When two worldviews collide.

[Paidiske]

Ok...I can't say I've read a lot of Judith Butler, but I don't think I'd call what I read intellectually challenging. I found her heavy on theory, light on research, and the theory seemed very biased in favor of legitimizing her personal worldview.

If you found the theory easy reading, then I take my hat off to you, because I certainly didn't!

What I have then...is your assurance that you won't be, in the rather near future, you won't be arguing that sex is a fluid construct or a "spectrum" despite the likelihood of trans activists pushing the idea because of course...biological facts/reality?

What you have is my assurance that the opinion any trans activist may hold of me, is not going to determine my position.

You say you understand the point being made....but you don't say you disagree....but rather deflect to say "most people fit neatly into male or female". This isn't exactly a rejection of sex as a spectrum. I've made a consideration for intersex people (who are sterile and unable to reproduce, therefore not a true 3rd sex category) and other genetic anomalies. It's not as if you would suddenly believe someone born with 1 leg or 3 legs meant that "legs are on a spectrum". Genetic abnormalities are a reality and biology readily acknowledges this....even if Judith Butler fails to understand it.

Okay; sex as a spectrum. There are a whole heap of biological traits which (on average) differ by sex. Things like height, and vocal range, and muscle-to-fat ratio, and whatever else. (You take the point). And all of those traits, for each person, actually exist somewhere on a point between the extremes; somewhere in the world is the most masculine man, for whom every trait which so differs is at the most masculine extreme, and somewhere in the world is the most feminine woman, for whom every trait which so differs is at the most feminine extreme. And most of us fall somewhere in between. This is not genetic abnormality any more than people growing to different heights is genetic abnormality (although there may be genetic abnormalities in play at the extremes).

Now, on the one hand, the point Butler made (and which I think I hear you say trans activists are echoing), is that how we perceive these traits, and in particular, people who exist not at the extremes but in the perhaps more ambiguous middle (intersexed people being the clearest but not the only example), is arbitrary. We decide that there are only two categories, and we insist that everyone must fit into one of those two categories, whether in fact that is helpful or fitting in every circumstance or not. And yet there's no reason we might not have three categories, or four, or none, or different categories for different purposes. (An example of a situation with four categories might be choirs which split vocalists into SATB parts, where it's not unusual to have women in the tenor section because that better fits our vocal range).

And so far as that goes, none of what I've just outlined is false.

That said, while that picture of a more complex spectrum of traits (and an arbitrary binary social definition of them) is true, it's also true that for most of us, which side of the spectrum our reproductive organs fall on, has a big impact on a lot of other things, not least how we're socialised and how we experience life. So while it's not untrue to talk about a spectrum of sexed traits, it's also not untrue that a sex binary is a pretty defining aspect of how most people experience the world, and that's not going to be untrue any time soon.

So I'd say, Butler has a point, but it's a fairly abstract point for most of us, at a time when the social categories of a sex binary still matter.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you insert the word “ I believe “ there is no God,in the other stand point, it is a statement of faith

Actually it's a statement of belief. "I have faith there is no God" would be a statement of faith.

Here the proof - Take several universities point blank refusing to do dna tests on so called Eucharistic miracles

What sort of DNA test are you referring to here and what would it prove?

 

[BPPLEE]

It doesn't surprise me that Mike doesn't know the difference. I'm mildly surprised that there are others as well.

I was only joking. I have to confess that I don’t know enough about it to make any kind of judgement.

 

[Bradskii]

I was only joking. I have to confess that I don’t know enough about it to make any kind of judgement.

I am still surprised that you don't know exactly what an atheist is. A lot of people nominate themselves as such. And 'Christian agnostic' must be a term you've heard before.

 

[BPPLEE]

Actually it's a statement of belief. "I have faith there is no God" would be a statement of faith.




What sort of DNA test are you referring to here and what would it prove?

Catholics believe that the wine and Eucharist turn into the actual blood and body of Christ when they take communion. (I’m not Catholic so someone who is can correct me if I’m wrong)
There are claims that it has been documented with modern testing methods and was found to be flesh and blood.

The Science of Recent Eucharistic Miracles: A Message from Heaven?

The Vatican International Exhibition: The Eucharistic Miracles of the World catalogs over one hundred purported Eucharistic miracles

media.ascensionpress.com

From the article

The Most Remarkable Miracle of the Middle Ages​

In 750AD, a priest experienced a terrible temptation to doubt the True Presence while He was saying Mass. As he pronounced the words of consecration, the host and the wine transformed into what appeared to be flesh and blood.

In 1970, more than 1,200 years later, the archbishop of Lanciano, with Rome’s approval, requested a thorough scientific examination of the miraculous relics by Dr. Edward Linoli, director of the hospital at Arezzo and professor of anatomy, histology, chemistry, and clinical microscopy. His report, submitted on March 4, 1971, detailed the following results:

• The coagulated substance is human blood, AB blood type, with the same protein distribution as found in normal, fresh blood
• The host is human muscular striated tissue of the myocardium, left ventricle (heart); arteries, veins, branch of vagus nerve, and adipose tissue all can be identified
• Like the blood, the flesh is also fresh, living tissue, because it “responded rapidly to all the clinical reactions distinctive of living beings” as if the flesh and blood samples had been taken that day
• Histological tests revealed no sign of preservation techniques of any kind

I’m not a believer in any of this but this may be what @Mountainmike was referring to.

 

[BPPLEE]

I am still surprised that you don't know exactly what an atheist is. A lot of people nominate themselves as such. And 'Christian agnostic' must be a term you've heard before.

I know what an atheist is but I’m in no position to tell you what you are or aren’t.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you found the theory easy reading, then I take my hat off to you, because I certainly didn't!

Well she gets cited as if she was something more than a feminist theorist. As if her assertions were somehow transformed from opinion to fact because of the number of people they convinced. That's not how facts work...and there's plenty of evidence for her ideas and opinions being wrong.

What you have is my assurance that the opinion any trans activist may hold of me, is not going to determine my position.

Hold that thought for a second....

Okay; sex as a spectrum.

And this is something you believed long before trans activists started going on about it? C'mon....

You were citing evidence of a sexually dimorphic brain as possible evidence of transgenderism. A statement that you don't actually believe if you believe sex is a spectrum. That's just cherry picking data to try to win an argument....and I pointed out several times that trans activists don't actually like those studies or that research.

There are a whole heap of biological traits which (on average) differ by sex.

Women don't have penises and men don't have uteruses.

Things like height, and vocal range, and muscle-to-fat ratio, and whatever else. (You take the point).

I really don't. If two people sleep together....it's not a mystery who can get pregnant.

And all of those traits, for each person, actually exist somewhere on a point between the extremes;

Your height or weight aren't the things that make you a female or male.

somewhere in the world is the most masculine man, for whom every trait which so differs is at the most masculine extreme, and somewhere in the world is the most feminine woman, for whom every trait which so differs is at the most feminine extreme. And most of us fall somewhere in between.

There's no such thing as a "masculine height". You're talking nonsense here. A man can be 5 foot nothing and still be a man. I don't think it's anything other than insulting to suggest otherwise.

This is not genetic abnormality any more than people growing to different heights is genetic abnormality (although there may be genetic abnormalities in play at the extremes).

See above.

Now, on the one hand, the point Butler made (and which I think I hear you say trans activists are echoing), is that how we perceive these traits, and in particular, people who exist not at the extremes but in the perhaps more ambiguous middle (intersexed people being the clearest but not the only example), is arbitrary.

1. Being a man or woman isn't some "extreme" and it's not a matter of height. It's the norm...and part of evolution in mammals.

2. Intersexed is an abnormality, and while it can be caused by a number of factors (DNA damage has multiple causes) the fact is that it doesn't constitute a biological sex because they cannot reproduce nearly 100% of the time. The handful of cases where an intersex person gives birth (literally something that can be counted on one hand) alway results in a male and he is likewise sterile.

We decide that there are only two categories,

Pointing out biological facts isn't some arbitrary distinction. They are observable, testable, matters of objective reality. They aren't arbitrary social constructs.

In other words, even if we all agreed tomorrow that men can get pregnant and give birth....that wouldn't make it so.

and we insist that everyone must fit into one of those two categories,

Again, it's not about any insistence. Your body was either born capable of producing 1 of 2 types of gametes or a genetic anomaly prevents this.

whether in fact that is helpful or fitting in every circumstance or not.

Again, it's not a matter of what is "helpful". It's not a matter of what feels good, what's emotionally satisfying, what's cruel or disappointing, or any of the myriad emotional reactions you or Judith Butler have to the facts.

Facts are more than mere beliefs.

And yet there's no reason we might not have three categories, or four, or none, or different categories for different purposes.

Well there is a reason....reality. Objective reality isn't something that changes along with Judith Butler's fanfiction. There's only two sexes....because that's how mammals evolved. It's not a choice, it's not an arbitrary distinction. There's a thousand different ways biological processes can go wrong and result in genetic abnormalities....and while it may give someone a warm fuzzy to play pretend, that doesn't change reality.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Catholics believe that the wine and Eucharist turn into the actual blood and body of Christ when they take communion. (I’m not Catholic so someone who is can correct me if I’m wrong)
There are claims that it has been documented with modern testing methods and was found to be flesh and blood.

I'm sorry...

It sounds like you're saying that you're upset that nobody wants to run a DNA test on the crackers and wine catholics have as a snack during church.

Is that about correct?

 

[BPPLEE]

I'm sorry...

It sounds like you're saying that you're upset that nobody wants to run a DNA test on the crackers and wine catholics have as a snack during church.

Is that about correct?

No not me. I think that’s ridiculous. But I think that’s what @Mountainmike was referring to.
I believe the bread and wine are symbolic,

 

[Bradskii]

I know what an atheist is but I’m in no position to tell you what you are or aren’t.

I'm an atheist. I don't believe that God exists. I'm an agnostic. I have no proof that He doesn't.

The first concerns belief. The second knowledge.

The second is tied in to science. Most things in science cannot be proved. Which is where Mike gets confused between faith, belief and knowledge.

 

[BPPLEE]

I'm an atheist. I don't believe that God exists. I'm an agnostic. I have no proof that He doesn't.

The first concerns belief. The second knowledge.

The second is tied in to science. Most things in science cannot be proved. Which is where Mike gets confused between faith, belief and knowledge.

That makes sense

 

[Paidiske]

Well she gets cited as if she was something more than a feminist theorist. As if her assertions were somehow transformed from opinion to fact because of the number of people they convinced.

I think it's more, she was very much a seminal writer in her particular field.

You were citing evidence of a sexually dimorphic brain as possible evidence of transgenderism. A statement that you don't actually believe if you believe sex is a spectrum.

If I didn't make my point clear enough above, while I agree that every sexed trait exists on a spectrum, on average the biological sex binary is still a useful category. Including brain differences.

Pointing out biological facts isn't some arbitrary distinction. They are observable, testable, matters of objective reality. They aren't arbitrary social constructs.

Yes and no. The biological facts are objective; but the meaning we place on those facts, the categories into which we sort them, are more subjective. I'm aware, for example, of cultures where post-menopausal women are treated more as "honorary men," and where female gender roles are linked more tightly to being in one's fertile years than which organs one has (at whatever stage of life).

It's a category error to think that our cultural and social categories are the same as the objective facts which we use as markers of those categories.

Well there is a reason....reality.

I think you've missed the point. Why did we decide that which part we take in reproduction (or even don't take, given the number of people who never have children) was an important distinction to be made in categorising people? When in many ways, and for many purposes, it's actually not an important aspect of our being, at all?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No not me. I think that’s ridiculous. But I think that’s what @Mountainmike was referring to.
I believe the bread and wine are symbolic,

Ahhh....my mistake.

Someone should inform him that he doesn't need to wait on some atheist to verify this for him. He can crumble up the cracker, swab the wine, sprinkle the cracker onto the swab, send it in to 23 and Me and find out if he's got Jesus DNA or just some grapes.

It's not even that expensive.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think it's more, she was very much a seminal writer in her particular field.

Sure....so was Freud. This is the difference between doing science and activism though....we know the vast majority of Freud's ideas are not only wrong, but completely unhelpful. It doesn't diminish his legacy....someone had to take that first step even if it meant being mostly wrong.

Butler, likewise, is almost entirely wrong. Butler however, is still considered a foundational pillar of feminist theory....because feminist theory doesn't have any relationship to truth. It's not scientific in any way.

If I didn't make my point clear enough above, while I agree that every sexed trait exists on a spectrum, on average the biological sex binary is still a useful category. Including brain differences.

And I fear I'm not making myself clear...

It's not about a spectrum. I don't even know what you mean by a sexed trait. I'm not running around with 5% male ovaries. Sexual dimorphism is a division in mammals that allows for biological reproduction. There's only 2 categories aka genders and they're not changeable nor does any third category exist.

I'll gladly change my position on this if they discover some island or cave somewhere that only intersex humans inhabit and have been reproducing for hundreds of years.....but I'm not holding my breath expecting that day to arrive.

Yes and no. The biological facts are objective;

I'm assuming that is the yes part.

but the meaning we place on those facts,

This is where you're falling off....

I don't project meaning onto facts. I get that Butler does....so do many other people. There are plenty of facts, and people who know them, who live in staunch denial of those facts because of whatever meaning they have ascribed to them. This isn't news to you. You've been on this forum, you're probably well aware of the evidence of evolution. Lots of people in full denial of that truth....because the meaning they project onto it is a meaning related to the infallibility of their God. If the story in genesis is to be taken literally....evolution is some terrible lie. It's the meaning they projected onto the facts. I don't do this. They simply are facts to me....whether they fill me with dread or elation, I don't deny them.

I think it's important to not deny them. Entire civilizations have fallen for the denial of a truth they couldn't bear to accept. Entire peoples subjugated by another who held tightly to a truth no matter how unpleasant it felt. Inhumanity and atrocity are always at stake here....and we should not casually disregard the truth because it is too much for some to bear.

the categories into which we sort them, are more subjective.

If the proposal here was that we abandon any subjective meanings attached to the objective facts of men and women....we wouldn't be having this discussion. That's not what is being argued though.

What the trans activists are arguing is a complete and utter rejection of the truth. A denial of facts. They want to tell little boys they can choose to be girls, and little girls they can choose to be boys. They tell people that it's best if we all play along and pretend this is true.

I'm aware, for example, of cultures where post-menopausal women are treated more as "honorary men," and where female gender roles are linked more tightly to being in one's fertile years than which organs one has (at whatever stage of life).

Sure. Again, if this were an issue of gender roles I promise you....we wouldn't be discussing it. There's no laws against boys wearing dresses or girls learning how to weld.

We have quite literally removed those barriers. Do as you please.

This argument is regarding truth itself. A boy in a dress is still a boy in a dress. A girl who works as a welder is still a girl welding as a job.

It's a category error to think that our cultural and social categories are the same as the objective facts which we use as markers of those categories.

I'm not using any markers beyond the biological facts. This isn't about gender roles or acceptable gender norms. This is an argument regarding the objective reality. If you wish to say that a person born male is now female because technology has created an elaborate or convincing costume....then you're the one arguing against the truth.

I think you've missed the point. Why did we decide that which part we take in reproduction (or even don't take, given the number of people who never have children) was an important distinction to be made in categorising people? When in many ways, and for many purposes, it's actually not an important aspect of our being, at all?

Are you ready for the answer? Please consider this carefully....

We draw the line of distinction between these two categories at the level of biological reality precisely because it is determined by objective reality and cannot change. You can change your feelings, clothes, cultural norms, social norms, and the rest of it....but you cannot change reality.

That's precisely why the distinction is drawn there....and any attempt to change it results in something absurd, subjective, fictional, and in denial of reality.

 

[Paidiske]

Butler however, is still considered a foundational pillar of feminist theory....because feminist theory doesn't have any relationship to truth. It's not scientific in any way.

Science isn't the only discipline which might have something truthful to say. Or to put that another way, not all truths are scientific.

I don't project meaning onto facts.

I'm raising my eyebrows at what seems like a very highly improbable claim. Perhaps "project onto" is not quite the right phrase, but all humans engage in meaning-making with the facts available to them (as well as other sources).

If the proposal here was that we abandon any subjective meanings attached to the objective facts of men and women....we wouldn't be having this discussion. That's not what is being argued though.

I think it's a very large part of what's being argued, at least within feminism, and possibly also within (some strands of?) trans activism (although I'm less familiar with that discourse).

What the trans activists are arguing is a complete and utter rejection of the truth. A denial of facts. They want to tell little boys they can choose to be girls, and little girls they can choose to be boys.

That's not what I understand from them at all. They understand that biology is what it is; it's much more the social categories which seem to be called into question.

If you wish to say that a person born male is now female because technology has created an elaborate or convincing costume....then you're the one arguing against the truth.

But I don't wish to say that, nor do I actually understand trans activists to say that. What I understand them to be arguing is that the person born male who has transitioned (to whatever extent) ought to be included in the social category of woman. (For the record, my answer to that would be, well, it depends on the situation and context, and is a matter for ongoing negotiation). Not that anyone needs to pretend that their biology is what it isn't.

We draw the line of distinction between these two categories at the level of biological reality precisely because it is determined by objective reality and cannot change.

No; that wasn't my question. My question wasn't, why is this the marker of these two categories; my question was, why do these two categories matter for purposes other than reproduction?

 

[stevevw]

I don't disagree....I think emotions are tied directly to our moral opinions. This precludes any sort of rational basis for them though. If you feel like a behavior is good and I feel like its bad....we might be able to explain why we feel this way, but we cannot hope to prove our feelings are factually correct and the other's are wrong.

Yes I think morals come with feelings, they seem to dig deep into us that they go hand in hand. We cannot rationalise why but we can reason whether what we are feeling is rational in relation to the moral situation. For example someone may get angry and react at someone who did something we thought was wrong. But in that anger may be personal experiences that provoked most of that anger.

It may be right or wrong to be angry, there may be 10% rightous anger and 90% personal reasons why we got angry. We can sort that out through reasoning about why it affected us so much. It may end up that the other person did nothing wrong and they provoked a personal feeling from past experience or that the wrong didn't warrant the level of reaction.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Science isn't the only discipline which might have something truthful to say. Or to put that another way, not all truths are scientific.

Sure. I'm not telling anyone which epistemic route to truth to choose. They're free to choose whichever one they wish. Some people, for example, cite the Koran as their route to truth. In that text, a specific description of how a baby is formed is explained....and it's wildly different from the one I know as the truth.

There is a reality, it's not a matter of perspective, and either the Koran is correct, or I am correct, or neither of us....but we cannot both be correct. Objective reality doesn't change for one's perspective or lived experience.

I'm raising my eyebrows at what seems like a very highly improbable claim. Perhaps "project onto" is not quite the right phrase, but all humans engage in meaning-making with the facts available to them (as well as other sources).

I don't think it's as improbable as you may think. I sincerely doubt you project a whole lot of meaning onto a factual statement like....

1+1=2.

I bet you accept that as bare fact. It means nothing more nor less than 1 plus 1 equals 2. It wouldn't matter which way it was written or in what language....it stands on its own as fact. It stays this way regardless of culture, society, era, distance, etc. I don't see why you think it so difficult to consider any other fact the same way.

I think it's a very large part of what's being argued, at least within feminism, and possibly also within (some strands of?) trans activism (although I'm less familiar with that discourse).

It's not. If it were, you wouldn't be hearing cultish mantras of "trans women are women" because they aren't. You wouldn't be seeing attempts to shift language to describe women as "birthing persons". You wouldn't be entertaining arguments about women having penises.

We aren't arguing about boys in dresses here. We are arguing about biological reality. The woke cannot even define a woman anymore because like you argued in your last post....they wish to deny the biological facts as a meaningful distinction, and since they are the objective distinction, they cannot define woman or man.

That's not what I understand from them at all. They understand that biology is what it is; it's much more the social categories which seem to be called into question.

What social category are you talking about? As I already said....women and men can do as they please. It's not my business if some guy wants to wear a dress. We've long passed the point where a woman can work a job of her choice. Either of them is entirely able to buy elective surgeries to carve up their flesh as they see fit.

The social categories are effectively already gone. The only categories remaining refer to biological reality. They are the ones under attack in both language and distinction.

But I don't wish to say that, nor do I actually understand trans activists to say that. What I understand them to be arguing is that the person born male who has transitioned (to whatever extent) ought to be included in the social category of woman.

No....that's not what they're arguing at all.

When they're arguing that "women can have a penis" or "men can give birth"....those aren't arbitrary social constructs. Those are objective biological realities. I'm certain you've seen these arguments made plenty of times. I sure have.

Women don't have penises. Men don't give birth. There's no arguments to change those facts. They aren't arbitrary nor are they socially constructed. It feels bizarre to have to even explain this to another adult.

(For the record, my answer to that would be, well, it depends on the situation and context, and is a matter for ongoing negotiation). Not that anyone needs to pretend that their biology is what it isn't.

Then you don't understand what I mean by "objective reality" or "biological fact". There's nothing to negotiate. You don't get to choose such things. They are...in exactly the same way as 1+1=2.

Long before anyone put to writing the concept of 1+1=2 it was a fact in objective reality. Long before any social or cultural meaning was attached to the concept of man or woman they were fact.

No; that wasn't my question. My question wasn't, why is this the marker of these two categories; my question was, why do these two categories matter for purposes other than reproduction?

This is like asking me why the truth matters.

How about this....

If you were to deny that this truth matters, and instead taught little boys they could become girls or little girls they could become boys....

Then you might support something like the mutilation and sterilization of children....in denial of reality.

 

[rjs330]

But that's not what you want. You want it stopped. Period.

You really should stop spreading disinformation. Because I have never said that no adult should ever be allowed to transition. I believe I've said the exact opposite. Don't be dishonest about what I've said. It's beneath you.

 

[rjs330]

You've been told enough to put the point across. Anything else is of absolutely no concern to you. I hope that's quite clear.

No sorry I haven't been told enough. You've only said a niece transitioned and said they got married. You have no details as to when they transitioned. Which is relevant to the conversation. There is a reason you are hiding when. You must realize that it matters when they transitioned and don't want to say.
How long ago did they transition? How long have they been transitioned into the opposite sex? Details matter.

 

[rjs330]

But we are discussing here a very specific piece of clinical research.

And you research have been shown not to be conclusive or even reliable.

There is no way to show what the transactiviats claim. How do you possibly measure a brain that is on a spectrum?

Especially when the research regarding the human brain of male and female are so close that they can't tell the difference. At what point does the brain actually move from male to female or female to male, when you can't actually tell a male brain from a female one. Transgender people feel they are the opposite sex. What is that exactly? How can you tell if the brain actually is the opposite sex if there is no real difference.

This is just more evidence that the left wants it both ways and neither. Men and women are essentially the same in their brains. And you can't really see the difference. Yet somehow magically there is a real difference between and transgender brain and a male brain or a female brain. Ok, let just for argument sake that that's true. What's the difference between a trans female brain and a trans male brain? And how does this work if you can't tell there is a male and female brain? How do you look at that brain and say up, that's a female brain all right. And it's in a male body. And if it's a spectrum then at what point does the spectrum change?

This is so obviously incongruent. Even the research says it not conclusive in any fashion and it also points out where the theory doesn't actually work.

The best that can be said, there is this theory. It's not a good one and there are many contradictions in it and the research is really bad and totally inconclusive. But hay it's out there.