Gender Roles

[Jarhyn]

But totally unfair to suggest he might be racist!

It certainly is. I'm getting the sense that you and I are talking about two different people. I was referring to Jason. What BIPOC libertarian are you talking about?

Ohhh Jason, the one who just argues business owners should be able to racially discriminate if they want to. Yeah, totally not racist.

Um, you appear to be assuming if someone is against something then suppressing that thing must be his number one top priority. You're pro-choice, IIRC. So that means whenever you see a pregnant woman you totally want her baby to die?

No, he's arguing that people tend to only argue for freedoms they themselves want, which is often, but not always, true.

If I saw someone arguing for the right to send kids to conversion camps, I can pretty well say that if they had a kid who was "starting to smell a little fruity" that I would be on the lookout for signs of undue stress, have CPS on autodial, and make sure to have some reading material on display somewhere out of eyeshot of anyone who could see them taking it about resisting conversion camps and reporting such indoctrination attempts to authorities for relief from oppression, as well as some assuring that LGBT+ tendencies are not in any way bad, just a less common... And I would count the number of pamphlets on occasion to see if anyone took one.

You present here a false dichotomy. It's not "top priority or nothing", and Jason is incredibly racist and in fact Asian Americans and for some reason a lot of [east] Indian Americans and in particular about black people. There's actually a certain kind of racism called into existence against/for Punjabi people in tech roles.

Racism is often not, and even generally not often someone's top priority, but we can ascertain that it is one of someone's priorities simply by the fact that they argue it.

It's certainly on their mind, and doesn't have to be on the top of it to be there... Though the fact that folks here can pretty well identify it speaks volumes.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Um, you appear to be assuming if someone is against something then suppressing that thing must be his number one top priority. You're pro-choice, IIRC. So that means whenever you see a pregnant woman you totally want her baby to die?

No because racism is specifically something which is used to harm people. Abortion isn't. I would similarly not argue guns are always used to harm people, in some cases they are for self-defense, like abortion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why would anyone think *he's* racist? He just often posts about black people in negative ways, and has a strange focus on them. Particularly black criminals. But totally unfair to suggest he might be racist!

People can be racist without being white supremacist. People with Native Anerican background, for example, can be racist against blacks, Asians, or any other group without being white supremacist.

Definitely. I've repeatedly seen this in China. She has gotten criticism for marrying outside her race. She has had concern from some of her relatives when we were looking at a trip to a part of China that isn't Han Chinese.

 

[Emily Lake]

My point has ever been this: that "Man" and "Woman" are not useful categories except for idiotic political games and general discussions of social treatment

From the perspective of one of the women... it's rather useful for things like which person gets letters asking them to get a cervical exam versus a prostate exam, division of athletics to allow for fair participation, whether or not access to contraception should be prohibited or allowed, division of areas where people are likely to be naked or particularly vulnerable to sexual crimes (including exhibitionism and voyeurism), and a host of other things.

At the end of the day, the terms man and woman have a meaning that identifies both species and sex. Man is a male human being, just as buck is a male deer, rooster is a male chicken, and gander is a male goose. Woman is a female human being, just as mare is a female horse, nanny is a female goat, and vixen is a female fox.

You've taken a position where you have unilaterally declared that the term "woman" can only be used to refer to gender identity, and is thus directly dependent on a set of social stereotypes that most reasonable people view as regressive and sexist in nature. If you'd like to gain support for that position, and hence for your presumption that some men are women, then what do you propose to use as a replacement for the terms that commonly identify members of each sex within the human species?

What is your proposed term for male human beings, and what is your term for female human beings?

 

[Janice Rael]

My point has ever been this: that "Man" and "Woman" are not useful categories except for idiotic political games and general discussions of social treatment

From the perspective of one of the women... it's rather useful for things like which person gets letters asking them to get a cervical exam versus a prostate exam,

To @Emily Lake - some women do need and get prostate exams. This does not negate the need for pap smears by other women.

Hope this helps next time you get such a letter.


The term I use for human beings is "human people."

 

[Emily Lake]

Can you give an argument for "The introduction of sheep didn't materially alter Dine culture"? That seems like a very preposterous claim. Next you're going to tell me the introduction of horses didn't materially alter Mapuche culture?

At any rate, absent contemporary sources before the introduction of sheep, what is your argument that Diné values and beliefs before and after where materially the same? In pastoralist cultures, a person's (usually man's) status is often in large part determined by the size of his herd, and lifestock is used to pay dowry/bride price (as the case may be). Is none of that true of the Diné? Was any of that true before they had sheep?

There are any number of things that can alter status, but do not alter the fundamental values, beliefs, and traditions of a group of people.

Think back to 2007, when iPhone was first released. That was definitely an item that was viewed as an indicator of status - if you didn't have one you were nobody and probably a luddite. That changed the equation by which we measure status... but do you think that the iPhone altered the underlying values of the US? Did it materially change our shared (ish) traditions?

Sheep altered the equation for status within Dine culture, absolutely. It upset some prior balances, with some people who previously had low status now having higher status, and vice-versa. But it didn't change the belief system, did it? Did new myths arise that granted religious venerance to sheep? Did the values of caring for family above one's own personal gain suddenly disappear? What traditions were fundamentally altered by the introduction of sheep?

I'm not saying this is a firm line. There are some technological innovations that do alter culture, but there are many that do not. The industrial revolution altered culture - not because we now had industry, but because it fundamentally shifted the value base of noble vs peasant. And to be fair, the invention of industry and the steam engine wouldn't have done that by itself if it hadn't been paired with the rise of mercantilism, which resulted from the progression of protestant values throughout europe.

That said... I'm also bowing out of this. My knowledge is nowhere near deep enough to get any further into the weeds. My overall view is that culture is about the values, beliefs, and traditions that are commonly held by a group of people, rather than about the mechanics and things in their lives.

 

[Politesse]

My point has ever been this: that "Man" and "Woman" are not useful categories except for idiotic political games and general discussions of social treatment

From the perspective of one of the women... it's rather useful for things like which person gets letters asking them to get a cervical exam versus a prostate exam,

To @Emily Lake - some women do need and get prostate exams. This does not negate the need for pap smears by other women.

Hope this helps next time you get such a letter.


The term I use for human beings is "human people."

I call'em "scrubs".

 

[Janice Rael]

My overall view is that culture is about the values, beliefs, and traditions that are commonly held by a group of people, rather than about the mechanics and things in their lives.

I'd like to go on record as stating that I do believe that the things in people's lives are part of their culture.

 

[Janice Rael]

The term I use for human beings is "human people."

I call'em "scrubs".

But TLC taught me not to accept scrubs, as they tend to hang on the passenger side of their best friends' rides, trying to holla at us.

 

[Politesse]

The term I use for human beings is "human people."

I call'em "scrubs".

But TLC taught me not to accept scrubs, as they tend to hang on the passenger side of their best friends' rides, trying to holla at us.

Look, I ain't no holla back girl. But I know a scrub when I see one. And most people? Is scrubs.

#anthropology

 

[Emily Lake]

The way I parse that is that her preferred solution would indeed be no trans women in the ladies' but she's willing to let trans women who "pass" in, but only because enforcing their exclusion would imply harassing cis women to prove their status at the sink. The problem is (or rather one problem), given the reality of cis women with unusually masculine appearance, that some cis women will still have to show their genitals to vigilantes with a more rigorous idea about who does or doesn't pass then the rest of us, unless we make this a mere recommendation, ignoring which is a breach of courtesy rather than a breach of law. If we do, the entire discussion is obsolete.

My position is nothing more than common sense, and you're way overthinking it.

At the end of the day, we don't know what we don't know.

Consider a closed jewish service that disallows participation of gentiles. How is that likely to be enforced? Do you think they're going to make every person show proof of ancestry or documentation of conversion? Probably not. More likely, they're going to expect the appropriate responses to common questions, using the right language, and the right forms of address. It's entirely possible that I could, as an entirely goyish person, go to one of these services claiming to be visiting from out of town - and if I meet the appropriate expectations by following the norms, nobody is going to throw me out because I didn't produce proof of ancestry. If I can successfully pantomime the expectations in that setting, nobody will know that I'm an atheist. They don't know what they don't know.

If, however, I were to show up and mouth the appropriate platitudes at the door, then proceeded to start denying the hebrew god existed and proclaiming everyone in the temple to be dumbasses who believe in myths... I'm pretty sure my cover would be blown just as much as Munroe Bergdorf's is when they drop their pants and everyone can see their twig and giggle berries.

So yes, if a transgender identified male manages to look even moderately like an actual female human being, they're going to be given the benefit of the doubt, provided they don't abuse the courtesy.

We had no problems with this for decades. It's only become a problem recently, and only because the males with transgender identities who have invaded female-specific spaces have been abusing our courtesy and demanding that they have a *right* to be there regardless of our consent.

 

[Janice Rael]

So yes, if a transgender identified male manages to look even moderately like an actual female human being, they're going to be given the benefit of the doubt, provided they don't abuse the courtesy.

We had no problems with this for decades. It's only become a problem recently, and only because the males with transgender identities who have invaded female-specific spaces have been abusing our courtesy and demanding that they have a *right* to be there regardless of our consent.

Who gets to examine the urogenital systems of people who need to pee? When, how, who pays for it, and why, to all?

 

[Emily Lake]

I am puzzled as to what it is you two think determines the voluntary behavior of sentient animals, if not cognition. I'm not considering behavior and cognition as isomorphic -- a Venus Flytrap closing on a bug or a human speeding up his heart rate when in pain are evidently not caused by cognition, and there may be all sorts of cognitive differences that aren't reflected in behavior. But how is it possible for lions and lionesses to have systematically different behavioral tendencies without first having systematic cognitive differences to bring them about? What, are lioness's different decisions in the same situations a purely mechanical reaction to not being as heavy as lions? On its face you two appear to be disputing that this is a cause-and-effect universe. Or perhaps you two mean something different by "cognition" from what I mean.

I'm struggling for the terminology to get this out, so bear with me.

There's a difference between cognition and behavior, and you reference it somewhat. Cognition is the process by which we acquire and expand knowledge; behavior is the mechanism of response to our environment. Several of those terms in there are being used very broadly, but to narrow the scope would require pages and a degree I don't hold.

You ask whether a lioness's decisions are based purely on them not being as heavy as lions. To this, I would ask how much of a lioness's observed actions do you believe are decisions consciously made, as opposed to behaviors subconsciously acted upon? Do you think a lioness hides her cups because she's consciously considering the likelihood that the pride lion might kill them? Or do you think she hides them because her innate instincts developed over millennia drive her to that behavior?

Behavior is how we respond, and the majority of it is not conscious. The fact that it's not conscious is why we have an entire field of cognitive behavioral therapy - to bring those unconscious responses into conscious consideration so that we can alter them. Cognition is much more volitional, and includes the act of considering consequences and implications, and actually making decisions when faced with multiple potential paths.

As far as "females form thoughts through a different mechanism than that used by males" goes, yes, of course they do. Everybody forms thoughts through a different mechanism from that used by everybody else. I form thoughts through a different mechanism from that used by you two: I form them using my brain and you form them using your brains, and my brain and your brains are three different mechanisms. No people's brains are alike. When two people choose differently in the same situation, what cause is there in the universe to account for that, apart from some difference in the thought-forming mechanisms their respective brains implement?

This is splitting hairs. Sure, nobody's brains are alike... but neither is anybody's knee joint exactly the same as someone else's. And yet, all of our knees function by the same mechanics (assuming they function, of course). Some people can run and jump and their knees have no complaints. Other people's knees are just not as cooperative when it comes to athletics. Some people have high manual dexterity and can play piano beautifully, other people have low manual dexterity and struggle to feed themselves with a fork - but all of those hands have the same mechanics involved.

Similarly, the processes by which we think and learn are largely the same. No two people's brains are identical, but the mechanisms by which our brains function are the same. We all have an occipital and a temporal lobe, we all have frontal cortexes, and those sections perform the same processes. The outcomes will differ for each person, sure. And some may have better executive function where others struggle to prioritize the simplest tasks.

So with that in mind... are you and jokodo of the opinion that the brains of female humans function in a different manner than the brains of male humans? Do you think our brains have vastly different structures, or that the process by which we acquire and expand our knowledge is fundamentally different?

You could potentially argue that males and females urinate through a slightly different process. We both have urethras that attach to our kidneys, and form an evacuation path for urine, but those urethras pass through different internal structures in a way that can alter the process. I mean, crass as it sounds, women don't generally have any trouble peeing while aroused because there's nothing constricting our urethras. But even then, the majority of the mechanisms involved in the evacuation of liquid waste are much more alike than different.

When you and jokodo opine that men and women have different cognitive processes, to me you're not saying that men and women have different behavioral tendencies. You're not even saying that we have different mental strengths and weaknesses on average. To me, you're claiming that the functional processes of our brains are fundamentally different from one another. And I don't think that view is supported.

So I'll circle back around to my first comment in there: Explain what you mean by "biologically female cognition".

 

[Emily Lake]

My point has ever been this: that "Man" and "Woman" are not useful categories except for idiotic political games and general discussions of social treatment

From the perspective of one of the women... it's rather useful for things like which person gets letters asking them to get a cervical exam versus a prostate exam,

To @Emily Lake - some women do need and get prostate exams. This does not negate the need for pap smears by other women.

Hope this helps next time you get such a letter.


The term I use for human beings is "human people."

No female human being needs a prostate exam. We have a word that is commonly used to mean "female human being".

I do not accept your linguistic coercion. Condescension and zeal are insufficient arguments by which to change my mind.

 

[Jarhyn]

.

I recall a piece of media called CentaurWorld: Centaur™

 

[Bomb#20]

Um, you appear to be assuming if someone is against something then suppressing that thing must be his number one top priority. You're pro-choice, IIRC. So that means whenever you see a pregnant woman you totally want her baby to die?

No because racism is specifically something which is used to harm people. Abortion isn't. I would similarly not argue guns are always used to harm people, in some cases they are for self-defense, like abortion.

That's a special-pleading fallacy. The parallel between the two inferences is precise. It's an error to assume that if Jason wanted a woman not to be discriminated against he'd favor forcing the business owner not to discriminate against her, for exactly the same reason it's an error to assume that if you wanted a fetus not to die you'd favor forcing the mother not to kill it. That you happen to think the mother has good reasons and the business owner doesn't is neither here nor there; it doesn't change the fact that one and the same inference procedure cannot be valid in one line of reasoning and invalid in the other.

Um, you appear to be assuming if someone is against something then suppressing that thing must be his number one top priority. You're pro-choice, IIRC. So that means whenever you see a pregnant woman you totally want her baby to die?

No, he's arguing that people tend to only argue for freedoms they themselves want, which is often, but not always, true.

"Freedom" is a word that conflates three radically different concepts:

1. I get to do what I want.
2. You get to do what I want.
3. You get to do what you want.

Most people who say they favor freedom appear to actually only care about 1 and 2, and barely give a rat's ass about 3; you're right about that. But libertarians are not most people. Theirs is a philosophy that appeals to about 2% of the population. They're weirdos and they know it -- that's why they named themselves after what distinguishes them from most people: caring about 3. So if you're speculating that GN may have assumed they don't care about 3 because he or she was projecting, yes, that's a plausible hypothesis.

If I saw someone arguing for the right to send kids to conversion camps, <snip>

Conversion camps are prisons. I haven't seen libertarians alleging business owners' "right to imprison people".

You present here a false dichotomy. It's not "top priority or nothing",

Possibly so. What's the third option that would also rule out Jason being against discrimination and opposing prohibition only because prohibition conflicts with some higher priority of his?

and Jason is incredibly racist

Number of times I've seen Jason disparage an ethnicity: zero.

Number of times I've seen you misunderstand someone else's viewpoint and/or mix someone up with a different poster: about a thousand.

So why on god's green earth would I ever take your word for your contention?

in fact Asian Americans and for some reason a lot of [east] Indian Americans and in particular about black people.

This clause no verb.

Racism is often not, and even generally not often someone's top priority, but we can ascertain that it is one of someone's priorities simply by the fact that they argue it.

That argument appears to indicate that you misunderstood me about "top priority". I wasn't proposing that racism has to be someone's top priority for her to be for it; I was pointing out that anti-racism doesn't have to be someone's top priority for her to be against it. It looks to me like Jason is against racism but nonviolence is a higher priority to him.

It's certainly on their mind, and doesn't have to be on the top of it to be there... Though the fact that folks here can pretty well identify it speaks volumes.

There's a certain religious group that has made it a cottage industry to claim to have sniffed out racists lurking behind every curtain much the way 50s McCarthyists claimed to have sniffed out communists. It speaks volumes, yes.

I started this derail by accident -- I only mentioned Jason in the first place because he made a good metaphor, since he's so often been the object of the same enemy-of-your-enemy-is-your-friend fallacy that an earlier poster here directed at someone else. So in the hope of bringing the derail to a quick close, I would urge all who can't quote him saying something racist to not accuse him of it.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

That's a special-pleading fallacy. The parallel between the two inferences is precise.

Yeah, sure, absolutely no differences between the reasons people get abortions and the reasons people racially discriminate. Lmao.

We have to talk about the reasons why because behaviors have justifications and people use those justifications. It's a vital part of human psychology. But you're just hand-waving that away. People get power trips over racial discrimination. It's simply not the same case with abortion and it's not the same thing at all as you're ridiculously suggesting. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of two things being different from each other, and no, pointing out two things are different is not a logical fallacy. That's just "A is not B'. They're the exact same IF YOU IGNORE THE EXACT REASONS I STATED WHY THEY'RE DIFFERENT, IN VERY BASIC, TYPICAL ARGUMENTATIVE FASHION. The hand-waving sure does make it easier for you to ignore your opponent's argument though.

 

[Emily Lake]

Number of times I've seen Jason disparage an ethnicity: zero.

Agreed.

Actually, I don't think I've ever seen Jason actively disparage any group of people.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Number of times I've seen Jason disparage an ethnicity: zero.

Agreed.

Actually, I don't think I've ever seen Jason actively disparage any group of people.

You'd deny it even if someone showed you evidence or try to explain it away.

 

[Emily Lake]

Number of times I've seen Jason disparage an ethnicity: zero.

Agreed.

Actually, I don't think I've ever seen Jason actively disparage any group of people.

You'd deny it even if someone showed you evidence or try to explain it away.

Not true. But you do actually have to show the evidence, not just holler that it totally exists and I should just take your word for it.