Excluding one tenth of a percentage is not arbitrary, then? — Echarmion
It's not just the transgender movement though. As was pointed out in the OP, the idea is also supported by parts of the feminist movement. — Echarmion
Things are never "true by definition", unless you think definitions can be true or false. If your argument is "true by definition", it just means your constructed your definition in a way to preclude the conclusion - i.e. your argument is circular. — Echarmion
The behaviors that are acceptable expressions of masculinity / feminity have changed a lot over the past, say, 50 years. If you want to look at sports, look at the changed status of female leagues in many traditionally masculine sports. Association football in Europe is one example. 20 years ago, noone cared about the female teams, now at least the international tournaments garner significant media attention.
The position of women in politics has also changed dramatically. So has the status of "stay at home dads" and in general the role model for fatherhood. — Echarmion
So, in your view, does nature precede culture? If not, then how do you prevent your theory from falling into an infinite regress? — Harry Hindu
Wrong. I said that biology is impossible if not for the differences and similarities. If there aren't just two sexes, then why don't humans have a wide range of features? Why don't some of have trunks for noses, tails, or some other organs that we might or might not refer to as sexual, or gender? Here's the quote:
If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.
Why are these five traits occurring together in such large numbers as to create these clusters of biological realities? — Harry Hindu
If differences between bodies are real, then how is it that doesn't determine "fate"? — Harry Hindu
Our similarities or difference in form explains the differences in behavior. Can you lift a large fallen tree with your nose? An elephant can.
If social constructionism isn't a cause, but a state, then what is it that you propose to change (the cause) that leads to a new effect (gender-neutrality)? Also, how is it that you have come to realize any of this on your own if your ideas are simply the result of cultural constructionism and the culture you grew up in constructed a binary concept of sex and gender? — Harry Hindu
First, thanks for your participation in the thread.I am referring to different stages of an individuals life, I'd say, if you were assigned a gender at birth you're powerless to argue against that until you're at least eleven.
It is not my argument, I think gender being socially constructed is a ludicrous notion. I don't think you are representing your opposition as well as you could but I don't feel like arguing further about this.
Good luck arguing against those who think gender is socially constructed, I've given up on them. — Judaka
This seems like a contradiction. Nature does precede culture as nature is the amalgam of all states/environments.Nature does not precede culture. Environment and culture are part of nature. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes! This is what I've suggested before in this thread and in others. The science article in the OP mentions this idea as well. Could it be that we are beginning to see eye to eye - that gender isn't just a social construction?Any time a body causes anything, it interacts with its environment. There is no biological cause without an environment. There is no impact of the environment without the affected person's biology. The Nature vs Nurture dichotomy is a myth. — TheWillowOfDarkness
There are genes that are influenced by the environment - sure. This is a natural process and is has a scientific name for it - epigenetics. Another field of science that I mentioned - evolutionary psychology - posits the idea that our minds are affected by natural selection as well.Let's say a person has gene which causes them to have a trait. The genetic effect cannot occur without the environment a person interacts with. They present with this genetic event only if the environment allows. If they were in a different environment, one which would alter the gene/what the gene produces, a different trait would have been caused. Genes cannot have their effect without an impact of environment. No genetic event occurs without its suitable environment. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Agreed. Like I said, you can't lift a fallen tree with your nose and you also can't teach an elephant English.Similarly, an environmental or cultural impact on someone's behaviour or traits cannot occur without their genetics and wider biological. A human, for example, can only be influenced to learn a language or cultural practice because their body/biology responds in a particular way. If human biology was different, if we didn't generate these sorts of experiences in response to social environment, we wouldn't be subject to a cultural influence. If my body didn't respond to hearing people speak by learning language, no-one would be able to teach me their language. To be socially influenced, I need my particular body, my biology. — TheWillowOfDarkness
There's no infinite regress now that you've admitted that everything isn't socially constructed, not because biology and environment were never isolated - which is just wrong. Biology is a recent state of affairs in the universe - an exponential increase in complexity in this corner of the universe - one that came about thanks to the sustainable energy the sun has provided over the past 4.5 billion years. Environments have always existed since the Big Bang. Biology has not. In other words, nature precedes all, as everything is part of nature.There is no infinite regress because biology and environment were never isolated. SOmeone who exists is, at all times, a product of both biological and environment states. There are no causal events which are the body or environment isolated. Every single state of a person is a product of biology and environment. There is never one without the other. — TheWillowOfDarkness
So "gender" is a cultural characteristic - something that is part of the identity of a culture, not an individual, and "gender identity" is one's perception of one's self relative to this cultural characteristic of a particular culture? So, in essence one isn't changing one's "gender" when moving to a culture with a different "gender". They are changing their "gender identity". — Harry Hindu
So when someone says that they feel like a woman, they are referring to their gender identity, not their gender. Gender is a social construction and gender identity is not. Gender identity is a personal view. Is this all correct? — Harry Hindu
Perception of gender in terms of how we move our bodies, how we process perceptual information, how we perceive others in terms of sexual attraction, is not simple socially constructed. — Joshs
If I were to take you in a time machine back to when you were still in the womb and flood your brain with certain sex hormones , your brain physiology would be altered in terms of gendered perceptual-affective processing(such studies have been done on lab animals). — Joshs
I could steer you in more of a masculine or feminine direction. I'm not saying that the definition of masculinity and femininity is fixed, though. It changes throughout human history as a consequence of the interaction between biology and culture, but there is an underlying brain physiology basis that is independent of culture. — Joshs
It changes throughout human history as a consequence of the interaction between biology and culture
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.