Is it possible for a man to be trapped in a woman’s body? Or to be more inclusive, can a person be trapped in the wrong body? What exactly does that mean? People say it all the time and it’s rarely challenged as if it presumes something we all understand and accept as possible.
Very interesting. There does seem to be a kinship between what constitutes the radical left and religion. There are absolutes doctrines that need to be followed to the T else you be ostracized from the group. Though I would argue that there is more room for love and forgiveness on the side of lets say...christianity for example.
There is a more cultish notion of fear when it comes weaponized political correctness/oversensitive social injustice outrage a.k.a wokeness.
I think you are right on target about the fact these postmodernist programs are a religion with its own crusade to "Queer" everything most people rely on to connect with reality, but I think you're wrong about what most people tbi k of as"gender" being innately connected to sex. There a few average differences between men and women on key tendencies such as "aggression" and "tendency to nurture", etc., but the overlap between men and women in character qualities is so huge as to make that average difference barely significant. What we're all born with is the capacity for the full range of human characteristics, which, if you do not label any of them "masculine" or "feminine", nor reinforce some because they "match" your kid's sex, and discourage others when they supposedly don't, typically results in kids whose who,(if you care about such things), are neither, or both, depending on one's perspective. (I'm like that.) The only real difference is sex, which means some hormonal differences, and of course it yields a whole set of divergent experiences which will serve to render girls different from boys, especially after puberty. I also should mention that we do also arrive in the world with some personality tendencies, which are to some degree inherited, and may also be influenced by exposure to the mother's hormones in utero. ( Hence, some boys have distinctive personalities which society deems "feminine" -- and which are resistent to attempts to encourage "masculinity" -- and vice versa for girls who are "masculine" rather than "feminine". Logically, the way many people label things, such kids may wonder if they aren't "really" the opposite sex. But this phenomenon is normal for many kids who would naturally turn out to be Gay or Lesbian.
"Gender" is prescriptive, not descriptive, and much of it is, indeed, restrictive to both sexes and sexist, which is why it's a BAD idea to to have everyone identified by one's gender. i.e., stereotypical notions of "what women are like", etc. . In the 50's, most thought it innate that women didn't "have the head" for balancing a checkbook and men were genetically incapable of changing diapers. We have discovered, however, that through increasing efforts toward social equality, that that kind of thing always was, and is, bull. What matters, what has always mattered, is sex.
Sorry, to your first/main point on religion vs dogma.
The fundamental belief that mankind is created by mankind as compared to having a fixed human nature sounds to me to be fundamental and religious. Regardless of the dogma that arises from that starting point.
I think you are spot on. It is very much like a religion. I just watched an interview by Peter Boghossian of Helen Joyce. They both were in the Skeptic Movement. With dismay, they see former people in that movement all in on this stuff leading both to label it a cult. And, more importantly, having them ask if the vacuum created by the collapse of Christianity has led to this. To the latter, I would say absolutely yes. 'Speech has become the new God. What the mind creates is divinity and we are all paying the price. https://youtu.be/ZG9_lcln7FU
Yep. I really appreciate their interviews. That they came from the Skeptic camp but have enough integrity to note things have gone very wrong is intellectually meaningful to me. And you are correct it is a religion. It isn't just dogma. When middle-aged white men discuss their white privilege with me what comes to mind is the scene from The Seventh Seal where men are flagellating themselves with whips for their supposed sins.
It's not "strongly held perspectives" that are religious, but those beliefs upon which all other beliefs rest, that are religious.
Seeing humans as socially constructed is one of those beliefs upon which all other beliefs rest. A social construction not tied to any underlying reality.
-"But any quick look at the nature of leftist ideology will reveal that the way they are using the term “social construction” presumes no connection between how we experience culture and any underlying reality. When they say, “social construction”, they mean “we made it up arbitrarily as a way to keep the powerful in power and oppress the weak in a cultural prison they are unaware of.”
The issue I see with people stating that they are 'progressive' or even 'liberal' and are not taking these extreme views is that they still say the things that require an underlying separation from reality. Like trans women are women, or they simply will not challenge that when they see it. And when you say things repeatedly, or through omission not challenge falsehoods, at some point those ideas become what you believe and affect your actions.
It often looks like a Mott and Bailey defense where they say much of what you've said here and soften their positions only when challenged. But in front of other 'progressives', when in the group, they revert back to the dogma.
"As for "trans women are women": in my view the real problem is with assigning the labels "true/false" to that statement." - See now you're applying woke ideology to epistemology while telling me that applying woke ideology to progressives is a caricature. You're doing the thing right here.
You cannot say that trans women are women without abandoning the definition of women and creating a new definition that includes people who are not women. It is not true in any sense. You'd have to assume "woman" is a social construct not tied to any underlying biology that precludes men from being part of that group. You're doing the thing that you're telling me is a caricature of the extreme.
"Would that prepare some ground for a willingness to acknowledge that "a trans woman is a woman" is false in some respects but true in others?"
- Easy answer: No.
Male and female are categories of sexual reproduction. You cannot be kind of true in some respects with wether or not your reproductive abilities are one or the other, and there is no middle ground between those two categories. Either you produce eggs, or you produce sperm. There is no middle or third gamete.
You can be more typically masculine or feminine in your personality, but that does not mean you can be kind of male in some sense and kind of female in another sense. I think you're conflating masculine/feminine personality types with male and female which are reproductive categories.
And your analogy with gay marriage did to marriage what is in some part being done to the gender categories. I truly don't care if gay people get married, but gay marriage is not the same as heterosexual marriage. There is no biological union and family production in the same way. And in fact, without common technology, much of their opportunity to do so is reduced. God loves them I'm sure just as much as I do, but it's not the same.
Reducing the specificity of what language is describing is not progressive.
Very interesting. There does seem to be a kinship between what constitutes the radical left and religion. There are absolutes doctrines that need to be followed to the T else you be ostracized from the group. Though I would argue that there is more room for love and forgiveness on the side of lets say...christianity for example.
There is a more cultish notion of fear when it comes weaponized political correctness/oversensitive social injustice outrage a.k.a wokeness.
I think you are right on target about the fact these postmodernist programs are a religion with its own crusade to "Queer" everything most people rely on to connect with reality, but I think you're wrong about what most people tbi k of as"gender" being innately connected to sex. There a few average differences between men and women on key tendencies such as "aggression" and "tendency to nurture", etc., but the overlap between men and women in character qualities is so huge as to make that average difference barely significant. What we're all born with is the capacity for the full range of human characteristics, which, if you do not label any of them "masculine" or "feminine", nor reinforce some because they "match" your kid's sex, and discourage others when they supposedly don't, typically results in kids whose who,(if you care about such things), are neither, or both, depending on one's perspective. (I'm like that.) The only real difference is sex, which means some hormonal differences, and of course it yields a whole set of divergent experiences which will serve to render girls different from boys, especially after puberty. I also should mention that we do also arrive in the world with some personality tendencies, which are to some degree inherited, and may also be influenced by exposure to the mother's hormones in utero. ( Hence, some boys have distinctive personalities which society deems "feminine" -- and which are resistent to attempts to encourage "masculinity" -- and vice versa for girls who are "masculine" rather than "feminine". Logically, the way many people label things, such kids may wonder if they aren't "really" the opposite sex. But this phenomenon is normal for many kids who would naturally turn out to be Gay or Lesbian.
"Gender" is prescriptive, not descriptive, and much of it is, indeed, restrictive to both sexes and sexist, which is why it's a BAD idea to to have everyone identified by one's gender. i.e., stereotypical notions of "what women are like", etc. . In the 50's, most thought it innate that women didn't "have the head" for balancing a checkbook and men were genetically incapable of changing diapers. We have discovered, however, that through increasing efforts toward social equality, that that kind of thing always was, and is, bull. What matters, what has always mattered, is sex.
I’m not sure if Left or Right ideology is ‘religion’ but certainly the tribalism reflects religiosity.
Thanks...leftists specifically. I don't necessarily think liberals are religious political actors.
Interesting take I hadn't considered before. Semantics of "religion" vs. "dogma" aside, your point is well taken. Good article, Tommy. ZL
Sorry, to your first/main point on religion vs dogma.
The fundamental belief that mankind is created by mankind as compared to having a fixed human nature sounds to me to be fundamental and religious. Regardless of the dogma that arises from that starting point.
I think you are spot on. It is very much like a religion. I just watched an interview by Peter Boghossian of Helen Joyce. They both were in the Skeptic Movement. With dismay, they see former people in that movement all in on this stuff leading both to label it a cult. And, more importantly, having them ask if the vacuum created by the collapse of Christianity has led to this. To the latter, I would say absolutely yes. 'Speech has become the new God. What the mind creates is divinity and we are all paying the price. https://youtu.be/ZG9_lcln7FU
Those two along with James Lindsay have really helped me understand what is at the root of this weird mess.
Yep. I really appreciate their interviews. That they came from the Skeptic camp but have enough integrity to note things have gone very wrong is intellectually meaningful to me. And you are correct it is a religion. It isn't just dogma. When middle-aged white men discuss their white privilege with me what comes to mind is the scene from The Seventh Seal where men are flagellating themselves with whips for their supposed sins.
It's not "strongly held perspectives" that are religious, but those beliefs upon which all other beliefs rest, that are religious.
Seeing humans as socially constructed is one of those beliefs upon which all other beliefs rest. A social construction not tied to any underlying reality.
-"But any quick look at the nature of leftist ideology will reveal that the way they are using the term “social construction” presumes no connection between how we experience culture and any underlying reality. When they say, “social construction”, they mean “we made it up arbitrarily as a way to keep the powerful in power and oppress the weak in a cultural prison they are unaware of.”
Thanks Robert.
The issue I see with people stating that they are 'progressive' or even 'liberal' and are not taking these extreme views is that they still say the things that require an underlying separation from reality. Like trans women are women, or they simply will not challenge that when they see it. And when you say things repeatedly, or through omission not challenge falsehoods, at some point those ideas become what you believe and affect your actions.
It often looks like a Mott and Bailey defense where they say much of what you've said here and soften their positions only when challenged. But in front of other 'progressives', when in the group, they revert back to the dogma.
"As for "trans women are women": in my view the real problem is with assigning the labels "true/false" to that statement." - See now you're applying woke ideology to epistemology while telling me that applying woke ideology to progressives is a caricature. You're doing the thing right here.
You cannot say that trans women are women without abandoning the definition of women and creating a new definition that includes people who are not women. It is not true in any sense. You'd have to assume "woman" is a social construct not tied to any underlying biology that precludes men from being part of that group. You're doing the thing that you're telling me is a caricature of the extreme.
"Would that prepare some ground for a willingness to acknowledge that "a trans woman is a woman" is false in some respects but true in others?"
- Easy answer: No.
Male and female are categories of sexual reproduction. You cannot be kind of true in some respects with wether or not your reproductive abilities are one or the other, and there is no middle ground between those two categories. Either you produce eggs, or you produce sperm. There is no middle or third gamete.
You can be more typically masculine or feminine in your personality, but that does not mean you can be kind of male in some sense and kind of female in another sense. I think you're conflating masculine/feminine personality types with male and female which are reproductive categories.
And your analogy with gay marriage did to marriage what is in some part being done to the gender categories. I truly don't care if gay people get married, but gay marriage is not the same as heterosexual marriage. There is no biological union and family production in the same way. And in fact, without common technology, much of their opportunity to do so is reduced. God loves them I'm sure just as much as I do, but it's not the same.
Reducing the specificity of what language is describing is not progressive.