When our 'identity' is subjective...

[ok doser]

Age isn't a matter of self-identification.

at the moment, perhaps

but if gender can be a matter of self-identification, why can't age?

 

[Town Heretic]

This is exactly why it's important that we DO make ourselves accommodate the anomalies among us.

I suppose I'd have to understand precisely what you mean by accommodate. I make a distinction between right and advocacy, by way of...so many a belief I find disagreeable only requires of me that I do not participate or endorse as a notion. Similarly, I think norms can and mostly tend to be stabilizing, useful instruments, though without the force of law. In that way a Klansman's right to be profoundly and even publicly ignorant should be protected at law while questioned and rejected as a useful and instructive social construct.

Innate conservatives hate the idea of accommodating any sort of change

I suppose, though with the exception of the fringe, I suspect most people are a tapestry of conservative and liberal notions, whether or not they're aware of it and sometimes in contravention of their belief on the point.

the ability and the willingness to accommodate and adapt to change is an elemental necessity for any healthy society.

Would the ability and willingness to accommodate Hitler be an elemental necessity for a healthy society? Of course not. So it depends on what is being accommodated and, again, what one means by the use of the word in relation to law and/or social convention.

We cannot advance in peaceful times, nor adapt in turbulent times, if we allow ourselves to become too rigid.

A man who stands for nothing falls for everything, to borrow. Or, again, I think it's an issue by issue consideration. I prefer, by way of, the rigid notion of equality before the law.

In instances where no immediate or foreseeable threat is clear, we should choose to make ourselves accommodate each other's "anomalies" for the sake not just of tolerance and individual freedom, but for the practice it affords us at accepting and adapting to social change.

Supra on the point. :cheers:

 

[Town Heretic]

It's not a cobbling. Identity is what determines gender, as with many social conventions.

I don't think that's true. I think that's why you'd feel compelled to add identity to the word gender to forward the point. As I said in my last, what's happening is a revisiting of whether we should look from the outside in or inside out, examine the word by expectation and social convention or if it's more constructive to approach by another route.

Likewise, I'm not an atheist because of some objective biological reality about me.

Because atheism or a more particular faith are by definition nothing more or less than expressions of subjective valuation, which isn't the case with gender. At best, you can say there are subjective elements relating to gender.

...expectations aren't exclusively external. That may be where they originate in many cases, but we internalize them, and respond to them, and integrate them into ourselves.

That's not a point of disagreement between us...though I don't think we have to internalize them any more than you have to be a Baptist because your mother and father were or are. That sort of thing. You can define the value and nature of faith without burning down a church or doing more than affirming your understanding.

We all rise to meet the expectations of other people to some extent, and its important that those expectations are flexible enough to accommodate the individual where it's possible to do so. I don't think we can reasonably ask trans people to be emotionally stand-alone more than any other person.

Same point I'm making with Pure...I'm not entirely sure about how you're using accommodation. I believe in the right of people to do and be all sorts of things I don't find personally palatable and wouldn't consider advocating for, from political extremism to anti-theism.

 

[kmoney]

I suppose I'd have to understand precisely what you mean by accommodate.

Another question I had. To bring up homosexuality again, there is very little that anyone has to do to accommodate that. Wedding cakes, etc notwithstanding. But when it involves gender there are a variety of issues. Bathrooms, gender-based groups/clubs, medical insurance. To what extent should people be forced to accommodate someone who thinks they are a different gender than their body says they are?

 

[kmoney]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/gender-identity-disorder.htm
Mental health professionals believe there are three components that make up our gender identity: our sexual orientation, behavior and mannerism preferences, and core gender identity (that gut feeling we have about the gender we identify with).

What behavior and mannerisms define 'male'? And 'female'?

 

[chrysostom]

What behavior and mannerisms define 'male'? And 'female'?

you know it when you see it

 

[PureX]

I think norms can and mostly tend to be stabilizing, useful instruments, though without the force of law. In that way a Klansman's right to be profoundly and even publicly ignorant should be protected at law while questioned and rejected as a useful and instructive social construct.

That's just it: without the force of law. Because when we base our laws on these social "norms" instead of social function (equality, freedom, and security), we lock our ignorance and bias and fear of change into place. Which is not a healthy thing for any society to do.

I suppose, though with the exception of the fringe, I suspect most people are a tapestry of conservative and liberal notions, whether or not they're aware of it and sometimes in contravention of their belief on the point.

I agree. But because we are currently living in very troubling times, we are generally leaning toward conservatism, because we are afraid. And that's exactly what we should not be doing, because it tends to lock the problems in with us, instead of freeing us up to seek and engage in the changes necessary to overcome these troubles. The more conservative we get as a society, the more entrenched our problems are becoming.

Would the ability and willingness to accommodate Hitler be an elemental necessity for a healthy society?

The nazi phenomena would not occur in a healthy society. Hitler's ideology wouldn't find much purchase, there.

So it depends on what is being accommodated and, again, what one means by the use of the word in relation to law and/or social convention.

A free and open society must be open to the idea of self-inflicted failure and destruction. But if it's a generally healthy society, these ideas won't take hold. Our current society is already very sick, and this is why the fascistic self-destructive nonsense of someone like Donald Trump is finding support. And our (fear based) desire to entrench ourselves, socially, only further exacerbates the sickness. We need to PROGRESS out of the unhealthy social situation (seek positive change), not entrench ourselves even further in it.

I think it's an issue by issue consideration. I prefer, by way of, the rigid notion of equality before the law.

Me too, because it forces us to confront our fear-driven biases as they get expressed in social interaction. And we need to be confronted about them them, and forced to change them for the better. Otherwise most of us will not change for the better.

 

[Town Heretic]

That's just it: without the force of law. Because when we base our laws on these social "norms" instead of social function (equality, freedom, and security), we lock our ignorance and bias and fear of change into place. Which is not a healthy thing for any society to do.

Not a point of contention then. I think prohibitive law has to be reserved for actions that abrogate the rights of another without justification.

I agree. But because we are currently living in very troubling times, we are generally leaning toward conservatism, because we are afraid. And that's exactly what we should not be doing, because it tends to lock the problems in with us, instead of freeing us up to seek and engage in the changes necessary to overcome these troubles. The more conservative we get as a society, the more entrenched our problems are becoming.

Don't you think there's always that dynamic in play with social compacts, the struggle over what to keep and what to avoid being kept by?

The nazi phenomena would not occur in a healthy society. Hitler's ideology wouldn't find much purchase, there.

The point being that accommodation isn't inherently a public virtue. But we have to be willing to discuss and consider. Healthy, outside of social stability and, by the Republic's rubic, a protection of right, is rather subjective by nature.

A free and open society must be open to the idea of self-inflicted failure and destruction.

I suppose a Republic is inherently that, though with an effort to avoid the catastrophic.

But if it's a generally healthy society, these ideas won't take hold. Our current society is already very sick, and this is why the fascistic self-destructive nonsense of someone like Donald Trump is finding support. And our (fear based) desire to entrench ourselves, socially, only further exacerbates the sickness. We need to PROGRESS out of the unhealthy social situation (seek positive change), not entrench ourselves even further in it.

I think every transition has a period of upheaval. This one is no different. I don't think we're sick. I think we're simply changing, the way we do every so often. Sometimes the change is forced by circumstance and comes from without and sometimes we manage it ourselves internally. Whoever and whatever is losing power struggles against it, but it has a way of working out.

Me too, because it forces us to confront our fear-driven biases as they get expressed in social interaction. And we need to be confronted about them them, and forced to change them for the better. Otherwise most of us will not change for the better.

Some things get better, some things don't and at least one thing will almost certainly go horribly wrong as we get something else right...seems to be part of any upheaval of consequence.

 

[PureX]

Don't you think there's always that dynamic in play with social compacts, the struggle over what to keep and what to avoid being kept by?

Yes, I do. We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater any more than we want to confuse the bathwater with the baby. In defense of conservatism, we need to understand that there are reasonable limits to change, to adaptation, to tolerance, and to 'progress'. Societies need limitations and 'norms' to help them cohere and resist disintegration.

The point being that accommodation isn't inherently a public virtue. But we have to be willing to discuss and consider.

I disagree. It IS a public virtue. Most assuredly. But it also must be limited, and limited wisely.

Healthy, outside of social stability and, by the Republic's rubic, a protection of right, is rather subjective by nature.

Not so much from my perspective. The way I see it, the same ethical imperatives that most of us find subjectively desirable are also the same ethical imperatives that better serve the function and well-being of society as a whole. 'Thou shalt not kill' is not just a personal subjective moral preference, it is also a wise and functional social imperative. As are many other of our social ideals: equality of freedom, justice, and opportunity, for example. Which is why these ideals should be made law, even as we do not try to legalize personal moral choices and preferences.

I suppose a Republic is inherently that, though with an effort to avoid the catastrophic.

All societies ultimately succeed or fail base on the wisdom and willingness of their members to succeed or fail as a group, while allowing the individual as much personal choice as possible. So it's always about establishing and maintaining a balance. A balance between individual freedom and the well being of the collective. A balance between the conservative inclination to fight against change, and the liberal inclination to seek out change for the sake of positive progress. A balance between our desire to control our circumstances and our need to let go of that desire. And so on.

I think every transition has a period of upheaval. This one is no different. I don't think we're sick. I think we're simply changing, the way we do every so often. Sometimes the change is forced by circumstance and comes from without and sometimes we manage it ourselves internally. Whoever and whatever is losing power struggles against it, but it has a way of working out.

Yes, but this one is MASSIVE! In the last few hundred years mankind's relationship to God, itself, the world, the universe, and everything else has changed enormously. A globally agricultural species suddenly became an industrial species, and then immediately became an advanced technological species. while hundreds of millions of us are still living like bronze-age small plot farmers. Intellectually we have jumped from a species dominated by information advancement via campfire story-telling to the world wide web in only a few centuries. We are a people overwhelmed by change, and they continue to come at us so fast that we're feeling freaked out all over the world. Hence, the global knee-jerk reaction to turn conservative. But unfortunately, now is not the time for that. Now is the time to move with the changes so that we can try and apply positive and functional limitations on them as best we can. Because we aren't going to stop the changes from coming. We just aren't.

Some things get better, some things don't and at least one thing will almost certainly go horribly wrong as we get something else right...seems to be part of any upheaval of consequence.

Yes, it's a process of trial and error. And we will suffer the consequences of our errors. It's a time to be progressive and courageous, not frightened and stagnant. Because these big changes are going to continue to come on into the next several generations. And they need us to man-up and do our part.

 

[Crucible]

I identify as an attack helicopter, and demand all public facilities have a helipad.

If you refuse, well, remember what I am

 

[Town Heretic]

I disagree. It IS a public virtue. Most assuredly. But it also must be limited, and limited wisely.

It sounds like we're disagreeing, but your caveat at the end undoes it. I said it isn't inherently a virtue. You say, it is, but...that but is the justification of my "isn't inherently".

Not so much from my perspective.

How can a relativist say that a judgement over value isn't subjective?

The way I see it, the same ethical imperatives that most of us find subjectively desirable are also the same ethical imperatives that better serve the function and well-being of society as a whole.

Which is also a judgement, unless you mean that we can observe the furthering of these particulars leads to a more stable compact. But then, I said outside of social stability, so we wouldn't be arguing.

'Thou shalt not kill' is not just a personal subjective moral preference, it is also a wise and functional social imperative.

It could also be an independent moral absolute, but that's another argument...A prohibition against murder, at least, to be sure is a wise imperative, however founded. That would go to my "social stability". You can't have a stable society if we're allowed to go about murdering one another. You can, however, have a stable society without a few of what we call rights.

All societies ultimately succeed or fail base on the wisdom and willingness of their members to succeed or fail as a group, while allowing the individual as much personal choice as possible.

That's certainly our hope.

Yes, but this one is MASSIVE!

I think it feels that way, but I also think it feels that way to each generation that experiences one. Certainly it did to those people challenging the power structure and defending the power structure in the '60s. I'd bet the industrial revolution felt like the world turned upside down too. The fall of Kings in a given, etc.

In the last few hundred years mankind's relationship to God, itself, the world, the universe, and everything else has changed enormously.

I don't know if I agree with you on all of that. Faith still rules the roost of man's conscience and a great deal of the world isn't contained within the first world. And that hundred plus isn't the change. Those come in waves and to places. The world wars and the Great Depression, the cultural revolution of those sixties here. But we don't live outside of our times and no one is experiencing more than their own.

A globally agricultural species suddenly became an industrial species, and then immediately became an advanced technological species. while hundreds of millions of us are still living like bronze-age small plot farmers.

It's an interesting, modern perspective on things. I'm thinking that right now our culture is in the middle of a lot of anxiety, but the real shift is down the road a bit. We're so accustomed to a sweeping perspective that it feels immediate to the majority in route to a minority status and it's upsetting as an idea to us, on the whole. By the time it arrives it won't be.

We are a people overwhelmed by change, and they continue to come at us so fast that we're feeling freaked out all over the world.

I think that's been the prevailing narrative, but I don't subscribe to it entirely. It's a Western perspective. We think that because we have all this information about ourselves and things that we're experiencing it and reacting to it. But I think we live smaller than that and that the complaint is mostly an intellectual construct that sounds right...until you realize that few living beings experienced much of that jarring upheaval and none of us were them. Honestly, the industrial changes were amazing, but it isn't as though it moved so fast that people experiencing them thought they were vaguely magical. No, we were elated to find a newer, faster, better way of moving things or moving about. There was a cost associated, of course, but we met the practical changes incrementally.

Hence, the global knee-jerk reaction to turn conservative.

I think we're always largely conservative in any age until we reach a tipping point where the prevailing sense begins to yield to the next orthodoxy, with bits of the old order in place and new notions joining, changing things. Fundamental human truths have a way of sticking around, whether they do so out of practical necessity, underlining and independent truth, or both is a question we're still arguing over as a race.

But unfortunately, now is not the time for that. Now is the time to move with the changes so that we can try and apply positive and functional limitations on them as best we can. Because we aren't going to stop the changes from coming. We just aren't.

We never have. It's in our nature, why we don't own slaves, why women vote, and sadly, why we kill our young and feel justified, to some extent. The good and bad of the last couple of transitions.

Yes, it's a process of trial and error. And we will suffer the consequences of our errors. It's a time to be progressive and courageous, not frightened and stagnant.

I don't see it in those black and white terms...again, I think we simply have to consider the nature of the transition and make decisions about what we've learned that could make the next phase better. Then, the next wave can figure out what we got right and carry that forward and note our failures and, God willing, address them.

Interesting conversation, differences notwithstanding.

 

[ok doser]

I identify as an attack helicopter, and demand all public facilities have a helipad.

If you refuse, well, remember what I am

you may think you're airwolf,

but this is how the world sees you:

 

[PureX]

It occurs to me that the idea of a "self" is fundamentally NOT a function of biology, but of consciousness. As when one is not conscious, there is no "self".

So that it would be likewise true that the idea of a "gender identity" is also a function of consciousness, and NOT a function of biology. Even though biology clearly dictates one's gender, physically. So that to impose one's physical gender as the over-riding and deciding gender factor, is simply not rational. It would be the equivalent of claiming that we humans are nothing more or other than animals, because biologically, we are animals. And completely ignoring the fact that we are also self-conscious 'beings' with the ability to both deny and transcend our own animal natures. To ignore our gender identity as fiction in the face of biology is to ignore our humanity as fiction for the same reason. And that would be both dishonest, and inaccurate.

 

[Town Heretic]

It occurs to me that the idea of a "self" is fundamentally NOT a function of biology, but of consciousness. As when one is not conscious, there is no "self".

Well, there is or isn't, depending on your context.

So that it would be likewise true that the idea of a "gender identity" is also a function of consciousness, and NOT a function of biology.

Some will argue that you're just backing up one step in a regress, that consciousness itself is a function/product purely of biological function. They mostly tend to believe that the cessation of that function ends the consciousness too.

But I don't think anyone is saying we don't have ideas about who and what we are...though numerous studies have shown those ideas tend to be exaggerations, as most people see themselves as better, smarter, etc. than the average Joe.

Even though biology clearly dictates one's gender, physically.

Gender is physical. How we think about it isn't unimportant, but it shouldn't be conflated with an empirical, demonstrable fact. How we feel or contextualize that information is worth talking about, but worth talking about as something else.

So that to impose one's physical gender as the over-riding and deciding gender factor, is simply not rational.

I think you have that backwards. It's rational to see what the sun is. It's something else to tell me how you feel about that and relate to it. I'm not saying it's irrational to have a feeling about it or a belief, only that in the absence of our feeling the sun keeps shining.

It would be the equivalent of claiming that we humans are nothing more or other than animals, because biologically, we are animals. And completely ignoring the fact that we are also self-conscious 'beings' with the ability to both deny and transcend our own animal natures.

Our biology isn't an assumed state, dependent on our consideration. How we respond to it is. They aren't the same animal.

To ignore our gender identity as fiction in the face of biology is to ignore our humanity as fiction for the same reason. And that would be both dishonest, and inaccurate.

I don't think anyone is ignoring the notion, though it is absolutely a fiction in the sense that we cobble it, as opposed to being born to it or it existing independent of our understanding, like the sun or Congress.

 

[PureX]

Gender is physical. How we think about it isn't unimportant, but it shouldn't be conflated with an empirical, demonstrable fact.

Nor should the empirically demonstrable fact that we are self-conscious beings be ignored in favor of our biology. Especially when "empirical demonstrable factuality" is itself a direct function of human self-consciousness, and only indirectly function of our biological existence.

How we feel or contextualize that information is worth talking about, but worth talking about as something else.

It's more than worth talking about. It is the progenitor of both the question AND the answer.

I think you have that backwards. It's rational to see what the sun is. It's something else to tell me how you feel about that and relate to it.

But these are one and the same "perception". We can't "see what the sun is" apart from the way we conceptualize our experience of it. In fact, conceptualizing our experience of the sun IS us, "seeing it".

Likewise, my "gender" IS my concept and experience of it. Not your limited perception of it based solely on the shape of my genitalia.

I'm not saying it's irrational to have a feeling about it or a belief, only that in the absence of our feeling the sun keeps shining.

And if the sun keeps shining but no one feels it ...

It's an "inhuman" scenario.

Our biology isn't an assumed state, dependent on our consideration. How we respond to it is. They aren't the same animal.

Of the two, biology is the digression. That's all I'm saying. And that's why it should not be used to ignore conscious experience. It is the conscious experience that makes us human. That makes the question of gender matter to us. "Context" is everything. Because the "context" is what is uniquely human.

I don't think anyone is ignoring the notion, though it is absolutely a fiction in the sense that we cobble it, as opposed to being born to it or it existing independent of our understanding, like the sun or Congress.

What exists independent of our understanding is irrelevant to us by definition. What we think we are is all that matters to us, because it's all we have, to contemplate: how what we think we are "works" for us in the reality we are living in.

My labeling you according to your physical genitalia may "work" OK for me. But only because I don't care about how it helps or hinders you. In the end, this whole discussion is about selfishness, vs empathy/tolerance. I believe it's healthy for us to push ourselves to empathize and tolerate the anomalies among us whenever we can. Both because it's good for them and our own selves to do so, and because we may need their unique perspective and insight, later on.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nor should the empirically demonstrable fact that we are self-conscious beings be ignored in favor of our biology. Especially when "empirical demonstrable factuality" is itself a direct function of human self-consciousness, and only indirectly function of our biological existence.

Leaving off that you will never see me write "factuality", we don't possess our sexual apparatus and the genetic distinctions between genders because we observe them. We observe them because they exist outside of our opinion about what we should do about it or how we chose to think about it. I'm certainly not in favor of ignoring how we feel or what we think about our biology. I'm simply noting the line of demarcation.

It's more than worth talking about.

Such as?

It is the progenitor of both the question AND the answer.

It really can't be, supra (for those who don't know, progenitor means the thing from which another descends, a notion I answer above with my "we don't possess/because") But it is important.

But these are one and the same "perception". We can't "see what the sun is" apart from the way we conceptualize our experience of it. In fact, conceptualizing our experience of the sun IS us, "seeing it".

No, perception doesn't cause the sun. So it's not the same thing as the sun. Just as I may be completely ignorant of the bullet about to impact the back of my noggin, but my ignorance or awareness won't stop that bullet. My skull will. Maybe.

Likewise, my "gender" IS my concept and experience of it. Not your limited perception of it based solely on the shape of my genitalia.

You can think you're the smartest guy in the room, but it doesn't make you the smartest guy in the room.

And if the sun keeps shining but no one feels it ...

It's still an empirical truth.

It's an "inhuman" scenario.

Only in your mind.

Of the two, biology is the digression. That's all I'm saying.

Depends on the subject. If the subject is objective identity and truth, no. If you're talking about the subjective, another horse.

And that's why it should not be used to ignore conscious experience. It is the conscious experience that makes us human. That makes the question of gender matter to us. "Context" is everything. Because the "context" is what is uniquely human.

I'm not advocating ignoring anything. I'm just noting differences.

What exists independent of our understanding is irrelevant to us by definition.

Not as I used understanding in the sentence (see: that bullet, supra).

What we think we are is all that matters to us, because it's all we have, to contemplate: how what we think we are "works" for us in the reality we are living in.

There are two truths, the one that remains despite our beliefs and the one that exists singularly because of it. The rest is argument and degree, I think.

My labeling you according to your physical genitalia may "work" OK for me.

It isn't about something working for you. That's how you respond to a truth. The truth is that you're likely either a male or a female (a rare exception notwithstanding) by biological expression and the rest is the subjective context you bring to it.

But only because I don't care about how it helps or hinders you.

Language serves a couple of purposes. One of them is to express our own understandings and biases and the other is to describe the things those biases and understandings will address. So unless a person doesn't mean to be understood, language is important and the latter is the necessary foundation for the former.

In the end, this whole discussion is about selfishness, vs empathy/tolerance.

I don't agree. I think there are a few conversations going on. Mine was about empirical truth and how it relates to subjective valuation. Another conversation involves whether accommodation to what may be any number of subjective approaches, including but not limited to mental illness, should be met by the compact as a matter of law or in terms of social attitude. My position on that is one from right. Yet another is your above...with the caveat that there is a subsection argument about the distinction between empathy and enabling, resting on whether or not the subjective valuation is healthy and constructive, either for the individual or the collective.

I believe it's healthy for us to push ourselves to empathize and tolerate the anomalies among us whenever we can. Both because it's good for them and our own selves to do so, and because we may need their unique perspective and insight, later on.

I'd say it's healthy to be open to consider alternative perspectives and beliefs about all sorts of things. I don't think it's always one thing or the other. It isn't, by way of illustration, healthy for us as individuals or a society to empathize with and tolerate pedophiles. I don't think it's a perspective we need or one that has any intrinsic value. So, it's still a case by case to my way of thinking.

 

[PureX]

Leaving off that you will never see me write "factuality", we don't possess our sexual apparatus and the genetic distinctions between genders because we observe them. We observe them because they exist outside of our opinion about what we should do about it or how we chose to think about it. I'm certainly not in favor of ignoring how we feel or what we think about our biology. I'm simply noting the line of demarcation.

The "demarkation" is an illusion. Experience and conceptualization are one and the same phenomena. No one experiences gender without conceptualizing their experience. And we don't all conceptualize anything in exactly the same way. So there is no "objective gender concept" based solely on the shape of our genitalia. The concept of gender itself is the result of our subjective experience. What does being "male" mean if not what it means to me via my experience of it? Or to anyone?

You're trying to separate concept from object. It can't be done in any way that matters to anyone. Does the tree falling in the woods that no one hears make a sound? Who cares? It doesn't matter because no one was there to hear it or not hear it.

Gender without subjective human experience or conceptualization is just a meaningless term.

No, perception doesn't cause the sun. So it's not the same thing as the sun. Just as I may be completely ignorant of the bullet about to impact the back of my noggin, but my ignorance or awareness won't stop that bullet. My skull will. Maybe.

And it won't matter at all, because you'll be dead before you'll even know it happened. I'm not saying that objective reality doesn't exist, I'm only trying to point out that it doesn't matter to us whether it exists or not until we become aware of it. And how we become aware of it will define how it matters to us. My maleness matters to me only because I am aware of it as a whole collection of conceptualized experiences that now define it for me.

You can think you're the smartest guy in the room, but it doesn't make you the smartest guy in the room.

That only matters if and when my thinking so has some significant effect on me. Otherwise, it's a meaningless distinction.

It's still an empirical truth.

So what?

Depends on the subject. If the subject is objective identity and truth, no. If you're talking about the subjective, another horse.

They are inseparable from our perspective. "Objective truth" is a conceptual abstraction that we create in our minds based on subjective personal experiences.

I'm not advocating ignoring anything. I'm just noting differences.

I understand. I'm just trying to point out that those 'differences' are an illusion.

There are two truths, the one that remains despite our beliefs and the one that exists singularly because of it. The rest is argument and degree, I think.

It's all argument and degree because we have no 'truth' beyond or own belief. We can't know what we don't know. "Objectivity" is an abstract illusion.

It isn't about something working for you. That's how you respond to a truth.

But the "truth" is what works for us. That's how we determine "truthfulness".

The truth is that you're likely either a male or a female (a rare exception notwithstanding) by biological expression and the rest is the subjective context you bring to it.

That's not a "truth", that's just a stated probability. The "truth" is that gender is variable, not 'either/or'. The probability is that we will discover ourselves to be male or female. The improbability is that we will discover ourselves to be some combination of the two.

I think there are a few conversations going on. Mine was about empirical truth and how it relates to subjective valuation. Another conversation involves whether accommodation to what may be any number of subjective approaches, including but not limited to mental illness, should be met by the compact as a matter of law or in terms of social attitude. My position on that is one from right. Yet another is your above...with the caveat that there is a subsection argument about the distinction between empathy and enabling, resting on whether or not the subjective valuation is healthy and constructive, either for the individual or the collective.

There are a number of possible responses to gender ambiguity. I believe those responses that express empathy, allow for individuality, and promote independent function self-responsibility are the more desirable. You probably do, too.

And we may also agree on why these are the preferable responses: because they promote the best thoughts and actions in ourselves and others, for both ourselves and others. All we seem to disagree on is the idea that we can define "objective reality", objectively. And what I'm pointing out is that it's ALL SUBJECTIVE; even "objective reality". Because it's all conceptual, and it's all based on personal experience and intellect.

I'd say it's healthy to be open to consider alternative perspectives and beliefs about all sorts of things. I don't think it's always one thing or the other. It isn't, by way of illustration, healthy for us as individuals or a society to empathize with and tolerate pedophiles. I don't think it's a perspective we need or one that has any intrinsic value. So, it's still a case by case to my way of thinking.

Case by case, but based on a general principal, nevertheless. Based on general principal, but still determined on a case by case, basis.

It's always about the balance.

 

[kmoney]

While I think it's true that there are some stereotypes that should be resisted because they are harmful, I think it's a fool's errand to try to abolish all of them. It simply won't happen. And I don't think the solution to trans identification is to try to make trans people immune to the opinions of other people, or indeed themselves, which is going to always needlessly put the burden on them. So, while I think that we should always try to be open-minded where we can, I don't think that it is a solution to the problem at hand.

It's not a cobbling. Identity is what determines gender, as with many social conventions. Likewise, I'm not an atheist because of some objective biological reality about me. I'm an atheist (as you're a Christian) because I identify as one.



Well, those expectations aren't exclusively external. That may be where they originate in many cases, but we internalize them, and respond to them, and integrate them into ourselves. We all rise to meet the expectations of other people to some extent, and its important that those expectations are flexible enough to accommodate the individual where it's possible to do so. I don't think we can reasonably ask trans people to be emotionally stand-alone more than any other person.

Are they really meeting expectations though? Are you being less of a burden by helping them transition? :idunno:

The expectations start with the biological gender, M = this. F = that. Transgender go the opposite way, having that (whatever exactly 'that' is) and turning themselves into F, or vice versa. I'm not sure that's meeting expectations any more than living as a gay or effeminate man is.

Cross-dressing seems to be the largest factor because it's so obvious. If it weren't for that, would you ever suspect someone is transgender? If a transgender person wears clothing that traditionally goes with their sex would they be failing to meet expectations in any significant way?



From the same link I gave earlier:

The cause of gender identity disorder is still being debated. Theories suggest it is caused by genetic abnormalities, endocrine problems like a testosterone or estrogen imbalance in the womb, social factors like parenting or some combination of issues [source: Merck].

Are those the same theories for causes of homosexuality?

 

[Town Heretic]

The "demarkation" is an illusion. there is no "objective gender concept" based solely on the shape of our genitalia.

There is an objective truth about our gender found in the possession of particular reproductive organs and other markers. And it isn't shaped by our perception. Only its use is.

What does being "male" mean if not what it means to me via my experience of it? Or to anyone?

Objectively, it means that you have certain characteristics, at least biologically speaking, that distinguish you from the female.

You're trying to separate concept from object.

I'm just noting that how we choose to think about a thing is separate from the thing considered.

Gender without subjective human experience or conceptualization is just a meaningless term.

Not if you're deciding whether to become a gynecologist or a proctologist.

"Objective truth" is a conceptual abstraction that we create in our minds based on subjective personal experiences.

Everything we speak about is spoken about as a concept. But that bullet that's about to part your hair doesn't derive its being from the sound we make to discuss it.

the "truth" is what works for us. That's how we determine "truthfulness".

Sunburn doesn't work for me. And it doesn't care that it doesn't work for me.

The "truth" is that gender is variable, not 'either/or'. The probability is that we will discover ourselves to be male or female. The improbability is that we will discover ourselves to be some combination of the two.

The truth is you need to take an anatomy course. Seriously though, absent a peculiar and rare medical anomaly we will be born male or female. Thereafter we will likely identify with being male or female, though some don't and some redefine what it means, reject the subjective roles of the compact or broaden them.

There are a number of possible responses to gender ambiguity.

Where I'd say personal ambiguity about our gender.

I believe those responses that express empathy, allow for individuality, and promote independent function self-responsibility are the more desirable. You probably do, too.

For the most part, sure. Though in the case of a high functioning sociopath...back to the practical case by case. As a general principle though, yes.

All we seem to disagree on is the idea that we can define "objective reality", objectively. And what I'm pointing out is that it's ALL SUBJECTIVE; even "objective reality". Because it's all conceptual, and it's all based on personal experience and intellect.

And I'm saying you're overextending past a point, that the sun will burn a blind man and a bullet will kill a deaf one looking away. That's objective reality that's unconcerned with how we feel about it or how we value it. Gender is another reality.

 

[Crucible]

I identify as Odin, and demand that I be able to put a spear to my enemies

If you refuse, remember who I am