Oh, it covers a very wide range of positions and groups. For example, pretty much any group that thinks emotions are the problem.
The idea of gender was probably bound up with understanding the differences between men and women. One aspect which I think it is worth you considering is that before the growing development of the idea of gender was the inequality of women. This was partly perpetuated by religion, especially the patriarchy of Christianity.
Sexology was also important in revealing the biological basis of gender, especially hormones, because prior to that knowledge the physical differences were shrouded in mystery. The study of people with physical intersex conditions as well as people with psychological gender identity issues marked the beginning of the critique of gender in the study of gender.
Modernism may have been connected with thinking about the idea of āgenderā and postmodernism with the idea of gender as cultural more than mere biology. Do you subscribe to the perspective of gender as a cultural construct?
With your argument about the possibility of waking up with a different body, there is the related idea of reincarnation. If reincarnation has some truth it would be a possible explanation for gender identity conflicts. The question of what one has in āheavenā, or a non material realm would depend on how intrinsic that was to oneās being. Sexual desire in itself could turn a possible heaven into hell, which may be why the Buddhists speak of the importance of overcoming desires.
Of course, ideas of disembodied forms of existence and notions of life after death are speculation. It is complicated enough thinking about life as a human being. Although what one is āshouldā be central as opposed to how one sees oneself, it can be difficult not to be preoccupied with oneself in terms of self-image. This is especially the problem with the media and ideas of the āperfect bodyā. Both men and women may struggle with this.
But, I do value your particular slant and I have to admit that I do identify as male primarily with some leaning towards the ideal of androgyny. I do wonder about the possibility of human beings achieving liberation from the bonds of gender. After all, in early human civilisations the gender division in labour was more marked. Still, reproduction is the core of gender even in the idea of a genderless society. That may be why childhood and later life may give more potential for the pursuit of a form of asexual existence.
Assuming that is still you. That you are the same even though your body is different. This would seem to be a dualism, with something like a soul. Which is fine. I am not ruling that out. But you assumed your conclusion. I wake up, I would still be me. So, I am not my sex.
But I may not have understood the context.
Thereās always inequality. You canāt get rid of it. Sexology studies sexual behavior, not gender. For example, virgins can identify as whatever gender they want, even two at a time, even tho they are not having sex.
Quite the contrary. If you reincarnated and you have a different gender, then gender is not part of you. Itās quite easier.
The sexual division of tasks makes sense, since males canāt give birth nor breastfeed, and more. Most people are liberated from the bonds of gender, not of the bonds of what your body is.
Yes, that is part of the hypothesis. If āIā woke up the next day, entails that I am there, it is me. If not, Iād say āI die, and then another different person wakes upā. Yeah, the point is that if āmy sexā changes, Iām still me, because Iām experiencing that. Same as if you wake up with a different hairdo
Well, it might not be binary - Ship of Thebes issues. Itās not that you completely changed so it is not you. But if you now have a brain, for example, and an endocrine system that is female and likely different -. at least the odds are very high, and in fact even if you shifted to another manās body, it would have different āsettingsā in the brain stem, different cortisol levels and so on, changing how you react to the world. Only most likely even more so with a new sex, you might be to some degree you, to some degree not. But if you are saying it is 100% you, then of course your sex in that reality has nothing to do with you. But itās assumed in the thought experiment, not a conclusion of the thought experiment.
Theseus you meant.
It is binary if Iām in there or not. Iām either in there, or not. Thereās no inbetween. You may have different things you identify, but thatās not you.
Yes, the situation will be different, brain and all. Either way, youāre there or you arenāt. Itās not a percentage thing.
There are two sexes, male and female.
Everything else is bullshit beyond that and no level of political correctness is going to change that fact.
The liberal perspective on sexes or genders are ridiculous absurdities.
1 Like
Youāre right: Thebes has to do with Hercules and Odyseus
You mean in your thought experiment or regardless? Because at least in physicalism selves come is degrees.
Same question.
And so was the conservative. Nobody can keep there sticky little fingers off kids and doing all these things to make them what they are.
1 Like
I went into it earlier in the thread to some degree. If boys are boys and girls are girls then you donāt have to train them to be boys and girls. But parents and other adults have been teaching boys to be boys and punishing boys who to them didnāt seem boylike enough and likewise with girls. If being a girl, having that biology leads to be being a girl, thereās nothing to train. Nothing to punish for not meeting the gender criteria of the sex. And once you get to school then peers take over and punish. Express these emotions not those - though with boys, generally keep a tight lid. I mean look at films from the 50s. Those men were tight, man. And those women, they were like drag queens.
1 Like
The problem is that if you donāt have an idea of regular sexuality, we have bigger problems
1 Like
No, of course. But there is a big component that they look to adults to copy from or understand, and I think you are ignoring that very big component.
I might have been clearer. An attitude of ājust let them be themselves,ā which I understood you as expounding, easily leads (in my experience, often) to papering over horrific abuse. I am glad to hear that you take this problem as seriously as it deserves. It is the real pandemic.
To be clear, I am not saying a child needs to be forced out of irregular sexuality. I am saying that if they show it, they are telling you something that you should be listening to.
1 Like
In a way, the old instinct to force them out of it is very natural and very understandable. They could tell there was something twisted and horrible there, and they wanted it to disappear.
Itās at least healthier than āah who cares.ā
I have no interest in telling kids not to role model, adore, want to be like dad, uncle jim, aunt maisie whatever. I think that can lead to great things and messed up stuff, but I do know that exists and I donāt want to intervene.
If they are cutting, disassociated, bulimic, taking drugs, and a host of other problems and yes some of these could come in through sexuality and sex, I am not saying hands off. I donāt think parenting is easy or that this is all easy to sort out, but personally I get the sense my kidās been abused, everything else is a lower priority.
What I am talking about is gender enforcement, punitive. This was cultural and came at children from a lot of angles and not all of the conscious on the part of adults. This ends up creating partial versions of the children. One tricky thing is that children are being seriously damaged from a lot of angles, and many of these have little to do with correctly being a boy or girl. So, there is a lot to sift through here. There are two main models of trauma discrete events - rape, sexual abuse, extreme violence war experiences, car wrecks and so on - and ongoing abuse - traumatic neglect, mind fucking, emotional abuse, withholding love and so on. But I think there is much more that is traumatic going on. The way the culture (yes, through parenting and peers and teachers and media and more) floods the child with ālessonsā about how to be, what is acceptable in them and much more. One area this happens is in relation to emotional expression, but there are others.
So, the training around being correctly male and female is lodged in this wider set of ongoing training to deny various parts of yourself and makes the whole situation complicated and hard to read.
I just realized that you may think that I mean kids leaning gay or trans. Iām not centered on that. I mean, they just donāt fit the bill they are supposed to. Yes, being a pussy or fag for a male might be part of the social enforcement, but at least when I was a kid this enforcers generally did not think you were gay.
Iāve already told you what I think of the use of the word āgenderā. Did you not read that, or are you a bot?
I did read what you wrote and was merely trying to look at the historical aspects of the use of gender. In particular, the sociologist, Ann Oakley was particularly important in the understanding of the concept and its distinction from the word sex. I am not ābot but have pursued the topic in studying sociology. Postmodernism was also a strong factor. The reason why I think these philosophical influences are worth thinking about is because social media has made the whole debate become focused on personal attitudes, likes and dislikes, whereas I see the debate as one needing deeper philosophical analysis.