:up:

"Liberal agenda" in the true sense of the phrase

You are splitting hairs here. Everyone knows that liberalism as a popular movement in america has agendas just like conservatives do.

Yes. You are suggesting that if the negative consequences of doing the right thing are too great, then we shouldn't do it. If I could only save myself from extreme torture as opposed to simply getting murdered by murdering someone else, that wouldn't magically make me murdering someone permissible. What if me murdering this person saved the rest of humanity from endless suffering? Still not permissible.

You didn't even try to answer the question, because you know I am right that the sex organs are not designed to be put in the anus (irregardless if you think men will tend to do it or tend to like to do it).

You are right: I am claiming that maleness and femaleness are a part of the real nature of men and woman; and this is different than the modern metaphysics smuggled into biology (although I wouldn't say either are incompatible with biology).

As Leontiskos said here, a male has the essence of maleness independently of how imperfectly he instantiates it in his existence. There is a metaphysical distinction between the form (act) and matter (potency) being made here that really helps clarify how gender and sex operate (irregardless if one believes they are conceptually distinct or not).

I'm here, Bob.

I am glad to hear that, believe it or not (:

Next time, please tag me in the post so I get a notification. I just happen to see this post and otherwise wouldn’t have responded at all.

 I held off because it looked to me as if 
↪Jamal
 might be about to do something in accord with the guidelines, but it seems not.

Unless @Jamal would like to make the horrifying but typical liberal mistake of censoring those that have different philosophical views than them that help further the discussion on major political issues in America, I would suggest that the best response to a view that one gravely disagrees with is to contend with it and dismantle it for all to see instead of trying to put it in pandora’s box.

I would like to also say that I am disappointed that you decided to report the thread instead of contending with the ideas; especially since this touches on a very interesting debate between liberals and conservatives in america right now—this isn’t a niche position I am taking here (at least in America). The fact you would prefer it get censored is disheartening to me.

You claim your approach is neo-Aristotelian, but apart from the name, there's nothing to indicate why

Good question! It is Aristotelian because I am using his metaphysics through-and-through here, albeit it more Aristo-thomistic. The key metaphysical distinction I am making between the form and matter of a human is Aristotelian; and the very concepts of ‘substance’, ‘soul’, etc. I used are Aristotelian.

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

Interesting you would say that, considering I am openly using Aristotle’s metaphysics. A substance for Aristotle is an essentially ordered unity that exists by itself (e.g., water, iron, etc.) as opposed to an unessentially ordered unity for another (e.g., a chair, a table, etc.). Essentially vs. unessentially ordered unities is an essential aspect of Aristotelian thought.

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’s fine, but this would also be true for an essence as used in Aristotelian thought if one accepts possible world theory. I personally don’t, but I am willing to grant it for the sake of our conversation to see what you are thinking. An essence is just a quiddity: it is that is essential to a thing that makes it that thing. This is perfectly compatible with your description (although it is not a definition), given possible world theory, that it is about predicates “attributed to an individual in every possible world in which it exists”. That is just to reiterate, without defining an essence, that an in every possible world in which a being exists it would have to have its essential properties.

That is a much more workable definition than the nonsense of "that which makes something what it is, and not something else".

It’s just a broader definition that doesn’t require possible worlds theory. PWT has many issues with it.

CC: @Leontiskos

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.
…
Do you follow this? Should I dumb it down a bit more? 

If you and I were in the middle ages, I would imagine you as a priest and me as a peasant and you would be mocking me for not being able to read the Bible while also refusing to teach me how to read.

Sex is physical, gender is social. Your insistence that they are the same substance is ridiculous

I am not interested in throwing insults back and forth, but I do want to note that you suggested I am too stupid to understand possible worlds theory in modal logic and then blatantly used the term ‘substance’ incorrectly. Neither gender nor sex are a substance…

Irregardless: why do you believe gender is “social”? How would you define each?

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”

Yeah, but that wasn’t applied to people (except in rare cases); and it was used to refer to something other than a person that couldn’t be meaningfully given a gender. ‘Neuter’ doesn’t refer to an actual third gender: it is a lack of gender.

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.

Banno, I noted many times in this thread that I don’t mind if someone wants to make a virtual distinction between sex and gender: I am purposefully collapsing them to avoid confusion. Someone could make essentially the same view I am but conceptually separate gender and sex. The issue liberals have is that they try to make them really distinct as opposed to virtually distinct.

Your show of kindness is admirable.

It should be made explicit that the views advocated in the OP are not only fraught with philosophical difficulties, but that they are ethically questionable. You and I have discussed elsewhere how there is a tendency amongst conservatives, and especially Christian conservatives, to think of themselves as the arbiters of morality, as possessing a special moral authority. It is well worth pointing out that their views on topics such as gender, abortion, capital punishment, race and so on are widely considered immoral.

We ought point both to the inconsistencies in their account, and also to the poverty of the underlying sentiment.

The core here is that the contents of one's underwear is not generally a suitable justification for one's role in society. The lie being promulgated is that of illegitimately inferring normative obligations from biological facts.

tag me in the post — Bob Ross

My apologies - that was not intentional.

Jamal will do as he pleases. I was simply wishing to stay out of his way.

...you decided to report the thread... — Bob Ross

I did no such thing. However to be clear, if it were in my power I would delete the thread as failing, under the mentioned guidelines. But it's not my call.

Perhaps my concern with regard to Aristotelian substances would be clearer if it were treated as a rhetorical critique: It seems to me, and I suspect to others, that your OP seeks to justify an immoral position by invoking an antique, superseded metaphysic. Not a strong move.

"Quiddity" treats essence as a thing to be discovered. Few would now take such an account seriously. There's a good few problems with that approach. How are we to understand quiddity apart from our conceptual apparatus - apart from our use of language? Possible world semantics makes no such metaphysical commitment. But further, it's not a question of choosing or rejecting possible world semantics, as if it were a mere dogma of modality; it is, whether you like it or not, the very language in which modality is made coherent.

I am purposefully collapsing them to avoid confusion. — Bob Ross

And yet the result of that "purposeful collapse" is an inability to distinguish constructed social role from biological fact, and the claim to have demonstrated that biology determines social role.

You do no have to attend a drag show, but you have not given good reason to prevent others from doing so.

It should be made explicit that the views advocated in the OP are not only fraught with philosophical difficulties, but that they are ethically questionable. You and I have discussed elsewhere how there is a tendency amongst conservatives, and especially Christian conservatives, to think of themselves as the arbiters of morality, as possessing a special moral authority. It is well worth pointing out that their views on topics such as gender, abortion, capital punishment, race and so on are widely considered immoral. — Banno

There is a moral arbiter here, but you've not identified him. He is the one always working behind the scenes to try to censor the things he disagrees with instead of arguing against them.

The core here is that the contents of one's underwear is not generally a suitable justification for one's role in society. — Banno

So would you argue with that the role of fertilizing ova does not belong to males and the role of bearing children through pregnancy does not belong to females? Let's see some arguments instead of ad hominem insults and the casting of aspersions. If you can only produce such sub-rational censorship, then it's no wonder the world is not buying what you're selling. The vast majority of people in the world and even in your culture are well aware that there are distinctively male acts and distinctively female acts, such as fertilizing ova and bearing children through pregnancy. Pretending everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot won't change that.

-

- Good points. :up:

...instead of arguing against them — Leontiskos

Again, I did not report this thread. And I am here, presenting arguments. And again, you would make this a thread about me, fabricating responses instead of reading them - as exemplified in your quite irrational main paragraph. Fertilising an ovum and bearing a child are not social roles. Un already pointed this out. It's you who repeatedly relies on ad homs.

Blatantly, it is you who is not responding to the arguments here.

Your vindictiveness is a bore, Leon.

you didn't even try to answer the question, because you know I am right that the sex organs are not designed to be put in the anus (irregardless if you think men will tend to do it or tend to like to do it). — Bob Ross

One's penis can go anywhere one chooses (with consent). But anal sex is not compulsory, right? No one is saying it is, although it's a common heterosexual activity. And a question of 'design' has not been demonstrated. A penis fits inside holes. Are you also against sticking a penis in a woman's mouth? Where do you get the idea that any particular kind of sex act is somehow wrong?

Yes. You are suggesting that if the negative consequences of doing the right thing are too great, then we shouldn't do it. If I could only save myself from extreme torture as opposed to simply getting murdered by murdering someone else, that wouldn't magically make me murdering someone permissible. What if me murdering this person saved the rest of humanity from endless suffering? Still not permissible. — Bob Ross

Thomson's violinist analogy is so obviously right in its conclusion, I can't fathom the thought processes required to come to the conclusion that, yes, you should be forced by the state to stay bedridden for 9 months after being kidnapped and hooked up to a person. That it should be illegal and you should be punished for choosing to unplug from that situation. Just to be clear, is that really your position?

You didn't even try to answer the question, because you know I am right that the sex organs are not designed to be put in the anus (irregardless if you think men will tend to do it or tend to like to do it). — Bob Ross

My point is that gay men aren't the only ones with the desire to put their sex organs into questionable orifices. The fact that they desire anal sex with other men cannot be held against them (as you obviously intended it to be) since straight men also have the same desire.

https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/crime/2018/05/03/kansas-man-arrested-for-attempted-sex-with-car/12322358007/

I don't know if the guy in the story was straight or not, but it really makes no difference, since it's equally plausible that a gay or straight man would try and fuck a car.

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

Correct. What I'm espousing is the definition of gender according to modern day gender theory as I understand it. It is fine to disagree with it.

Most people are sadly moved by emotion and not reason. — Bob Ross

This is an easy mentality for intelligent and learned people to fall into. I fell into this mistake once as well, so I speak from experience. We are moved by both emotion and reason. Some people are more invested emotionally, others rationally. But we all serve different purposes. I'm not sure what religion you follow, but regardless in Christianity Jesus' continual message was to not think that we are above other people because we are superior to others in our own way. Knowing about Jesus did not make his disciples better than other people, it was that they had the gift of knowing the sacrifice of forgiveness and this grace was to inspire them to spread the message despite personal hardships in doing so.

His disciples bickered over who they thought would be at Jesus right hand when he ascended to heaven. The Pharisees and Saducees, Jewish priests of their day, thought that their knowledge put them above the common people. Jesus admonished them all. In Christianity, Jesus is essentially God. And yet he washed the feet of unclean women, forgave the low and despised in society, and literally died for what are essentially bugs beneath Gods feet. That was the lesson. Might, reason, beauty, power are to be of service for each other. We cannot look down on one another because of our differences. We are all in it together under God. Whether you believe that particular religion or not, there is a powerful message of what a divine being would be like and how it views us.

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. — Bob Ross

Having spoken with you over the years I am sure you have nothing but good intentions. However, this is a philosophy board and not a political one. Being simple in language is a virtue, but treating people here as simple is not. People want to be inspired by thinking about something in an enlightened way, not riled up against a perceived enemy. The enemy is not other people here, but unclear thinking captured by unwarranted assertions and unexamined assumptions.

You personally see trans people as deviant. I see trans people as people with the free choice in how to live. Others think trans people should get to change the rest of how society lives and thinks. But are we talking with each other, or at each other?

Some of the push back against you here I see as unwarranted, but some of it is warranted. Declaring without a carefully reasoned and referenced view as to why trans people are sexually deviant is an attack on a section of people, which I feel we should all be careful in doing in a thinking forum. What makes them deviant? What studies and or moral theories lead to this conclusion? Is this really the point and focus of your OP? Politics is about assertions and control. Philosophy is about questioning, exploring, and understanding. It is why I avoid politics in philosophical discussions, because I feel the two can rarely meet together properly.

Just a reminder not to get too wrapped up in passion that we forget the role of philosophy here. Careful definitions, attacks on words and not people, and listening to and addressing others concerns even if it appears they are not being charitable back.

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... — Leontiskos

Fertilising an ovum and bearing a child are not social roles. — Banno

Why not? Do you have any arguments, or only assertions?

Given your continual lack of argumentation and philosophical engagement, I will guess at your rationale, as it always proves futile to try to get you to give an argument yourself:

The probable reason you reject bearing children (and fertilizing ova) as social roles is because you are begging the question. You think: <If something pertains to sex, then it is not a social role; bearing children pertains to sex; therefore bearing children is not a social role>. This is of course fallacious reasoning which depends on the very conclusion you were meant to prove. Other, similar arguments suffer the same fate, e.g.: <A power one is born with cannot ground a social role; the ability to bear children is a power females are born with; therefore the bearing of children is not a social role>.

(At this point in the conversation your usual route is to fault me for guessing at your arguments, and you will call my guesses strawmen. But again, if you are not willing to provide your own arguments then I can do little more than guess. If what I have presented are strawmen, then you will have to offer the alternative to the strawmen. If you cannot offer any alternative, then there is no reason to believe my guesses are strawmen.)

Straight man like anal sex too. — RogueAI

Well, would you concede that coitus is more reproductively advantageous than anal sex, and therefore better insofar as the reproduction of the species is concerned? And if one accepts the theory of Darwinian evolution, then they would probably also concede that because coitus contributes more to a species' survival than anal sex, evolution therefore favors coitus in a special way. This is why a Darwinian evolutionist such as Richard Dawkins is also quite skeptical of the claims of gender theory, particularly when those claims are taken to the remarkable conclusions which many activists promote. If a species does not enact and favor the uniqueness of coitus, then they fail to understand their own reproductive means.

This is an instance of what Gad Saad calls "suicidal empathy," e.g. the desire to be so "empathetic" that one no longer recognizes any reproductive difference between the act of coitus and other sexual acts. The reasoning goes: <If we recognize that an opposite-sex couple has greater reproductive power than a same-sex couple, then we are failing to be empathetic and egalitarian; We cannot fail to be empathetic and egalitarian; Therefore, we cannot recognize that an opposite-sex couple has greater reproductive power than a same-sex couple>. Saad sees that sort of reasoning as suicidal at the species-level given that it disregards the survival of the species. The more general form of the reasoning is: <My idea is so good and so right, that the possibility that it will destroy the whole is irrelevant>.