0:40 "It is true that from a biological standpoint we are either born as females or males" well, that isn't so obvious, yes, gametes are either an egg or a sperm cell, but we don't view humans this way, when someone does not produce gametes we don't look at them as not having sex. When we look at genitals there are possibilities for humans to have a in-between genitals (2-5 on the Quigley scale). When we look at chromosomes there is a possibility of humans having XXX, XXY or XYY chromosomes. I came across arguments that these are anomalies, and therefore shouldn't be taken into account, but this is simply not how things work, if you say you can classify humans into 2 distinct categories, then come across humans that you can't, you can't just dismiss this, this means that you can't classify humans into 2 distinct categories. To clarify, I'm not saying that sex doesn't exists or anything like that, I'm saying, that even in humans, things aren't so simple and require discussion. 0:56 "it is a fact that in our language we have only a possibility to refer to someone as either male or female" well, both in English and Polish (to languages that I believe we have in common) you can refer to someone in a different way, in English you can use singular "they" to refer to a person of an unknown gender or to a person who does not wish to be referred too by either he or she and this has been in use at least since Shakespireian times and in Polish you do have the neuter form, not to mention other languages that have such capabilities. 1:06 the medical term used is "Gender dysphoria", the word dysmorphia is used to refer to "Body dysmorphia", this of course doesn't invalidate any claim but I just wanted to specify that. 1:59 This is not the only reason that we see sex and gender as different things/why we view gender as a social construct, gender does not only refer to ones belief as to what gender they are, but to the whole social construction around sex/gender, such as gender roles, there isn't a biological (sex based) reason as to why women should for example, wear dresses while men should wear pants. You do mention different cultural behavior later but I don't know why you didn't mention it here. Why doesn't gender affect society in your graph, and what do you mean when saying society? Why do you claim that saying that gender is a social construct oversimplifies reality? Something being a social construct doesn't mean it's not real, or that it is totally unaffected/unbased by/in the physical reality, money, as an example is a social construct, yet it very much does so. I do agree with your division into Psychological and Social gender, but that division doesn't mean that gender cannot be a social construct. What do "unverifiable gender identities" mean? How does one verify a gender identity? Yes, having a non-binary gender identity is a way to cope, with having a non-binary gender identity, claiming that such identities are unverifiable, while saying unverified claims that this is a way of coping with facing difficulties in social situations, feeling of validation or seeking external validation, as having and expressing ones non-binary identity leads to the opposite in conservative societies/communities . "Imposing subjective beliefs about gender on society goes against the principle of tolerance" Could you expand on that point? Also, I have to mention, this may be purely my overanalysis due to having to much time seeing bad arguments, but some of your comments about people/scientists seeing gender as a social construct seem a little bit petty. I hope that my comment doesn't come in as an attack, as I see that you are honest and non-aggressive in your argumentation and I hope that we can have a fruitful discussion.
@nightspore4850
6 ай бұрын
Any successful society has survived. In order to survive, it must have reproduced at or above replacement rates. Sex is the mode of reproduction, enhancing genetic variability. The prime goal of a society is to survive, hence reproduction at or above replacement rates is the most important activity. Therefore gender is not an arbitrary social construct, but the ways different societies promote normal sexual/reproductive relations, emphasizing the stability of reproductive relationships in order to raise, educate, and indoctrinate (in a positive sense) the children produced so as to assure the continued success of the society. There is nothing arbitrary about it unless and until the society begins to break down and disintegrate. Then perversity begins to dominate, the society and culture weaken, and death inevitably ensues. A philosopher has a lot of time to sit and think about things. With all due respect, your thought should have taken you a hell of a lot farther and deeper than you seem to have gotten.
@nikodemlewandowski379
6 ай бұрын
While it's true that reproduction is a fundamental aspect of societal survival, it's important to recognize that gender roles and norms can vary significantly across cultures and historical periods. The reduction solely to the social aspect is overstated, but also reducing it to only reproductive role. Many scholars of different specializations point to the diversity of gender roles across cultures, signifying the dependence of the concept of gender on society (sociology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy). As you said, different societies have different ways of promoting reproduction. They are different exactly because of the relative character of social norms, which also create an image of gender. Societies evolve over time, and what may be considered "normal" or "natural" in one era or context can change as social, economic, and political dynamics shift. And the change is as arbitrary as any social structure.
@nightspore4850
6 ай бұрын
@@nikodemlewandowski379 You write like an anthropologist or sociologist, not a philosopher. This is the way “different societies” look when you observe them scientifically. So what? In any particular society the mores regarding gender roles and sexual conduct are not arbitrary. They are certainly not regarded as arbitrary. No individual or group in the society just decided on them. Rather, they are seen as the way things are, much like any other natural fact about the world. If this were not so they could not fulfill their function, which is to regulate reproductive behavior in such a way as to assure the procreation, protection, and enculturation of succeeding generations. Stability in this area is extremely important. To stand back, as you do, and conclude that because mores vary (though within pretty strict limits) between societies, they are social constructs, with the clear implication that “diversity” and “inclusion” represent the only rational path, is unwarranted and extraordinarily ill-advised. Honestly, your thinking is unconscionably sloppy in this area and you come across more as a useful idiot of Western liberal radicalism than anything resembling a philosopher. Viable societies are coherent, and changes in them should be all but imperceptible across generations. They do not “evolve over time” in the sense you intend. Yes, they may need to adapt to certain exigencies, but what you call evolution over time is without exception decoherence and degeneration. Societies can become corrupted and begin to decompose. Something may be born out of the rotting compost, but that is another issue entirely. When things such as gender roles are considered mere options, the culture has become seriously maladapted.
Пікірлер: 4