[INTP] ⚧ Gender ⚧ - Page 5

⚧ Gender ⚧

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 61
Thank Tree43Thanks

This is a discussion on ⚧ Gender ⚧ within the INTP Forum - The Thinkers forums, part of the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects category; 1)What do you consider gender to be? How is it different from the socially programmed definition? Gender has typically been ...

  1. #41

    1)What do you consider gender to be? How is it different from the socially programmed definition?

    Gender has typically been either male/female as it commonly relates to ones normal social roles mans jobs or ladies jobs but also and biological sex characteristics "penis or ovaries" that usually defined whether one was male or female.

    When I consider my gender I "FEEL LIKE A WOMAN" and I have ovaries but when I think about social roles that have been the "Norm" I have diverged from what was typically what a woman did so would that mean I am gender fluid? I don't know exactly but I don't feel the need to label myself as gender-fluid just because I do men things as well as womens.

    2)Do you separate gender from sex or so called gender roles or are they synonymous?

    I do separate gender and sex. I see Sex as biological and I see gender as more of term for describing is one as feminine or masculine.
    newspectrum.jpg

    3)Are gender roles in modern times detrimental or necessary? Why?

    In this day an age more so in first world countries I think the lines between who is what, and why, are not particularly necessary because firstly there are so many of us so we don't need to allocate certain people to certain jobs anymore and I think that everyone got bored of gender roles and wanted to try new stuff. Humans are curious creatures after all. The separations and rigid structures surrounding gender did provide structure for many countries and continents for a long time but many have obviously outgrown that structure and want to forge new structures for how society functions.
    Venoshock and Aridela thanked this post.

  2. #42
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegel View Post
    I mean that I respect traditional values when it comes to sex/gender - men behaving like men and women behaving like women.
    What do men behave like? What do women behave like? Assume I'm an alien from another planet, because stances on this vary.

    Do traditions exist to serve people, or do traditions exist to be served by people?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegel View Post
    To me, it's weird to just like that change your sex.

    What's the scientific stance on it?
    You can't change your sex entirely, you can simply rework what you're born with.
    Gender though? Not the same thing.

    What's the scientific basis for what you describe as "man behaviour" or "woman behaviour"?
    Do traditions have a scientific basis?



    Quote Originally Posted by Wellsy View Post
    haha Going to be inadequate an explanation but I'll have a crack at illustrating the sort of outlook I'm piecing together at the moment. Here's another slap dash before I go off to lunch.
    ...I regret everything...
    (Are walls of text caked with links a way of trolling common to Australians?)


    Quote Originally Posted by Wellsy View Post
    1. Bodies are material/physical and effected by social relations
    - This point is about how one can't look at the physical as simply nature because being human beings who live in society and aren't strictly subject to laws beyond our control but have shaped our world and replicate a division of labour which has significant impact on our individual bodies.
    For example, the sort of injuries that predominately effect men who live in the rural parts of industrialized countries isn't a reflection of them being biologically men as much as how men are socially situated in regards to the division of labor. Men who end up blind and with severe eye injuries relative to women reflects the sort of metal work that men predominately do, rather than a simple biological fact.
    Similarly with life expectancy, it;s not strictly subject to laws of our physiology but reflects the conditions in which we live. This has been most significantly expressed in the social determinants of health.
    We can see an extreme form of shaping one's bodies in the populated cities of the US where men and women not only engage in plastic surgery alterations and fitness regimes, but alter themselves with corsets and other things to permanently change their bodies.
    Partially agree. There are other factors that shape human bodies aside from social relations. Skin colour for example is an adaptation to deal with the sun, ditto dark eyes. Social relations/Culture/Work/Diet are also determined by resources available and temperature/terrain conditions, which points to Geography as a large factor that precedes everything else. Then there are hazards: Fauna and illnesses. Our walking upright, having thumbs, having omnivorous dentition and having eyes at the front of our skulls had nothing to do with the social element

    Quote Originally Posted by Wellsy View Post
    2. The meaning or ideal properties inscribed upon our bodies
    - Though I don't think it is necessarily reflective of ideality as explained by Ilyenkov in it's particulars, I do think my outlook does capture some of the tendencies.
    So simply put, we do not simply perceive an empirical whole without distinction, we can tell a table from other objects, we can tell that something is the property of someone elses, we can tell that something is a specific kind of animal.
    There historically had been a split between form and content, between our presupposed perceptual means and the world as it empirically is leading to an unbridgeable epistemological gap between us as a subject and reality.
    So Hume emphasizing the empirical origins of knowldge says there is no basis to argue the causal relation beween things as it's only a subjective perception and not something obviously inherent to the empirical reality itself.
    So what counted as real was the sensous, so what was physically perceptibly inherent to an object, everything else was mere projection. Then comes along Berkley and argues that the entire reality is a perception (subjective idealism), that the primary attributes that empiricists claimed were objective are no more discernibly real than the secondary attributes which they claim as subjective. Because secondary attributes are never perceived apart from the primary attributes and there is no way to confirm one's perception as being reality.
    IN such skepticism have kant assert that we have schemas that allow us to rationally comprehend things, that they make sense but we can't know reality/truth as it things as they really are is beyond our ability to compare with how we perceive them.
    tl;dr, What we deem reality is basically sensory input that can be corroborated by consensus. The majority consensus on interpretation determines reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wellsy View Post
    But ideality in the Marxist tradition isn't synonymous with what exists only in consciousness, rather it exists objectively but it is a significance of a thing percieved upon an empirical entity based on the social relations which guide/colour that thing.
    The mistake of many in regards to sex and gender is that they take the mechanical materialist approach and naturalize the ideal qualities associated with being a woman as being inherent to them rather than seeing how the relative stability of a certain idea of woman is a reflection of women's average activity within a society.
    There isn't an ideal. Opinion changes across the board even within the same territorial borders. Same with men.
    A bunch of loud people claim their ideal, and others just follow as they don't know anything else or keep quiet to avoid conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by Wellsy View Post
    The point being that the essence of things, our knowledge of them isn't synonymous with their empirical appearance but it is also a mistake to presume that the origins of things merely comes from in side them.
    This can be a sort of abstract individualism that loses sight that to really understand the essence of a thing doesn't require positing a thing-in-itself behind appearences which we can't know but is a reflection of that things activity as governed by it's real world relations.
    So for example, the idea of women as submissive doesn't reflect something inherent to women as a sex as one might try to spaciously argue based in an empty reference to biology/genetics/hormones or what ever, but reflects the rational behaviour given the structural relations that set limits to a person's behaviour.


    The vague idea here is that the idea of what women or many physical entities are, isn't merely a projection, but a reflection of how things actually are based within real world relations rather than something given naturally by the thing in/by itself.
    This is pretty much what people do when they assume that the origins of behaviour and things that they associate with the idea of what a woman, which is far beyond being of a particular physiology (hence the gender performance/passing and all that), as stemming from strictly within them. This might be somewhat true for lower sorts of animals but for human beings, this has long ago stopped being the case. There are only so many basic drives and they have changed through many social forms because of the changing relations of our society.
    This is also the point as to why one has to struggle to objectify one's ideas in changes in the actual world, because criticizing ideas doesn't displace them as their basis has an origins in the actual state of the world.

    This is why some meanings are relatively stable because society doesn't change on people's whims, even though many things that are socially stable do eventually change if the actual world changes.
    Ideas lose their grip and have to be argued with more force. Which is the case today with a lot of things in regards to gender relations and norms.
    https://www.marxists.org/subject/wom...3/feminism.htm


    But one should be careful not to mistake the ideal qualities seen as inherent to an empirical thing not as merely subjective projections but most certainly not something explained as originating in the nature of thing by itself. Things abstracted from their real world connections are contentless/empty signs which means nothing. Which is also why they are a prime ideological basis for metaphysical speculation where one merely injects one's own characterization and perhaps residue content from the existing status quo.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...hring/ch08.htm


    Basically, the thinking often deployed to assert the nature of women is often a profoundly mistaken one that repeats many mistakes for a lack of consciousness in regards to one's own reality which makes them the most vulnerable to a lot of ideological ends as they aren't yet aware of the matter they're considering.
    They leave it to others to think for them and lazily affirm pre-existing notions about things.

    When we see things, we do not just witness an empirical entity but something imbued with much social significance based not only on our experience by the symbolic representations we've also been subject to.
    Where the symbolic representation can have dominance over the reality and often does, even for the supposedly scientific.
    I think this simply stems from long-standing assumptions going unquestioned too long. The current knowledge base of endocrinology, neurology and anthropology wasn't there. Capitalism's tendency to commodify people and prolong power of those at the top by generating divides between different classes also necessitates a narrative that polarizes people and gets them to fight over any difference they perceive. History being taught from a nationalistic standpoint rather than an anthropological one also didn't help, because there isn't a diverse pool of cultures from which to glean patterns. The nature of Christianity as the most populous religion also made questioning taboo and lacking any better answers people only had their faith to turn to.

    Privileged strata need these differences, so it's not surprising any rejection of change is strongest from their end.
    Last edited by Venoshock; 07-11-2019 at 09:50 PM.

  3. #43

    So we're starting to quote Marx, seriously?

  4. #44
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegel View Post
    So we're starting to quote Marx, seriously?
    He, singular, one dude.

  5. #45

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegel View Post
    So we're starting to quote Marx, seriously?
    Some of us happen to have the hots for Marx, deal with it

  6. #46

    Y'all coming up with this "science" of gender fluidity and Marxism, I don't want to stand out - I'll be back in this thread when I'll have joined the Flat Earth Society.
    Venoshock thanked this post.

  7. #47
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegel View Post
    Y'all coming up with this "science" of gender fluidity and Marxism, I don't want to stand out - I'll be back in this thread when I'll have joined the Flat Earth Society.
    When you do, be sure to actually supply dat sweet scientific basis for whatever brand of "tradition" you follow.

  8. #48

    Quote Originally Posted by Venoshock View Post
    I'm gonna go with Nope.
    I was hoping the thread would remain intact a little longer before trolling started to happen, so much for that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Venoshock View Post
    Bit patronizing but thanks....
    I'm so sorry :'(, I didn't want mess with you. I didn't want to troll, I should have been more careful. I wanted to say that with some particular language, you can avoid a lot of reactionnaries to take the language for themselves without strong cognitive dissonances. If most people begin to adopt a queer sacrality, then if someone want to hold a reactionnary view, they'll use the old sacrality, the cisheteronormative one, and immediatly people will now that those guys are reactionnary. The fact that now both reactionnaries and conservatives (conservative on the issue of gender, because it is the hegemonous sacrality, they blindly repeat it, so they don't progress) use the same sacrality, both blend together and that's why we tend to see transphobia when people repeat the cisheteronormative sacrality while facing LGBTQIA people, cause we immediately see where this is going, how it can be use to delegitimize us/them.

    But still, I'll be more careful with my words and the way I put this kind of reflexion.

    For the patronizing, again, I have been not careful enough it seems. I say this so none feel threatened by my posture, that would be counter-productive, and so I can defend a more explicit and radical stance by warning people they shouldn't take it personally. It's kind of an anthropologist/sociologist posture, and it's a cold distant one, I agree. I'll be more careful with my wording, any advice is welcome btw.

    Quote Originally Posted by Venoshock View Post
    Then what is the difference between gender and sex according to you? What do you call the biological component?
    Gender is on the level of the social relationships between minds, and sex is on the level of the social relationships between bodies (and sexualities are on the level of pulsion, phantasm, desire or feelings about your body and the bodies of other). Gender (or the absence of it) include nearly the whole mind, sex is just a small parts (you can add every body parts and things that you own, that can be erotized). Both need eachother to exist, but gender is former compared to sex. First you have a partial gendered representation of your mind, then you build a partial representation of your body (with the sex or without it). Then your representations can change with time, become nearly whole, or you can loose them (like in a depression).

    The biological parts are everything that biologists tell about our human bodies which have a biological functions, so it exclude the social functions and psychological functions. Which we tend to mix, because... confusion is great? Nope. So when we speak about sex, we may mean sexualities, biological functions, social functions or gender.

    That's my take ^^.

    Quote Originally Posted by Venoshock View Post
    Speaking of which, something that's caught my eye, and sort of the reason I made this thread: Apparently it's not uncommon for lesbian women that have no interest in coupling with trans women and for people making remarks within a scientific context to be targeted for harassment as Transphobes. Is this justifiable or misguided?
    Really tough subject, the only thing I can point out is a confusion in the language, and that there are TERFs who hide behind that confusion. We need clarifications so everyone can speak without being exclusive to anyone in their language, now different people will feel entitled to say we have to base our language on theirs, but that's competitive. If we want to advance we need to cooperate will excluding any exclusive position. I'll stop here, before I say something bad.

    Hope you didn't took my intervention too badly, I'm so sorry, I'll try my best so it doesn't happen anymore.

    It's really pleasant to read you and some of the discussions it produces, you have all my support, hope it helps ^^.
    Venoshock thanked this post.

  9. #49
    INTP - The Thinkers

    1) I guess it's a part of a person's identity but I don't know exactly how it works or what it is
    2) I separate sex from gender because they seem to be two different things
    3) I don't know, the ones I've had to deal with seemed outdated and annoying, but I have no idea what it's like on a larger scale
    4) I think some people use gender roles as a reason to place limits on other people's lives. And for people who don't really see why they should care about gender roles (myself included), that's not acceptable. I guess gender roles will stick around anyway, but I hope more people stop caring about them...

    I can't say I understand exactly how it works to have male parts but still be a woman, for example, but that's not really important. Maybe I'll understand later. What's important is to listen, so if someone tells me they're a woman, I will call her a woman. Oh, and as you can see, I already use "they/them" for a singular person sometimes because it's convenient. So if someone tells me they want me to use those pronouns, I see absolutely no reason not to

    Sorry for not having more interesting thoughts about it all, but it's such a complex issue and I just happen to not really care about it much, so... yeah

  10. #50
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by NeonMidget View Post
    1)What do you consider gender to be? How is it different from the socially programmed definition?

    Gender has typically been either male/female as it commonly relates to ones normal social roles mans jobs or ladies jobs but also and biological sex characteristics "penis or ovaries" that usually defined whether one was male or female.

    When I consider my gender I "FEEL LIKE A WOMAN" and I have ovaries but when I think about social roles that have been the "Norm" I have diverged from what was typically what a woman did so would that mean I am gender fluid? I don't know exactly but I don't feel the need to label myself as gender-fluid just because I do men things as well as womens.
    The way I see it gender refers to one's relationship with the concepts of masculinity and femininity as complementary concepts. It's beyond performance, appearance or feeling and more of a matter of self-conception. How do you See yourself?

    Basically you're verbalizing what you see when you assess where you stand psychologically with respect to those two concepts.

    Masculinity and femininity are originally associated with sex, but the fact they were complementary suggests they were both present and needed in any sane human being just like all healthy humans produce testosterone and estrogen and going too low on either end leads to complications. Hence Anima and Animus.


    Quote Originally Posted by Innocentia View Post
    I'm so sorry :'(, I didn't want mess with you. I didn't want to troll, I should have been more careful. I wanted to say that with some particular language, you can avoid a lot of reactionnaries to take the language for themselves without strong cognitive dissonances. If most people begin to adopt a queer sacrality, then if someone want to hold a reactionnary view, they'll use the old sacrality, the cisheteronormative one, and immediatly people will now that those guys are reactionnary. The fact that now both reactionnaries and conservatives (conservative on the issue of gender, because it is the hegemonous sacrality, they blindly repeat it, so they don't progress) use the same sacrality, both blend together and that's why we tend to see transphobia when people repeat the cisheteronormative sacrality while facing LGBTQIA people, cause we immediately see where this is going, how it can be use to delegitimize us/them.

    But still, I'll be more careful with my words and the way I put this kind of reflexion.

    For the patronizing, again, I have been not careful enough it seems. I say this so none feel threatened by my posture, that would be counter-productive, and so I can defend a more explicit and radical stance by warning people they shouldn't take it personally. It's kind of an anthropologist/sociologist posture, and it's a cold distant one, I agree. I'll be more careful with my wording, any advice is welcome btw.



    Gender is on the level of the social relationships between minds, and sex is on the level of the social relationships between bodies (and sexualities are on the level of pulsion, phantasm, desire or feelings about your body and the bodies of other). Gender (or the absence of it) include nearly the whole mind, sex is just a small parts (you can add every body parts and things that you own, that can be erotized). Both need eachother to exist, but gender is former compared to sex. First you have a partial gendered representation of your mind, then you build a partial representation of your body (with the sex or without it). Then your representations can change with time, become nearly whole, or you can loose them (like in a depression).

    The biological parts are everything that biologists tell about our human bodies which have a biological functions, so it exclude the social functions and psychological functions. Which we tend to mix, because... confusion is great? Nope. So when we speak about sex, we may mean sexualities, biological functions, social functions or gender.

    That's my take ^^.



    Really tough subject, the only thing I can point out is a confusion in the language, and that there are TERFs who hide behind that confusion. We need clarifications so everyone can speak without being exclusive to anyone in their language, now different people will feel entitled to say we have to base our language on theirs, but that's competitive. If we want to advance we need to cooperate will excluding any exclusive position. I'll stop here, before I say something bad.

    Hope you didn't took my intervention too badly, I'm so sorry, I'll try my best so it doesn't happen anymore.

    It's really pleasant to read you and some of the discussions it produces, you have all my support, hope it helps ^^.
    I'm not upset, just pointing out my own perception.

    The thing is, two key components of Fascism by definition involve 1) The emphasis in contrast between the group one represents and everyone else, to the point of otherizing or dehumanizing. 2) Silencing critics, even if by violent means.

    Kinda tricky to strive for inclusiveness while also striving for that...


     
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [INTP] Which gender do your friends tend to be? (and what gender are you?)
    By BUtheBabyUnicorn in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 01-18-2016, 01:08 PM
  2. [ENFJ] Gender/ gender neutrality
    By chickpeaax in forum ENFJ Forum - The Givers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-03-2012, 02:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:40 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0