IME trans people only accidentally sound like they are employing gender essentialism because of the conflation of gender with what I have dubbed “bearing”. — Pfhorrest
feelings at the thought of being more feminine, — Pfhorrest
feelings at the thought of being more feminine,
— Pfhorrest
... i.e. of having a different sexual essence, no? — bongo fury
That's just having an identity. There is no specific set of properties which amount to being more feminine or not. — TheWillowOfDarkness
But I get good feelings at the thought of being more feminine, just physically, not talking about anything social yet. — Pfhorrest
There is no specific set of properties which amount to being more feminine or not. — TheWillowOfDarkness
In a world where identity is properly understood, — TheWillowOfDarkness
Jordan Peterson claims that the term of identity should not be overused; he insists that the gender identities under the question should have been constructed through the continuous and long-term of social construction:In a world where identity is properly understood — TheWillowOfDarkness
Sure we categorize the world with words. Sex is an anatomical category, not a social identity. "Sex" refers to those differences of anatomy and their related functions and behaviors that exist in 99.9% organisms of all species that use sex to procreate.
"Man"/"Woman" are terms that refer to differences in species and not just sex. — Harry Hindu
Sex has in mind something more tham just difference in anatomy.
When we use sex, we are not dedicated to identifying anatomical parts. We are interested in identifying which people are male and which people are female. It’s why we don’t just point out an anatomical difference by describing their are different anatomical parts. It’s a self-defined identity. Rather than just describing what bodies people have, it’s an attempt to capture our bodies under specific conceptual meanings. Sex is a categorisation of who takes on an identity of male or female.
You’re right this is an attempt to identify a different species. Species is the same kind of category. If I assert an entity is a certain species, and so must have certain set of anatomical parts, I am making the same sort of argument defining a conceptual identity.
But it’s species which is the illusion (an antiscientific) here. For rather than taking anatomy and people on their own terms, describing bodies in terms of what states occur and are observed an each entity, species attempts to define existing bodies and entities through only our conceptual idea of which anatomy can belong to them on account of identity. The account it’s giving is working backwards.
Instead of looking out at the world, at an entity with identity and taking what bodily features it has, these accounts take species as anatomy, as if the body of entity could be defined merely by our concept of what must be. The approach is anti-scientific because it cannot track instances of the world in which a species exists or behaves in ways we do not expect. It’s using our expectations where the existence of an entity should rule. — TheWillowOfDarkness
i.e. of having a different sexual essence, no? — bongo fury
We are dropping the ball if we think dissatisfaction with bodies is merely a question of whether if someone with certain properties can belong to sex or gender. A paradise inclusive of sex and gender (in the sense of recognising both are identities in themselves, not given by any particular property or another) does not amount to overcoming dissatisfaction with bodies and social expectations surrounding it. — TheWillowOfDarkness
. Well, we all have membranes, and we can all spurt mucus.And in sexual intercourse that it is no more than the friction of a membrane and a spurt of mucus ejected.
The prominent trans woman of imagination would just be a woman, with a penis and dysphoria about her body. — TheWillowOfDarkness
What direct of trans would have anyone giving a fuck about any of that? — AmadeusD
Yeah, I don't see the issue. That is not what they wanted but it is socially acceptable concesssion. — AmadeusD
No one is afraid of David Smashfucker. — AmadeusD
They don't want trans women in women's prisons because they see trans women as latent rapists and predators - and so they'll put trans men in women's prisons, despite the fact they're putting someone they allegedly see as a woman in with a bunch of criminals and predators — fdrake
he only sensible explanation is that they'd be afraid of David Smashfucker for the same reason as they'd be afraid of any man in these spaces. Because they count socially as a man, and appear as one. — fdrake
rewritten sensibly with this in mind. — fdrake
The lobbyists had no idea how tough it was to get a GRC and also forgot trans men existed. — fdrake
Trans men in women's prisons means there are no predators there (in terms of the 'perception'). — AmadeusD
The lobbyists that forced this issue in the UK courts were principally concerned with not allowing rapists in vulnerable women's spaces. — fdrake
Imagine you're in a woman's prison and Buck Angel walks into the showers. A musclebound, steroid using, bodybuilder with a sixpack and thick bodyfur walks into womens' collective showers... — fdrake
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.