maybe some real-world exposure will help you understand the diversity and beauty in people who differ from your prescribed notions. And that perhaps what needs to change is you, not them.

Either way, it may be that we don’t share enough foundational axioms to have a fruitful discussion. All I really wanted to do here was point out that your outlook looks bigoted on this matter and (since hating on trans people is a popular sport for many) to express a different view from yours. Job done.

That said, I’m glad you feel confident expressing your opinions here for us all to explore. It’s interesting to see what comes out in response, Perhaps it reveals a little more about the true nature of some of our members.

Sex - Expected social behavior based on biology. It is statistically more likely for men to be aggressive.
Gender - Expecting a man to be aggressive and thinking, "You're not a man if you're not aggressive" even though it is a statistical reality that there will always be men who are less aggressive than women on average. The expectation is not based on biological likelihood, but cultural prejudice and expectations despite biological reality.

That’s fine, but I don’t think that is how gender theory nor my theory uses the terms.

There is no biological reason for a woman to wear a dress or ribbons in their hair for example

There is. Women tend towards things that are feminine. You are viewing gender in a sense of something that is purely a social construct, which is what liberals want because they can make these exact arguments. If there is no biological underpinning for women wearing dresses, then it is irrational and prejudicial to socially condemn men that wear dresses.

I understand the idea and I cannot say you are right or wrong. Only that I do not believe in a soul, so cannot hold this view.

Fair enough.

If gender and sex are separate as defined, then there is absolutely zero rational connection between one's gender having any justification for being in cross sex spaces.

For liberalism, the argument tends to be that we should only care about gender for treating people. This is why they push for bathrooms to be segregated on the basis of gender instead of sex; allowing transgenders to put their ‘gender’ as the opposite on their driver’s licenses; allowing men to play in women’s sports; etc.

I completely agree with you that we should care about sex and not gender if we are using the term ‘gender’ to refer to something completely divorced of sex.

But does that justify control from a religious viewpoint to a secular declaration of marriage? I would argue linguistic limitations to control thoughts is wrong no matter who is in control.

I partially agree. Firstly, I think politics is an upshot of ethics; so this secular idea of making ethics a personal hobby doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t think ethics and the nation are truly separable, although I agree with the original intent behind “separation of church and state”.

I agree, secondly, that we should try to be intellectually virtuous in politics; but unfortunately, pragmatically, rhetoric is really important to explaining things to the average person. Normal people don’t do philosophy like you and I where we dissect ideas and follow rationally what we believe is correct: most people just listen to political debates online or on the media that are fully of fallacious thought and convince them of one position or another. Most people are sadly moved by emotion and not reason.

Think of it this way. If you needed to convince people in a public political debate of your position, you will not succeed by trying to have a robust conversation like we are doing now. You will succeed by using loose terminology, simplifying it down, and being a good debater (speaker). The consequence of using loose terminology is that you have to reject your opponents terminology instead of being charitable. I’ve learned that politics is a much muddier and bloody process than philosophy.

 I think the definition of words themselves as a means of control is wrong.

I agree in the sense that we should be aiming to provide precise definitions and get at the truth; but political debates don’t allow the time or resources to be able to have a super robust conversation like in philosophy. What I am doing here is attempting to help people by using language that helps them avoid the conflations and sophistry meant to deceive them in gender theory: I’m trying to help them but in an oversimplified way to reach the average person.

Fantastic discussion as always Bob! We may be taking different viewpoints on some of this, but I do understand where you are coming from. Your political views are your own and I am fine with whatever they are.

You too, my friend!

It's actually certain feminists (who tend to be overwhelmingly liberal) who reject the idea of transwomen being in their bathrooms, or getting social services as women...these women tend to be insulted as "T.E.R.F"s by trans supporters

That’s fair, but modern fourth-wave feminism tends to support transwomen. Traditional women that are of the earlier type of feminism are the one’s insulted.

 The bathroom issue is a liitle more dicey, because kicking them out of women's bathrooms means forcing them to use men's bathrooms, something people shouldnt do to each other

Why not? You are a man: you should use the men’s bathroom. You are a woman: you should use the women’s bathroom. Should we create a bathroom stall for every gender they make up? Should we have one family bathroom that everyone has to take turns using?

I dont get hostility towards putting something different on your drivers license or the drag shows: in the former, it just makes it even easier for the police to identify you 

It hinders the police in their investigations: every important trait of a person that they can generalize is tied to sex and not this ‘gender’ as a ‘personality type’. Police officers don’t care what you identify as or how you decide to dress or present yourself: they want to know when they come to scene if they are about to deal with a male or female to be able to tell how hard it will be to detain or arrest this person. Dealing physically with a male is generally wildly different than a woman.

 explicit trans labeling

I think there should be some record of people’s known mental disorders. It is useful for police to know, e.g., that this person is schizophrenic.

I wouldn’t say it needs to be a specific note on the driver’s license that they are trans or that they are mentally ill, of course; but when they look up the license it should tell them of any past history of mental illness (which I would imagine they already do).

 drag shows

I don’t think drag shows should be legal. They expose children to sexually degenerate, explicit, and dangerous content and behavior that is unhealthy for them. Likewise, I don’t think adults should have to experience that either.