Gender theory
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=107972
Printed Date: November 24 2024 at 13:46
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Gender theory
Posted By: Blacksword
Subject: Gender theory
Date Posted: October 02 2016 at 01:13
|
Gender theory is the idea, currently pushed with the blessing of the governments of numerous countries, that regardless of ones biological sex, the individual can choose to identify as either male, female or neither. I'm sure most would agree that an adult can choose whatever they want in this regared, but should this idea be taught to impressionable young children in schools who have yet to fully understand their own biology? The pope, perhaps inevitably, said recently that he believes there to be global war on the family and marriage and that the teaching of gender theory in schools is part of that attack calling it 'ideological colonization' Thoughts? Liberals please try not to get too upset by this question..  ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Replies:
Posted By: TeleStrat
Date Posted: October 02 2016 at 02:04
|
No, it should not be taught to young children. It's already confusing enough to be a young child. Why add to the confusion? To those who support this theory I would ask what it is you hope to gain by this? I realize that gender confusion exists in some children but from what I've read it is a small percentage but that is different from teaching all children that they have a choice to be male, female or neither. To the young single members here I will say that I speak as a father of three (1 female, 2 males) and a grandfather of four (2 males , 2 females).
|
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: October 02 2016 at 02:14
|
Well, there's a big problem with the initial question, since there's no "gender theory", but "gender studies"... And that's quite different. I don't know for America, but, in France, people talking about "gender theory" and fearing that the "innocent ones" could be contaminated with this speech are religious freaks obsessed with feminism, homosexuality, abortion/contraception and the rest. So, I can't and won't vote in this poll, since it deals with the existence of the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot and the Chupacabra. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: October 02 2016 at 03:30
In other words you do support the teaching of 'gender studies' to young children? I used the remm 'gender theory' - perhaps wrongly - because it was the terminology used in an articel I had been reading before starting the thread. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
CPicard wrote:Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: October 02 2016 at 04:11
|
No, and if it were, more general post-structuralist theories should be taught first. Also, deconstruction should be followed by reconstruction. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 02 2016 at 07:57
So I take it the pope is well apprised of the concept of cultural marxism?
|
Posted By: Ozark Soundscape
Date Posted: October 02 2016 at 08:46
|
I think it should be included as a part of psychology classes but I don't see where it would fit in with the curriculum of a young child. It shouldn't be taught in biology since biology primarily deals with physical sex, not with mental gender. I don't think gender theory should be hidden from young children, but frankly I doubt it would have enough significance in the life of a child before puberty. |
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: October 02 2016 at 09:51
|
Definitely NO. The kids are at school to learn something useful, not to be impregnated by evil teachings that undermine their identity. When they have grown up somewhat they can take a little trip back with Father Tiresias .------------- 
|
Posted By: ALotOfBottle
Date Posted: October 02 2016 at 11:09
Exactly my thoughts. ------------- Categories strain, crack and sometimes break, under their burden - step out of the space provided. |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: October 02 2016 at 12:53
Same here.....at an appropriate age such a thing might have meaning to a person . Before that it's pointless. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: EddieRUKiddingVarese
Date Posted: October 02 2016 at 17:21
|
I got both, you don't have an option for that.............?? ------------- "Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes" and I need the knits, the double knits! |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 02 2016 at 19:01
|
Yes, y'all need some damn feminism up in here. Read some Judith Butler or something. |
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: October 03 2016 at 01:34
|
Okay, people, let me ask a question: except for Sweden (or Norway, I don't remember), could someone tell me which country ACTUALLY plans to promote to teach this idea? Does anyone here realise this thread is discussing something that is not even part of any real government plan??? |
Posted By: EddieRUKiddingVarese
Date Posted: October 03 2016 at 01:46
Would go down well in Fiji ?????
 ------------- "Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes" and I need the knits, the double knits! |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: October 03 2016 at 03:38
Gender studies is a college subject, but the point being made is that although it may not be an actual curriculum subject in schools the principle of being able to choose your gender is increasingly 'encouraged' in the school environment. I take it from your rather hostile reaction to the thread, that you reject the idea OR you are angered and 'triggered' by anyone questioning it?? Am I right? ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: AZF
Date Posted: October 03 2016 at 05:04
|
Maybe it's a UK government thing, but spending on the National Health Service cut back or denied for some cancer patients and cut back for debilitating conditions for some other people. Spending on transitions (although even then not all of them) however passed through no worries! I know where my priorities would go. Find a way to get equal funding and no problem. You'd just have to then get over the "Teenager feels weird and different for some reason" obstacle. I'm male, long hair (What's left of it) transition? Not really, not going to solve my problems in the long run and I'm happy being a useless limited male human. Change the language all you want, there's bigger problems in the world than this "Me,me,me,I am sad and unhappy" stuff. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: October 03 2016 at 07:31
|
I'm a liberal, and I don't support the teaching of this in schools (not that I think someone has actually proposed it yet though). ------------- 
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: October 03 2016 at 09:40
Normallu, I wouldn't care, but anything that can upset those idiots, I am for  |
Posted By: CaP
Date Posted: October 03 2016 at 10:13
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_studies" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity#International_human_rights_law" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity#International_human_rights_law The scope of teaching these studies sholud be to encourage the acceptance of differencies: people sholudn't care about others being hetero, gays or lebians as long as they are decent people, while nowadays there are people claiming that if your gay you're a rapist. It's normal being hetero just as is normal being homo: this has nothing to do with your morality. How to explain this complex topic to a child... well, that's a different thing. ------------- E per tutti il dolore degli altri è un dolore a metà |
Posted By: doompaul
Date Posted: October 03 2016 at 11:43
|
Why not? Giving a person options is usually a good thing. If one can identify an issue before it turns into a difficult (and quite possibly perceived as shameful) problem, then all the better.
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 03 2016 at 12:10
why not? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: October 03 2016 at 12:12
|
No. High school seems better suited to the maturity level needed for this. |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: October 03 2016 at 12:33
|
Isn't the ability to choose one's gender against the liberal doctrine? |
Posted By: aglasshouse
Date Posted: October 03 2016 at 13:13
|
Nope. ------------- http://fryingpanmedia.com |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: October 03 2016 at 13:54
-------------
|
Posted By: CaP
Date Posted: October 03 2016 at 14:07
I think teaching them to accept differencies would fit with the age. And high school/college would be ok with the whole thing ------------- E per tutti il dolore degli altri è un dolore a metà |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 04 2016 at 00:30
|
First off the pope needs to finish putting his own house in order before he even thinks about lecturing other people, he's made a good start but has got some ways to go yet. Other than that, who gives a crap. I understand the outcry in France a few years back was false rumour started by a bunch of right-wing w**kers for the sole purpose of stirring up other right-wing w**kers and I wonder how much this latest fart in a tin can is pope Frankie doing the same thing. Most people struggle understanding two genders so maybe the ideological people (liberal and conservative) who take pleasure in telling other people how to think, act and behave ought to think about sorting that one out first. No one is too young to understand any of this and no one is too old either. ------------- What? |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: October 04 2016 at 10:05
|
Really, the pope is just the head of a big gigantic book club. He's learned but no matter what his education, his worldview is still based on his book club membership so we shouldn't really pay attention to it per se. I'm an ideological person, what can I do. I still don;t see the subject of gender, with all its new (or now-accepted) ramifications, as one easy to teach young children. Again, later on I guess it's a good idea. -------------
|
Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: October 04 2016 at 10:13
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 04 2016 at 15:18
|
I think, as far as kids go, that if they are old enough to have gender
and its roles and functions forced upon them, they are also capable of
responding to and learning that gender is socially constructed, is
something that is more done than something that is.
Obviously, I would not be able to teach them this. I do not have a
degree in sociology/gender studies or in education. But the fact that
kids are capable of implicitly understanding gender, are capable of
being able to say things like "those are girl's clothes", etc.
makes it seem entirely possible to me that this sort of topic could be
included in elementary social studies at a basic level. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 04 2016 at 22:45
You obviously aren't a parent either  (Sorry, couldn't resist. )Gender is a sociological construct but sex isn't - no amount of education can affect anyone's biological sex and when that biology kicks in there is nothing you can do to stop it. Educate the grown-ups first - once they "get it" the rest will follow. ------------- What? |
Posted By: CaP
Date Posted: October 04 2016 at 22:58
|
I think institutions should educate the grown ups and the children. In my opinion educating a child (or better, helping him to accept the fact that there are differencies and those differencies have nothing to do with the decency of a person) could help the parents/relatives to "get it" and vice versa. ------------- E per tutti il dolore degli altri è un dolore a metà |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 04 2016 at 23:28
It sounds like a plan but it's never happened in the past when changes have been made to the public education of children that the parents simply do not "get". For many this one not only goes against what they have been brought up to believe, it goes against their personal, cultural, religious and political beliefs. The majority of grown ups cannot differentiate between gender and sex. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 01:39
|
Rather than inflicting trendy social experiments on kids, how about this...we let kids just be kids. There's nothing wrong with boys being encouraged to kick balls around and girls playing with dollies. If they want to swap toys and clothes fair f**ks to them, let them do it but why do we have to create a curriculum based subject out of what is essentially cross dressing. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 03:05
Yeah, I'm trigerred and angered by the fact you've created a thread and a poll about a "theory" that doesn't even exist. You're talking about a "curicullum" or "trendy social experiments" teached to children, but you don't answer to a question I already asked you: in which country, are there such teachings? Where have you seen any teacher talking about "crossdressing", transexuality or social construction of the gender to children under the age of, let's say, 12 or 15? Just tell me, just answer that before asking me what I think about a non-existent theory (and its also non-existent teaching). |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 03:41
|
From what I've heard, this "theory" is used by the Zionists to turn all men into women and thus weaken the white race. |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 07:25
What do you think about proper hair length? Many people predicted dire consequences when men started having longer hair than women. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 07:57
|
Children are imbeciles they should be handled with care -------------
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 08:29
I was using the popes terminology when I referred to 'gender theory' Be angry with the pope, if that helps. This will tickle you.. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389862/" rel="nofollow - Purple penguins ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 09:02
|
The most important thing to be schooled in is critical thinking and epistemology -------------  
|
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 13:17
| The requested page "/article/389862" could not be found. |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 13:44
Personally, I don't view "biological sex" as a thing that exists. I mostly am in agreement with Judith Butler, who does not view the sex/gender dichotomy to be real. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/#SexGenDis" rel="nofollow - This gives a good short explanation. I also think this quote from an Endnotes article on the topic of https://endnotes.org.uk/issues/3/en/endnotes-the-logic-of-gender" rel="nofollow - gender is a short and simple way to put it:
Sorry for the Marxist terminology, but it is apt and a well made analogy describing how I view sex/gender. I am also a gender nihilist, but I don't want to get into that because without a nuanced view it could easily slide into TERFy territory. Also, as far as not being a parent goes, no I am not. But I do watch 3-4 kids every day for about 12 hours. :) |
(Sorry, couldn't resist. 
)Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 15:15
wtf, tl;dr -- so how do you explain penises and vaginas?  Also, if sex didn't exist, why would gender be relevant? |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 15:38
|
Quoted from standford philosophical encyclopedia http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/ "Gender as a mode of social situation. Most feminist theorists distinguish between sex and gender. Sex comprises the biological differences between males and females. Gender is what societies make of sexual differences: the different roles, norms, and meanings they assign to men and women and the things associated with them on account of their real or imagined sexual characteristics. Gender thus has several dimensions (Haslanger 2000). Gender roles. Men and women are assigned to distinct social roles. For example, most societies reserve political and military offices mostly for men, and assign women most childrearing responsibilities. Gender norms. Men and women are expected to comply with different norms of behavior and bodily comportment. For example, men are expected to be assertive and athletic; women, deferential and modest. Gender norms are tailored to gender roles: men and women are expected to conform to those norms that make them fit for their gender roles (whether or not they actually occupy those roles). Gendered traits and virtues. Psychological traits are considered “masculine” and “feminine” if they dispose their bearers to comply with the gender norms assigned to men and women, respectively. “Masculine” traits are therefore regarded as virtues in men and (often) vices in women, while “feminine” traits are regarded as vices in men and virtues in women. Gendered performance/behavior. Many feminist theorists, often influenced by postmodernism, stress the contextual and performative aspects of gender (West & Zimmerman 1987; Butler 1990). Rather than viewing masculinity and femininity as fixed traits, these theorists represent human beings as more flexible and disposed to enact both “masculine” and “feminine” behaviors in different contexts. The man who avoids tenderly comforting a crying baby in the presence of women may do so when alone. Masculinity and femininity can be seen as contrasting styles of performance in almost any role. Female body builders strive to show off their muscles in a “feminine” way. Gender identity. A person's ascribed gender identity—how others identify him or her—may not match his or her subjective gender identity. Subjective gender identity includes all of the ways one might understand oneself to be a man, a woman, both, or neither. One could identify with any subset of gender norms, roles, and traits ascribed to the gender of which one sees oneself as a member, while repudiating others. One could even repudiate them all, but still identify oneself as a man or a woman in terms of what one sees as distinct roles men and women ought to play in bringing about a just future (one that may or may not include gender distinctions). One could, as many feminists do, understand one's gender identity as a predicament shared by all with the same ascribed identity, and thus as a basis for collective action to change the very basis of one's gender identity. One could embrace an “androgenous” identity, decline to view oneself in gender polarized terms at all, or play with gender identities in a postmodernist spirit". -------------
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 15:51
Penises and vaginas are just penises and vaginas. When a body is "sexed", that is, designated as male or female, it is a thing that is being done to it, not an identification of some innate character of that body. Also, the sex/gender thing is relatively new in feminist theory k |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 15:55
But isn't it most common to designate penis-flavoured bodies as male and vagina-flavoured ones as female? |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 16:01
It is, but why? |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 16:05
I dunno butt could it be because that's what male and female essentially means?  The point being, if gender, whatever it is, isn't tied to any biological features, why even borrow from biological concepts when attempting to define it? Why not just make up completely new words? |
Posted By: Magnum Vaeltaja
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 18:47
I can definitely accept that gender is a societal construct and that individuals should be free to choose which societal roles they wish to adhere to, but the idea that biological sex is arbitrary, or a social construct, is absurd. I can kind of see what Butler is talking about, and I can accept that the concept of naming one set of biological characteristics one name (i.e. male) and a distinct set of biological characteristics by another (i.e. female) is a societal construct, but her argument doesn't seem very grounded in anything objective. Objectively, the concept that we have named "sex" exists. When organisms reproduce, the resulting offspring will, by random chance, take on a certain set of characteristics depending on which chromosomes it receives. In humans, if you are randomly given two X chromosomes by your parents, you will bear a certain set of characteristics. You will have a vagina, clitoris and ovaries. You will produce egg cells as gametes. Whereas if nature randomly selects that you'll carry an X and Y chromosome, you will have a penis and testicles and you will produce sperm cells as gametes. Regardless of whether or not you consider these two individuals as different entities is irrelevant; there are inherent differences between them and one cannot reproduce with its own; it must look to the other in order to have its own offspring. Thus, a dichotomy does exist and that's that. And no "oppression" is at play because a doctor declares one offspring male and another female; random chance decided on the child's sex, not the individual doctor or the greater medical community. Of course, there are some nuances. Biological systems are complex; more complex than any social scientist or gender studies researcher can simply reason out in their head with mental gymnastics. There are some conditions that arise where genes don't operate as they should during sexual differentiation, and intersex individuals definitely exist, but they are statistical anomalies. In that sense, sex is a bit of a "pseudo-spectrum", with some uncertainty arising. But in general, sex should, and can, be defined empirically. There should be something quantitative and tangible that sex describes, and there is. In humans, XX chromosome = female, XY chromosome = male. These genetic differences lead to very distinct structural differences that can be observed and form the basis for a very rigorous definition of sex. As I said before, though, gender is a whole different bag of tricks, and actually does relate to the societal constructs associated with sex, and is certainly more of a continuum than gender is. So once Judith Butler gets an in-depth background in genetics, I'll be happy to hear more of her ideas. ------------- when i was a kid a doller was worth ten dollers - now a doller couldnt even buy you fifty cents |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 19:06
Sorry to pop the question but did you not go through puberty? And on the off chance that you are indeed apathetic to sex, why not live and let live and let the rest of us experience it?
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 21:20
Yes I did, and I am not apathetic to sex (I identify as bi/pan depending on if the people i am talking to know what pansexuality is), but I am not sure what that has to do with anything. |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 21:23
If you hadn't chosen to not read anything you'd see that the things I quoted from don't bother to borrow from biological concepts. :) |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 21:26
If the term sex just described a particular set of chromosomes you have, it is utterly useless. No one argued that sexual dimorphism doesn't exist, just that it doesn't really have any meaning in terms of defining sex/gender. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 21:46
Ahem it has everything to do with it if you aren't bisexual. As a heterosexual male I am ONLY attracted to women. It is biological and not a social construct. Even if I disobeyed Dawkins' advice and opened my mind until it fell right out, I still wouldn't be attracted to men. So the notion on opposite sexes is very relevant for heterosexuals; it's not something we were made to believe by society. Why do most lionesses mate only with male lions?
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 22:21
What does gender identity have to do with sexual/romantic attraction? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 22:23
Judith Butler is not a biologist so quoting a philosopher at me is pretty much the same as quoting the bible, if you believe that then good for you, if you don't then good for you - and to be perfectly honest that is all you can say about philosophy. Babysitting/childminding is nothing like being a parent, though there are obvious observations you make and maybe you do see the continuous growth and development cycle over a prolonged period but I'd be surprised if you had sufficient emotional connection to react to that development rather than just observe it or see the subtle changes that such a connection reveals. ------------- What? |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 22:38
I repeat myself but if most of the human race, like many mammals, are heterosexuals and are only attracted to humans from the opposite sex, then sexual/gender identity has everything to do with it. You cannot project your personal experience on the rest of us. I respect your orientation and expect you to likewise respect mine. Saying there is no such thing as sex pretends that my experience is an artificial construct which it absolutely isn't.
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 22:43
Surely you also would have to discard a biologist's work since it depends on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_biology" rel="nofollow - philosophy of biology . |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 23:01
Really? The philosophy of science is not science. Philosophy does not affect physiology. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Magnum Vaeltaja
Date Posted: October 05 2016 at 23:08
Exactly, even if biologists are being guided in their research by philosophical principles, they're still leaps and bounds more credible to speak about biology because they actually use empirical evidence and collect reproducible results experimentally. ------------- when i was a kid a doller was worth ten dollers - now a doller couldnt even buy you fifty cents |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 06 2016 at 13:27
1. No, sex/gender identity have nothing to do with your sexuality. That's like, queer theory 101. 2. Understanding the socially constructed nature of gender does not invalidate anyone's experiences. |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 06 2016 at 13:28
Evidence and results mean nothing if you don't interpret them. Besides, biological determinism is silly. |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: October 06 2016 at 20:39
The idea that gender is a distinct notion from sex and that gender works on a continuum is not even controversial in psychology. For this reason, I don't think that puberty is particularly relevant to this question, as some other posts have supposed. Individual deviations from prescribed gender roles occur very early even at pre-school ages. The question is what is the curriculum and what level of sophistication does it entail? If it's mainly as an anti-bullying effort, I think it might be worthwhile. However, because of the huge gulf between what is readily accepted in psychology versus what the mainstream populace just assumes as a gut reaction, I think we should educate the adults (the educators, parents, politicians, ...) first. ------------- A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now) |
Posted By: Magnum Vaeltaja
Date Posted: October 06 2016 at 21:50
Yep, I'll have to agree with everything you just said. There's no doubt that at young ages, and consistently throughout childhood/adolescence, we should make efforts to reinforce to children that it's okay to have characteristics from whatever gender they feel most comfortable associating with/not identifying with a gender at all. And I can't see it as something that would be particularly difficult to implement into the education system. It could easily fit in with more or less all the other basic life skills/common courtesies that get taught in kindergarten and early grades. Edit: In that respect, I voted "yes" to the original poll. I think gender theory should get taught in schools; not necessarily the philosophical musings that A Person has been listing off (save that for grad school), but definitely a common courtesy/mutual respect of others type of implementation that promotes people embracing their identities.
------------- when i was a kid a doller was worth ten dollers - now a doller couldnt even buy you fifty cents |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 06 2016 at 22:33
|
Obviously I'm not saying we should teach elementary kids college-level
philosophy. But to teach kids ways to understand, accept, and support
each other, to prevent things like this: would not be impossible. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: October 07 2016 at 06:44
Interpretation of results is part of the process of science itself. The philosophy of science isn't needed. And biological determinism may be silly but it's true so. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 07 2016 at 09:25
Now this is just semantics. While gender may be a social construct up to a point, sex is not. So whether you call it sex identity or sexuality is beside the point. It's still very much a thing and for a heterosexual, immediately identifies the opposite sex as, well, opposite. There is no ambiguity there. Nobody who's actually heterosexual (rather than being forced to conform to his/her gender role by society) is ever sexually attracted to those from his/her own sex. So that means something by way of 'the other' sex does exist. I am not hung up on words, we can call it male and female or we can call it something else but the notion of opposite sexes will remain as long as a majority of humans are heterosexual in orientation which is very much the case today. Unless, of course, a concerted effort is made to condition kids to feel ambiguous about themselves just the same way as people were earlier (and still are in some parts of the world) forced to deny the fact that perhaps they, as individuals, were somehow differently orientated sexually than others. But in that case, you would again be using social engineering to achieve a purportedly natural outcome so it would really be no different for all purposes from the earlier orthodoxy. I am just saying, nobody told me that I am supposed to get attracted to women; it just happened. So that part of it is not social conditioning at all since in my culture it was taboo to discuss anything to do with sex in the presence of children. To be clear, by attraction, I mean lust and not love since you conflated sexual and romantic attraction earlier in the discussion. There are biological forces at work when it comes to sexual attraction and which way it REALLY goes is decided by the body, not the mind.
See above. I have a problem with your over ambition in also claiming sex as in sexual identity is only a social construct. Gender, yes, but not sex. And no, I am not interested in sociologists claiming that sex is only a social construct to further whatever ideological beliefs they may hold. Let a biologist demonstrate the same and I will readily open my mind to this possibility.
|
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: October 07 2016 at 14:50
|
Gender identity is about one's self-concept. It does not detrmine what sex one is attracted to. For instance, a person with a male sex organ can identify as female yet be attracted to other females. If I understand correctly, I do agree with Rogerthat that proposed sociopolitical motivations should be summarily tossed out. ------------- A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now) |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 07 2016 at 22:24
Thanks, this is kind of what I am trying to address by separating sex from gender. Sexual attraction is biological and the example you have given is exactly what I am talking about.
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 07 2016 at 23:49
Sexual attraction is not 100% determined biologically. I would respond to more thingsbut i'm ttoo tired. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 08 2016 at 02:46
Woh... if it (biological sex) is not 100% biological then all medical realignment surgeries, procedures and treatments are unnecessary, which makes them nothing more than cosmetic vanities like piercings and tattoos. It also means that it (attraction, orientation, dysphoria) can be changed (fixed, corrected, cured) by giving someone a stiff talking-to. Now, I don't believe for one minute you are saying any of that at all but it is the consequential implication of regarding sex as a sociological construct (or at least in part). In order for both those implications/inferences to be false [and I believe they are] then it is necessary to completely separate the sociological (software) from the biological (hardware and firmware) - and I suspect what Butler et al are doing is regarding the firmware as something that is wholly programmable on all dimorphic hardware configurations so is purely sociological whereas (to continue the computing analogy) the evidence currently suggests it is only partially reconfigurable at a higher level on specifically compatible hardware as far as the low-level microcode will allow. The problem with sociology, psychology and philosophy is they only work on biological organisms, which means they are an effect not a cause. In this regard the philosophy of science and the philosophy of biology are meaningless buzz-words, when I said "Philosophy does not affect physiology" that is a truth, just as "sociology does not affect gravity" and "psychology doesn't affect mass" - what they are actually wasting hours of their time prattling on about isn't even the philosophy of scientists or the philosophy of biologists but the philosophy of consequences. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: October 08 2016 at 03:12
|
Sex is clearly by definition 100% biological, but I don't think it would
be impossible to completely change one's sexual attraction by
psychological and/or physical indoctrination. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 08 2016 at 04:39
I agree, but which would be an undesirable way to go about it. It has to be purely internal and voluntary.
|
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: October 08 2016 at 09:49
------------- A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now) |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: October 08 2016 at 10:30
|
If a man/woman is raised in complete isolation (I know, impossible, anyway...) and is presented with a woman and man for the first time after puberty, who will he/she be attracted to? -------------
|
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: October 08 2016 at 11:48
I simply don't understand that.....how can someone be attracted to females who is biologically male yet gender indentify as female..? To me that sounds like a psychological malfunction....? ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: TeleStrat
Date Posted: October 08 2016 at 12:35
|
My earlier answer to the original question about teaching this topic to young school children was no. After reading some of the replies my answer is still no. Most of the conversations here are at the college level (out of necessity?) so why would anyone expect elementary school, middle school or even high school students to understand. BTW, what are people hoping to gain by trying to change a child's sexual attraction?
|
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: October 08 2016 at 13:23
|
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: October 08 2016 at 13:47
------------- A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now) |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: October 08 2016 at 14:22
Also, it is one thing to make the calculation that the sophistication of a proposed curriculum is not age level appropriate. This not the same as saying there is not a need for some kind of curriculum. Gender identity conflicts do not wait for puberty or adulthood, and the lack of acceptance over gender identification does put children at higher risk for suicide. ------------- A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now) |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: October 08 2016 at 14:49
|
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: October 08 2016 at 15:30
|
If gender is a social construKct, why submit to it by identifying as anything genderwise? |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: October 10 2016 at 10:09
|
Gender is a social psychological construct. ------------- A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now) |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 10 2016 at 10:45
This is what happens when smart people aren't employed doing proper jobs.  ------------- What? |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: October 10 2016 at 10:52
|
This is what happens when you have fields which remain willingly ignorant of an entire field of science. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: October 10 2016 at 13:16
|
This is what happens when the Infallible words of Your Imperial Majesty The Pope are not heeded and have not been for the last couple of generations -------------
|
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: October 10 2016 at 13:21
|
This is what happens when inb4 combo breaker |