TERFs crash London Pride

[caveman1917]

Regardless of whether you call it gender or not it's surely trivial to see that the issue has both biological and social elements?

Nonsense, just because black people are considered thuggish doesn't mean there's a biological basis for it. The same goes for gender.

It seems to me that in your preferred non-gendered society the answer would still be the same in pretty much all practical terms.

Obviously. The difference being that in a non-gendered/non-patriarchal society there wouldn't be any need for, for example, women's shortlists in politics or other such measures and hence also no problems with transwomen taking such positions for themselves.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Nonsense, just because black people are considered thuggish doesn't mean there's a biological basis for it. The same goes for gender.

Not even the least bit comparable. But yes if an individual black person feels thuggish or not... that has a biological basis. If they are expected to be thuggish but aren't that doesn't mean that there is no biological basis for their lack of thuggishness.

If there is nothing biological at play then how do you explain the dysphoria?

 

[kellyb]

It still blows my mind that people have such simplistic reasoning about gender roles and the alleged "patriarchy"

I'd love to hear your thoughts on patriarchy in the human species.

They seem to have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo as much as the "patriarchy" they rail against so ineffectually.

Same here. Why the scare quotes around the word patriarchy?

 

[caveman1917]

Not even the least bit comparable. But yes if an individual black person feels thuggish or not... that has a biological basis. If they are expected to be thuggish but aren't that doesn't mean that there is no biological basis for their lack of thuggishness.

My point is that just because there is, in a certain society, an expectation that someone with black skin colour will be thuggish doesn't mean that there is a biological basis for that, that skin colour determines "thuggishness" biologically. Likewise, just because there is, in a certain society, an expectation that someone who is male will have masculine behaviours doesn't mean that there is a biological basis for that.

If there is nothing biological at play then how do you explain the dysphoria?

The same way you explain anorexia, not by pretending that one is born anorexic, but by recognizing the effects of socialization in a society such as ours (ie structurally patriarchal, including beauty standards in particular in this case). Statistically speaking there will always be some people who, through various exacerbating circumstances, "crack" under those pressures to develop mental health conditions.

If gender dysphoria is a case of a "male brain stuck in a female body" or some such, then how do you explain the high comorbidity with other mental health conditions? Besides, not all cases of gender dysphoria are the same, some are just narcissism (the "cult" referred to above, a minority but a particularly destructive one), some are autism (problems with rigidity in terms of social roles, in this case gender roles), some are fetishistic or predatory (male rapists demanding to be put in female prisons who then go on to rape them), some - probably most - are as per the above problems with gendered socialization, some are body dysmorphic ("My body should be made to look female" - akin to people presenting with, say, a request to amputate a leg because it "shouldn't be there"), and some are delusional ("I am a female" as said by a male).

 

[luchog]

Same here. Why the scare quotes around the word patriarchy?

Because the way it's defined by the radical fringes has yet to be demonstrated to actually exist. There is no doubt that much of American culture at least is male-dominated and sexist, but the all-powerful patriarchy of radical fringe feminism is nothing more than a convenient boogeyman. A boogeyman that is now so played out that they're resorting to attacking transpeople in general, and transwomen in particular, in order to keep their fearmongering sufficiently effective.

 

[pharphis]

I'd love to hear your thoughts on patriarchy in the human species.



Same here. Why the scare quotes around the word patriarchy?

I think the way the term is used in the gender debate is equivalent to that of conspiracy theorists claiming a Jewspiracy, but for men - the idea that men rules the world to the benefit of men as a group and to the detriment of women as a result. But I've made a thread about that probably about a year ago

 

[kellyb]

Because the way it's defined by the radical fringes has yet to be demonstrated to actually exist.

Nobody cares about the radical fringes.

We're a patriarchal species. Bonobos and elephants are matriarchal, and humans and pan troglodytes are patriarchal.

There is no doubt that much of American culture at least is male-dominated and sexist

Not American culture. Human cultures, globally, since the dawn of recorded history.

 

[caveman1917]

Nobody cares about the radical fringes.

We're a patriarchal species. Bonobos and elephants are matriarchal, and humans and pan troglodytes are patriarchal.



Not American culture. Human cultures, globally, since the dawn of recorded history.

Nah, just since the advent of private property a few thousands of years ago.

 

[kellyb]

Nah, just since the advent of private property a few thousands of years ago.

That's one theory. Another is that hyper-patriarchy emerged with agriculture over 15k years ago.

And then there's lots of evidence that modern hunter gatherers are pretty patriarchal, too:
https://books.google.com/books?id=G...g all the work at the halting-place."&f=false

Then there's the strict biological, "humans are really, really just animals" type evidence:
http://toddkshackelford.com/downloads/Goetz-PAID-2005.pdf

 

[caveman1917]

That's one theory. Another is that hyper-patriarchy emerged with agriculture over 15k years ago.

What's hyper-patriarchy? But the advent of private property coincides with the advent of agriculture about 12k years ago, the two are related and also associated with the advent of patriarchy.

And then there's lots of evidence that modern hunter gatherers are pretty patriarchal, too:
https://books.google.com/books?id=G...g all the work at the halting-place."&f=false

No this (pdf) would be lots of evidence. It's not even clear what you're quoting here (a sentence from Encyclopedia Britannica without context?).

Then there's the strict biological, "humans are really, really just animals" type evidence:
http://toddkshackelford.com/downloads/Goetz-PAID-2005.pdf

That's not evidence of anything other than the obvious fact that people whose partners are more likely to cheat will put more effort in making sure their partner doesn't cheat. Besides, the existence of non-patriarchal hunter-gatherer societies (even if some hunter-gatherer societies may have been patriarchal) refutes those "strict biological" arguments outright.

 

[kellyb]

I'm not sure if I'm up for an "origins of patriarchy" debate, especially since I don't think the matter has been scientifically resolved with any degree of certainty.

 

[caveman1917]

I'm not sure if I'm up for an "origins of patriarchy" debate, especially since I don't think the matter has been scientifically resolved with any degree of certainty.

What has been resolved with certainty is that the "strict biological" arguments are false. The one you linked to (the "sperm competition" and "prevent and correct female infidelity" one) in particular is about as refuted as an argument can be by the existence of matrilocal and matrilineal societies (see in particular the Mosuo). Besides, the norm in the dataset I linked to was bilineal descent, the notion in the paper that interpersonal sexual dynamics are determined by males trying to ensure the lineage of their children by "preventing and correcting female infidelity" assumes patriarchy or at least patrilineal descent. It's maybe not exactly "garbage in garbage out" but "patriarchy in patriarchy out".

Besides, evidence seems to suggest that the earliest humans had sexual behaviours akin to bonobos - ie everybody bangs everybody else all the time.

 

[kellyb]

(see in particular the Mosuo).

40k people out of 7.5 billion means basically nothing.

Besides, evidence seems to suggest that the earliest humans had sexual behaviours akin to bonobos - ie everybody bangs everybody else all the time.

Evidence is all over the place on the topic.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

My point is that just because there is, in a certain society, an expectation that someone with black skin colour will be thuggish doesn't mean that there is a biological basis for that, that skin colour determines "thuggishness" biologically. Likewise, just because there is, in a certain society, an expectation that someone who is male will have masculine behaviours doesn't mean that there is a biological basis for that.

Which isn't what I was saying. What I am saying is that whether you want to call it gender or whatever there is an internal self-image or identity which is driven by an individual's biology. And when that doesn't match with societal expectations or indeed with a person's physiology there is a genuine issue that needs to be solved.

The problem seems to be that I am talking about individuals and you are trying to generalise to groups. Just as there is a biological basis for thuggishness in individuals that doesn't mean you can extrapolate that to a group based on race but it can still be a problem for that individual that needs to be addressed and it doesn't become not real because it doesn't generalise to a race.

The same way you explain anorexia, not by pretending that one is born anorexic, but by recognizing the effects of socialization in a society such as ours (ie structurally patriarchal, including beauty standards in particular in this case). Statistically speaking there will always be some people who, through various exacerbating circumstances, "crack" under those pressures to develop mental health conditions.

But people probably are born anorexic - or at least there is a biological makeup that when subject to certain socialisation and pressures will become anorexic while another person under the same conditions would not. The question becomes then what is the sensible way to deal with someone who is anorexic.

If gender dysphoria is a case of a "male brain stuck in a female body" or some such, then how do you explain the high comorbidity with other mental health conditions? Besides, not all cases of gender dysphoria are the same, some are just narcissism (the "cult" referred to above, a minority but a particularly destructive one), some are autism (problems with rigidity in terms of social roles, in this case gender roles), some are fetishistic or predatory (male rapists demanding to be put in female prisons who then go on to rape them), some - probably most - are as per the above problems with gendered socialization, some are body dysmorphic ("My body should be made to look female" - akin to people presenting with, say, a request to amputate a leg because it "shouldn't be there"), and some are delusional ("I am a female" as said by a male).

If gender dysphoria isn't a case of 'male brain stuck in female body' and is instead 'male brain that feels more comfortable being treated as female' (and its amazing how often the other way round is ignored but ho hum) then what exactly would be the important difference in terms of how you deal with the issue?

 

[JihadJane]

But people probably are born anorexic - or at least there is a biological makeup that when subject to certain socialisation and pressures will become anorexic while another person under the same conditions would not. ...

Evidence, please.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Evidence, please.

The evidence is that some people are anorexic and others..well.. are not.

Anorexia is a mental illness... I don't think it's in the least bit controversial to suggest that mental illnesses have biological components.

 

[caveman1917]

40k people out of 7.5 billion means basically nothing.

Yes it does, for those "strict biological" theories to be true then every society must do what the theory says. Even a single counter-example refutes the theory. And there is way more than one counter-example, the Mosuo are just the most telling one. Again, the norm in the full dataset of nomadic foragers is multi-local and bilineal.

 

[kellyb]

Yes it does, for those "strict biological" theories to be true then every society must do what the theory says.

No. By "strict biology" I simply meant "strictly looking at the biology" - not "no factors exist outside of biology", or "only biology determines outcome."

I personally think we lean patriarchal as a species, and have tendencies towards things like genocide, as well, but an inclination is not the same thing as set-in-stone "destiny".

 

[kellyb]

The evidence is that some people are anorexic and others..well.. are not.

Environmental factors could account for the variance 100%, too.

Nobody knows for sure.

 

[Mycroft]

Makes sense if you're a man. How much do you want women to give up? Everything? Thanks for that.

You frame it as women giving up something, but I see it as women being included in something.

Every argument you make is dependent on not recognizing trans-women as women. Maybe you should make a strong argument for that, then your other arguments will fall into place from that premise.