Even if one could prove that gender is 100% a social construct, this does not establish that gender is not useful. Money is a social construct, but is extremely useful to society. All languages are (highly useful) social constructs. Politeness is a social construct. Etc.
I would agree that certain prescriptive attitudes toward gender are not useful (e.g. "boys shouldn't play with dolls"). But there are other aspects of gender that are useful or neutral.
We have separate classrooms for children of different ages/grades too. We have separate classrooms for kids with various disabilities. Are you for uniting all those too? If not, you need to justify why this is the same while those aren't.
Except, you can skip grades or be held back. It's not about age (something you have no control over), it's about level of proficiency (something you do have control over), which just happens to track strongly with age.
What grade you're in is upwardly mobile. What bathroom you use is not.
The Equal Rights Amendment (which could "lead to women being drafted by the military and to public unisex bathrooms"[1]) was 3 states away from being a Constitutional Amendment. Seems like this is something the majority did want.
Do you still feel I haven't done this sufficiently with regards to toilets? Is there something more you're looking for? Because, I don't think YOU have answered this question sufficiently:
How can society think saying these toilets are for whites while these are for blacks is racist, but think these toilets are for men and these toilets are for women isn't sexist? We're segregating people's toilets based on sex. How isn't that sexism when segregating people's toilets by race is definitely racist?
Do you still feel I haven't done this sufficiently with regards to toilets?
You mean "at all with regards to the toilets"? No, you have not.
Is there something more you're looking for? Because I don't think you've answered this question sufficiently:
I'm not sure how you can claim saying these toilets are for whites while these are for blacks is racist. But saying these toilets are for men and these toilets are for women isn't sexist. You're segregating people's toilets based on sex. How isn't that sexism when segregating people's toilets by race is definitely racist?
Try reading his post.
Quote from Stairc »
Comparing to segregation of race isn't really equivalent. Men and women are in the same classrooms, are allowed to go to the same parks, drink from the same water fountains - it's only when an issue of nudity gets into the mix that separation is enforced. There's no "we don't serve you kind" going on here. There's no, "we don't want anything to do with your people, so go to a different school and live in a different neighborhood".
Now honestly, can we move this discussion back to something not-asinine?
You mean "at all with regards to the toilets"? No, you have not.
Is there something more you're looking for? Because I don't think you've answered this question sufficiently:
I'm not sure how you can claim saying these toilets are for whites while these are for blacks is racist. But saying these toilets are for men and these toilets are for women isn't sexist. You're segregating people's toilets based on sex. How isn't that sexism when segregating people's toilets by race is definitely racist?
Try reading his post.
Quote from Stairc »
Comparing to segregation of race isn't really equivalent. Men and women are in the same classrooms, are allowed to go to the same parks, drink from the same water fountains - it's only when an issue of nudity gets into the mix that separation is enforced. There's no "we don't serve you kind" going on here. There's no, "we don't want anything to do with your people, so go to a different school and live in a different neighborhood".
Now honestly, can we move this discussion back to something not-asinine?
What does classrooms, parks, and water fountains have to do with bathrooms? Do you think the Civil Rights movement would have been mollified if they had everything BUT bathrooms?
Not look, as I originally said, I don't except much movement on this for a long time. I'm not going to take to the streets with a picket sign or something. But, it seems to me this is sexual segregation, plan and simple. I would expect, especially as the LGBT movement becomes stronger, the need for separate bathrooms -based on separating sexual orientations- will be seen as historically obsolete. We already have transgender people petitioning public schools to be allowed to use the bathroom of their gender, not sex.[1] I think we're going to see more and more transgender people looking to use either bathroom. The logical conclusion to that push being unisex bathrooms.
But, all this is years off. The public -myself included- isn't ready.
I just added the World Health Organization's definition of gender and sex to the OP. Is that enough?
When it acknowledges that the term is "often" used differently in "scientific literature, health policy, and legislation"? It's definitely not enough to establish that the definition is the only "correct" one. The only meaningful way by which a word's definition can be said to be correct or incorrect is to look at the usage of the general language-speaking community. To say "lots of people use this word one way, but they're wrong" is pure nonsense.
What you can do is say, "For the purposes of this discussion, I'm using this more specific definition for this word". Scientists and philosophers do that all the time. It's not "incorrect" either. So setting aside its prescriptivist aside, we can absolutely use the WHO's definition here. My criticism is not that you're using the incorrect definition of the word; it's that you weren't being clear which definition you're using from the outset.
Until birth control was invented, women were forced to have the feminine gender roles that we are familiar with because pregnancy stops one from many kinds of work.
Absolutely. You're making my case for me. This isn't arbitrary.
What I am trying to say is this. Is there any reason, other than society saying "because that is how it is", that a female can't be named John? Is there any reason, other than society saying "because that is how it is", that a male can't like pink? Is there any reason, other than society saying "because that is how it is", that males can't wear skirts and females wear pants. If there is not a reason for it other than "that is just how it works and that is just what we want, deal with it", then it is clearly arbitrary.
Those traits are arbitrary. If those were the entirety of what "gender" is, then you would have successfully demonstrated that gender is arbitrary. But gender is huge. There are many components to it far beyond terminology and fashion. And we just saw above one component that wasn't arbitrary. What you're doing here, looking at some part of the whole and assuming that what's true of the part must be true of the whole, is called the fallacy of composition.
If gender didn't exist, I think that gender dysphoria wouldn't either.
Trans people apparently have an innate biological predisposition for a particular gender/gender role.
David Reimer, who was not medically a trans person, apparently had an innate biological predisposition for a particular gender/gender role.
There's a little fuzziness about what this implies logically that I won't go into, but surely it suggests at least a plausible alternate hypothesis that we all have innate biological predispositions for particular genders/gender roles. So the next question is, when you say "if gender didn't exist", what exactly are you saying? Because if you're speaking purely of eliminating the social trappings of gender, then the biological predispositions would still be there, which means everybody would feel dysphoric until they created new social trappings of gender.
A trait only improves survival ect. given a certain environment. And since changes in environment are arbitrary the traits are also arbitrary in this context. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.
You continue to abuse the concept of arbitrariness. It does not have the transitive property. Even if the environment you happen to find yourself in is arbitrary (and ours isn't), survival in that environment is not arbitrary. My decision to have a cheese sandwich for lunch may be arbitrary, but my subsequent decision to open the refrigerator is not: I have a good reason to open the refrigerator, because that's where the cheese is. The alternative is that this trait of "arbitrariness" infects absolutely everything - since we know of no good reason why the Big Bang itself happened the way it did rather than another - and thus becomes a completely trivial and useless concept. If your declaration of arbitrariness is to have meaning, you have to take the context in which the evaluation is being made as a given.
Imagine an asteroid had hit earth and there would have been a nuclear winter on the whole planet and human being would have started to live underground. Given enough time and evolutionary pressure we would have lost our eyes.
Again, for a non-arbitrary reason.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
@BlinkingSpirit:
You have shown that you don't have a full grasp of the basics of evolution. You don't understand what arbitrary means and act like I'm the one who does't understand. You only need to read the wiki article you linked yourself a bit more closely.
My position is "worthless" because you don't see the differnece between two completely different things. Sorry, but I don't see a reason to continue with this nonsense. You are wasting my time.
I think that the question is flawed as it conflates gender and gender roles.
Sex-Determined by genes and biological development
Gender-Determined by genes, biological development, and socialization
Gender Roles-Determined by socialization influenced heavily by observing the differences created by gene and biological development.
None of these things are immutable, over time genes change. For example deer being hunted with an emphasis on larger antlers has created populations with genes creating smaller antlers.
Those who believe that we would be better off without gender are making many of the same mistakes/errors in thinking that those who believe we would be better off without culture, parents, or traditions made. Not really desirable when you see the consequences and quite frankly not compatible with any society I would like to live in.
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
You have shown that you don't have a full grasp of the basics of evolution. You don't understand what arbitrary means and act like I'm the one who does't understand.
ar·bi·trar·y: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.[1]
"Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central idea in evolutionary theory. It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes individual reproductive success and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by an average individual of the specified genotype or phenotype."[2]
"Reproductive success" isn't "arbitrary." Unless you're claiming everything is "arbitrary"...
@BlinkingSpirit:
You have shown that you don't have a full grasp of the basics of evolution. You don't understand what arbitrary means and act like I'm the one who does't understand. You only need to read the wiki article you linked yourself a bit more closely.
My position is "worthless" because you don't see the differnece between two completely different things. Sorry, but I don't see a reason to continue with this nonsense. You are wasting my time.
Google the word arbitrary and you get this definition: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
That seems pretty close to Blinking's points. Where is there a misunderstanding?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
A person of the male sex who "identifies" as female is already strongly breaking societal expectations by acting in a way that is considered "wrong" vis a vis their sex, right? So why would such a person, at that point, care about societal expectations enough to alter the way they identify themselves? If gender is just a societal expectation and you don't care about societal expectations, then why not just identify by your sex, act whatever way you please and be done with it? I'm probably confusing two different concepts here, just wondering.
Actions lacking a telos, a goal, are necessarily arbitrary.
Evolution has no goal. There is no reason behind the process. A mutation doesn't happen with the purpose of making a species more fit to the environment, it happens randomly. The enviroment changes randomly. This all supports my original point, that we could have evolved differently, which is by no means the least bit controvercial. It seems to me that BS is just trying to pick a fight, to argue for the sake of arguing. Sorry, but I have better things to do.
Actions lacking a telos, a goal, are necessarily arbitrary.
Evolution has no goal. There is no reason behind the process.
So, you also feel the Laws of Thought are "arbitrary?" That the laws of physics are "arbitrary?" That Logic -which we use in all intelligent discussion- is "arbitrary?" What is contradictory or what is sensible is "arbitrary."
Then, I guess as I said, you do think everything is "arbitrary." Hard to argue against that stance, since you would judge my argument right or wrong arbitrarily. I guess you're right, arguing with you would be a waste of time.
Instead of changing the suspect you could tell me with which of those sentences you quoted you disagree:
(1) Evolution has no goal/ there is no reason behind the process.
(2) Actions lacking a goal are necessarily arbitrary.
Instead of changing the suspect you could tell me with which of those sentences you quoted you disagree.
I'm not disagreeing with either. I'm stating that attempting to have a logical discussion with someone that feels logic is arbitrary it's worth anyone's time. Thus, I'm agreeing with you. You and BS debating is a waste, an arbitrary waste at that.
Instead of changing the suspect you could tell me with which of those sentences you quoted you disagree.
I'm not disagreeing with either. I'm stating that attempting to have a logical discussion with someone that feels logic is arbitrary it's worth anyone's time.
Where did I say logic is arbitrary? The rules of logic have a goal, namely to avoid contradictions.
Dietl, Gravity has no guiding thought or process behind it. So if someone drops a ball, the fact it falls instead of floats is arbitrary?
If you're using such a broad definition, you aren't refuting BS. BS is pointing out that gender roles aren't just things that magically got made up in various cultures without rhyme or reason. The reasons might be flawed, or no longer valid in society, but it wasn't like someone flipped a coin and decided all men will be the workers/hunters and all women will raise the children - then faxed the result of that coin flip to most cultures in the world. It wasn't arbitrary in that sense.
When you attempt to use such a broad definition of the word arbitrary here, you aren't refuting BS' point. His point is that these gender roles originally arose for specific reasons. It would be equivalent to him saying, "If you drop something and it falls, there's a reason that it falls. It's not arbitrary whether it falls or floats." And you replying, "Gravity IS arbitrary! It has no guiding thought behind it!"
Show me the contradictions, please. It is very well possible that I made mistakes.
You feel that logic does have telos, despite being unable to explain why contradictions aren't the goal of logic.
Yet, you feel that evolution doesn't have telos because I can't explain why extinction isn't the goal of evolution.
The fallacy/contradiction here is Special pleading.Just to be clear, I don't think either systems have 'telos,' but neither do I think them 'arbitrary.' They both clearly follow a system or reason. ar·bi·trar·y: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
If anything, things with telos seem arbitrary to me because normally that goal is based on someone's personal choice or whim. WHY is "the virtue of a good knife to be sharp?"[1] WHY is cutting the 'goal' of knifes?
@Stairc: Sorry but I feel every reply I would make would just be a repetition of what I already said. I don't want to say the same things over and over again.
@Tyler: Special pleading is a fallacy. A fallacy is not a contradictory but an ivalid argument. Either way my statement aren't even special pleading since I don't say everything is arbitrary.
The feeding is now officially over. I hope you are full, because I'm out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would agree that certain prescriptive attitudes toward gender are not useful (e.g. "boys shouldn't play with dolls"). But there are other aspects of gender that are useful or neutral.
What grade you're in is upwardly mobile. What bathroom you use is not.
The Equal Rights Amendment (which could "lead to women being drafted by the military and to public unisex bathrooms"[1]) was 3 states away from being a Constitutional Amendment. Seems like this is something the majority did want. Do you still feel I haven't done this sufficiently with regards to toilets? Is there something more you're looking for? Because, I don't think YOU have answered this question sufficiently:
How can society think saying these toilets are for whites while these are for blacks is racist, but think these toilets are for men and these toilets are for women isn't sexist? We're segregating people's toilets based on sex. How isn't that sexism when segregating people's toilets by race is definitely racist?
Try reading his post.
Now honestly, can we move this discussion back to something not-asinine?
Not look, as I originally said, I don't except much movement on this for a long time. I'm not going to take to the streets with a picket sign or something. But, it seems to me this is sexual segregation, plan and simple. I would expect, especially as the LGBT movement becomes stronger, the need for separate bathrooms -based on separating sexual orientations- will be seen as historically obsolete. We already have transgender people petitioning public schools to be allowed to use the bathroom of their gender, not sex.[1] I think we're going to see more and more transgender people looking to use either bathroom. The logical conclusion to that push being unisex bathrooms.
But, all this is years off. The public -myself included- isn't ready.
What you can do is say, "For the purposes of this discussion, I'm using this more specific definition for this word". Scientists and philosophers do that all the time. It's not "incorrect" either. So setting aside its prescriptivist aside, we can absolutely use the WHO's definition here. My criticism is not that you're using the incorrect definition of the word; it's that you weren't being clear which definition you're using from the outset.
Absolutely. You're making my case for me. This isn't arbitrary.
Those traits are arbitrary. If those were the entirety of what "gender" is, then you would have successfully demonstrated that gender is arbitrary. But gender is huge. There are many components to it far beyond terminology and fashion. And we just saw above one component that wasn't arbitrary. What you're doing here, looking at some part of the whole and assuming that what's true of the part must be true of the whole, is called the fallacy of composition.
Trans people apparently have an innate biological predisposition for a particular gender/gender role.
David Reimer, who was not medically a trans person, apparently had an innate biological predisposition for a particular gender/gender role.
There's a little fuzziness about what this implies logically that I won't go into, but surely it suggests at least a plausible alternate hypothesis that we all have innate biological predispositions for particular genders/gender roles. So the next question is, when you say "if gender didn't exist", what exactly are you saying? Because if you're speaking purely of eliminating the social trappings of gender, then the biological predispositions would still be there, which means everybody would feel dysphoric until they created new social trappings of gender.
If you cannot build a coherent argument for your position in a debate forum, then your position is worthless.
You continue to abuse the concept of arbitrariness. It does not have the transitive property. Even if the environment you happen to find yourself in is arbitrary (and ours isn't), survival in that environment is not arbitrary. My decision to have a cheese sandwich for lunch may be arbitrary, but my subsequent decision to open the refrigerator is not: I have a good reason to open the refrigerator, because that's where the cheese is. The alternative is that this trait of "arbitrariness" infects absolutely everything - since we know of no good reason why the Big Bang itself happened the way it did rather than another - and thus becomes a completely trivial and useless concept. If your declaration of arbitrariness is to have meaning, you have to take the context in which the evaluation is being made as a given.
Which, of course, is a non-arbitrary reason not to have eyes.
Again, for a non-arbitrary reason.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You have shown that you don't have a full grasp of the basics of evolution. You don't understand what arbitrary means and act like I'm the one who does't understand. You only need to read the wiki article you linked yourself a bit more closely.
My position is "worthless" because you don't see the differnece between two completely different things. Sorry, but I don't see a reason to continue with this nonsense. You are wasting my time.
Sex-Determined by genes and biological development
Gender-Determined by genes, biological development, and socialization
Gender Roles-Determined by socialization influenced heavily by observing the differences created by gene and biological development.
None of these things are immutable, over time genes change. For example deer being hunted with an emphasis on larger antlers has created populations with genes creating smaller antlers.
Those who believe that we would be better off without gender are making many of the same mistakes/errors in thinking that those who believe we would be better off without culture, parents, or traditions made. Not really desirable when you see the consequences and quite frankly not compatible with any society I would like to live in.
"Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central idea in evolutionary theory. It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes individual reproductive success and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by an average individual of the specified genotype or phenotype."[2]
"Reproductive success" isn't "arbitrary." Unless you're claiming everything is "arbitrary"...
Google the word arbitrary and you get this definition:
Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
That seems pretty close to Blinking's points. Where is there a misunderstanding?
Evolution has no goal. There is no reason behind the process. A mutation doesn't happen with the purpose of making a species more fit to the environment, it happens randomly. The enviroment changes randomly. This all supports my original point, that we could have evolved differently, which is by no means the least bit controvercial. It seems to me that BS is just trying to pick a fight, to argue for the sake of arguing. Sorry, but I have better things to do.
Then, I guess as I said, you do think everything is "arbitrary." Hard to argue against that stance, since you would judge my argument right or wrong arbitrarily. I guess you're right, arguing with you would be a waste of time.
(1) Evolution has no goal/ there is no reason behind the process.
(2) Actions lacking a goal are necessarily arbitrary.
Where did I say logic is arbitrary? The rules of logic have a goal, namely to avoid contradictions.
Fitness of what?
The contradictions of what? Statements.
If you're using such a broad definition, you aren't refuting BS. BS is pointing out that gender roles aren't just things that magically got made up in various cultures without rhyme or reason. The reasons might be flawed, or no longer valid in society, but it wasn't like someone flipped a coin and decided all men will be the workers/hunters and all women will raise the children - then faxed the result of that coin flip to most cultures in the world. It wasn't arbitrary in that sense.
When you attempt to use such a broad definition of the word arbitrary here, you aren't refuting BS' point. His point is that these gender roles originally arose for specific reasons. It would be equivalent to him saying, "If you drop something and it falls, there's a reason that it falls. It's not arbitrary whether it falls or floats." And you replying, "Gravity IS arbitrary! It has no guiding thought behind it!"
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Yet, you feel that evolution doesn't have telos because I can't explain why extinction isn't the goal of evolution.
The fallacy/contradiction here is Special pleading.
Just to be clear, I don't think either systems have 'telos,' but neither do I think them 'arbitrary.' They both clearly follow a system or reason.
ar·bi·trar·y: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
If anything, things with telos seem arbitrary to me because normally that goal is based on someone's personal choice or whim. WHY is "the virtue of a good knife to be sharp?"[1] WHY is cutting the 'goal' of knifes?
@Tyler: Special pleading is a fallacy. A fallacy is not a contradictory but an ivalid argument. Either way my statement aren't even special pleading since I don't say everything is arbitrary.
The feeding is now officially over. I hope you are full, because I'm out.