- I wonder to what degree the assumption of socially constructed gender is really an excuse for submissive gay men, to play the female role - without experiencing the psychological implications of submission? — counterpunch
The concepts of masculine and feminine, as well as our attitudes about transgenderism and homosexuality, are largely shaped by our culture. I'm not sure if I need to argue the point. Do I, or can you accept this?
— praxis
I don't accept this... why do you think that? — counterpunch
Interesting that you import sexuality into this discussion. I didn't raise it, but now you have - I wonder to what degree the assumption of socially constructed gender is really an excuse for submissive gay men, to play the female role - without experiencing the psychological implications of submission? — counterpunch
I think there's some biological basis for gender, just as I think there may be a biological basis for liberalism vs conservativism. Liberals are believed to be naturally more open to new experiences and that's could be the biological basis for being generally progressive rather than conservative. Nevertheless, it's obvious that culture plays a large role in how these propensities may develop. No one is born knowing gender role norms, for example. — praxis
culture plays a large role in how these propensities may develop. — praxis
Whatever the case, on further reading of the topic I see that you brought up the issue of gender politics as "an example of how facts are disposable to the left" and therefore not distinguishable from what I'll call Trumpism. — praxis
I can only assume that you either fail to appreciate the difference between institutional facts and empirical facts, or that you're deliberately presenting a weak argument in order to mislead. We don't need to look any further than the number of votes that Trump received in the 2020 election and the number of objectively false statements that he's made over his term in office to get a good indication of how much the American right values truth, and compare those numbers to left-wing administrations. — praxis
I've read this several times and can't make sense out it. Can you rephrase the question? — praxis
This might help you understand how gender roles vary by culture. — frank
Interesting that you import sexuality into this discussion. I didn't raise it, but now you have - I wonder to what degree the assumption of socially constructed gender is really an excuse for submissive gay men, to play the female role - without experiencing the psychological implications of submission? — counterpunch
Reds under the bed! — counterpunch
One of the cheats in the gender discussion is the construction "gender assigned at birth". 999 times out of a 1000 gender is identified by glancing at the external genitals. The number of situations where sex organs are so ambiguous that a doctor would need to arbitrarily "assign" a sex is very small. Use of the verb "assigned" is a clever way of asserting that gender is arbitrary.
There is some validity to your observation. It could be extended to say "socially constructed gender" is a justification for men and women whose sexual orientation falls in the middle of the Kinsey scale to experiment with cross dressing, cross-role playing, changing pronouns, etc. Some males (no idea how many) may just find the female gender role more attractive (whether or not they are gay). (Sexual orientation is different than gender confusion.) — Bitter Crank
I have not misunderstood. The point is that the given evidence of patterns does not fit with the conclusions about which trait belongs of which people in the given analysis.I quote this line, but refer to all of your argument up to this point. You have misunderstood. Boys have tendencies toward physical spatial play - and girls toward social play. It's very well noted in the literature. These are not one-off experimental results. And it doesn't mean those behaviours are exclusive; but that there are distinct differences in patterns of play. Given a room full of toys, boys will instinctively go for the cars and footballs - whereas girls will go for the dolls. Piaget is not some left wing undergraduate psych student - he spent his life studying developmental psychology. Why impugn his professionalism? — counterpunch
That's just not correct; not least because it's not nature "vs" nurture. No-one with any education would see these as exclusive. It doesn't happen, and never has. It's always been that both nature and nurture influence development, but often one is more influential. Lefties want everything to be nurture - so they can subject it to their identity politics dogma. They construe gender as a social construction - but then, I think you should read the story of David Reimer. Dr Money's conclusions were premature to say the least - and yet still form the basis of left wing gender politics dogma. — counterpunch
That is quite possibly the maddest paragraph ever written in the English language. Barring incredibly rare genetic abnormalities, a human being with a penis is a man. Not "categorized as a man." But as a matter of biological fact, the penis owner IS a man. Incredibly rare exceptions - such as hermaphrodites, do not invalidate the fact a human with a penis IS a man. That way madness lies - and that's precisely the intent of left wing, post modernist, neo marxist, political correctness bigots and bullies, regardless of the harm their crazy making causes. — counterpunch
The argument you are making, suggesting that girl and boys only have a “nature” because more of them behave in some way, is outright lying about what occurs empirically. — TheWillowOfDarkness
You misunderstand. I was not suggesting any people were claiming development was only nature or only nature, my point was that each influence was both nature and nature. So there is no opposition of nature effects and nurture effects at all. — TheWillowOfDarkness
don't think it does, partly because it's nothing I didn't already know, secondly because it's hunter-gatherer tribal culture, and lastly because I'm talking about my culture, which is under attack by an enemy within. Reds under the bed! A fifth column of post modernist, neo-Marxist political correctness bigots and bullies - hacking away at the very foundations of Western civilisation. — counterpunch
This is how you respond to a reasoned response. — frank
It wasn't a reasoned argument. You didn't make a point - you gave me homework, posting a link without picking out what you think is relevant. — counterpunch
Did you read the case of David Reimer? Circumcision gone wrong; so they surgically turned him into a girl, and raised him as a girl in ignorance - and his maleness re-asserted itself in later life. — counterpunch
... supposed victims are getting put in line ahead of me, purely on the basis of their arbitrary characteristics. — counterpunch
Of course you think that I don't understand, or am dishonest. How else could I possibly disagree with the politically correct dogma if there weren't something wrong with me? You say my arguments are weak?! You've used an appeal to the worst example, and now an ad hominem attack upon the clarity or honesty of my thought. That's weak. — counterpunch
I've read this several times and can't make sense out it. Can you rephrase the question?
— praxis
No. Consider it rhetorical. I'm not that interested! — counterpunch
On the basis of their disadvantage, rather. — praxis
Your "argument" is essentially that because liberals hold institutional beliefs they don't value truth any more that Trumpers. — praxis
On the basis of their disadvantage, rather.
— praxis
Disadvantage someone is assumed to have, on the basis of their arbitrary characteristics. Reversing that, making those arbitrary characteristics an advantage through positive discrimination is not fair to the majority. It's discrimination against people like me - a white working class straight man with no 'ism' card to play, whose identity - allow me to assure you, confers no particular advantages, less yet privilege! — counterpunch
Trump aside — counterpunch
I can’t speak for the UK but Jim Crow laws that were enforced up until only around 55 years ago institutionalized economic, educational, and social disadvantages for African Americans. Deeply engrained societal norms don’t change quickly, you may have noticed, especially when there is a strong conservative population that resists progressive reform. — praxis
Lol, yes, Trump is a rather inconvenient truth for the shit that you’re trying to sell so let’s put him aside. — praxis
can't speak for the US, but it does seem they didn't handle ending slavery very well. If only the colonies had been returned to rightful rule of Her Majesty - all this could have been avoided! Still, now - it's not being handled very well by progressives either. — counterpunch
It's just that the identity of man isn't given by the presence of the biological state of a penis (as seen in all those expectations who pretend don't have relevance), but rather through the identity itself. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Trump's election tactics were a parody of left wing techniques - identity politics played for political advantage, divide and conquer, post truth deception, and so on. Trump gave the left a taste of their own medicine, and that was a departure for the right. — counterpunch
In 2012, Obama shut down the collection of data on Arrest Related Death by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. — counterpunch
the disparity between the statistics and the social media generated narrative — counterpunch
BLM got a Nobel fucking prize! — counterpunch
According to BJS ARD data collection was suspended in 2014 because of challenges related to under-reporting and the program was redesigned and data collection resumed in 2015. That’s what I found with a quick search anyway. If this is inaccurate perhaps you could provide links or other verification of your claims. — praxis
What’s the disparity? — praxis
They were nominated, though they did just win Sweden's Olof Palme human rights prize for 2020 for promoting "peaceful civil disobedience against police brutality and racial violence" around the world. — praxis
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.