Transgender

[ShanDog]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[Malifice]

Sure, we can assign any values we like with respect to one another. However, biologically, these social constructs/values mean sweet barry o.

In terms of biology. In terms of reproducing so that the continuing existence of the human race is assured, it is a biological imperative that a male and female are required in order to produce a child. 'Social construct' has zero to do with it. It is therefore biological.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not really sure where you're going with that. Pretty sure I have never said a transgender person, or female, or anyone else isn't human or any 'more' or 'less' than anyone else.

I think wires are being crossed here. Maybe go back and read the post of mine that you quoted again.

If there is one thing everyone agrees on its that biological sex is objective, and there are distinct biological differences between genders.

As in XY chromosome vs XX, penis vs uterus, hormonal differences, muscle mass and sexual metamorphism, differences in brain chemistry and hip shape and function (to accomodate child birth) etc.

Gender (as in agreed on social roles for the genders) is a different kettle of fish.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Isn’t weird how gold was highly valued to both the Inca and the Egyptians, civilisations that we’re 1000s of kilometres apart. How does that happen?

Why is the spiral shape the most commonly found example of early petroglyph found across world civilizations? Continents apart and with no contact with each other?

 

[its free real estate]

Why is the spiral shape the most commonly found example of early petroglyph found across world civilizations? Continents apart and with no contact with each other?

Ask Jordan Peterson that one.

Why are pyramids common to early civilisation? That ones easy actually.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Sure, we can assign any values we like with respect to one another. However, biologically, these social constructs/values mean sweet barry o.

In terms of biology. In terms of reproducing so that the continuing existence of the human race is assured, it is a biological imperative that a male and female are required in order to produce a child. 'Social construct' has zero to do with it. It is therefore biological.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not really sure where you're going with that. Pretty sure I have never said a transgender person, or female, or anyone else isn't human or any 'more' or 'less' than anyone else.

I think wires are being crossed here. Maybe go back and read the post of mine that you quoted again.

Yeah, I was trying to loop the 'bigger picture' back to the thread title. I did not mean to infer you said, thought, or wrote that anyone is inferior.

My mistake, so apologies are in order. Sorry.

 

[twotooto]

Yeah, I was trying to loop the 'bigger picture' back to the thread title. I did not mean to infer you said, thought, or wrote that anyone is inferior.

My mistake, so apologies are in order. Sorry.

Totally cool dude and thankyou

The reason I wrote about biological v social construct is that it was being spoken about over the last 4 or 5 pages and I felt that there was/is some confusion in the ranks so wanted to clear it up lmao.

 

[Malifice]

Why would they separately reach such a conclusion if there wasn’t an intrinsic quality to gold?

Because Gold is rare and shiny and pretty and humans decided to place a value on something rare and shiny and pretty.

Gold itself has no value outside of human agreement it has value. It has no value to cats, or birds or fish or any other species. The only value it has is the value that we (homo sapiens) have agreed to give it. Because we (as a species) value rare shiny things.

'Value' is so self evidently a subjective and socially constructed term, that I seriously question if you ever went to Uni at all, let alone obtained a degree in a Scientific field.

Whether other species understand that quality is immaterial.

No, its not. Not in the context of determining if something is an objective quality of something (it's atomic structure) or a socially agreed on quality of the object (the luck granted by a four leaf clover).

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Ask Jordan Peterson that one.

Why are pyramids common to early civilisation? That ones easy actually.

Weight distribution in a pyramid shape makes it easy to build something massive that won't topple over?

 

[its free real estate]

Weight distribution in a pyramid shape makes it easy to build something massive that won't topple over?

Basically yeah. Simultaneous inventions / discoveries are an interesting phenomenon though, more common than you’d think.

 

[its free real estate]

Because Gold is rare and shiny and pretty and humans decided to place a value on something rare and shiny and pretty.

Gold itself has no value outside of human agreement it has value. It has no value to cats, or birds or fish or any other species. The only value it has is the value that we (homo sapiens) have agreed to give it. Because we (as a species) value rare shiny things.

'Value' is so self evidently a subjective and socially constructed term, that I seriously question if you ever went to Uni at all, let alone obtained a degree in a Scientific field.



No, its not. Not in the context of determining if something is an objective quality of something (it's atomic structure) or a socially agreed on quality of the object (the luck granted by a four leaf clover).

What does the atomic weight of gold mean to a wolf? There is no objective or value-meaning to gold if you’re a wolf (as far as we know).

 

[Malifice]

What does the atomic weight of gold mean to a wolf? There is no objective or value-meaning to gold if you’re a wolf (as far as we know).

The wolf doesnt understand the atomic weight of gold, but that doesnt stop mass from existing. If human beings vanished suddenly, and a hunk of gold fell on that wolfs head, the wolfs lack of knowledge about the atomic weight of the gold is neither here nor there from the wolf getting hurt. The atomic weight of gold is a constant, that exists independent of human agreement as to it's existence.

It's like a 10 dollar note (even one in a currency system based on gold). The note itself is comprised of polymer, and has an atomic weight. Those things are true regardless of any other fact. An advanced alien species with no knowledge of human culture can pick up a 10 dollar note and discover those things regardless of its understanding of human culture and social construction.

The value we place on that note (linked to the value we place on a finite atomic material, i.e gold) however is socially constructed. You cant study the note and decipher that fact unless you understand the social construction of the note itself (what it represents to those who made it, and the value they attributed to it).

We attribute value to 'Gold' due to its rarity. We did the same thing to Bitcoin for Gods sake.

Are you arguing that Bitcoin is not a social construction?

Pause for a second here and think about this. Go away and do some reading for a bit before you tie yourself into any more knots.

 

[its free real estate]

The wolf doesnt understand the atomic weight of gold, but that doesnt stop mass from existing. If human beings vanished suddenly, and a hunk of gold fell on that wolfs head, the wolfs lack of knowledge about the atomic weight of the gold is neither here nor there from the wolf getting hurt. The atomic weight of gold is a constant, that exists independent of human agreement as to it's existence.

It's like a 10 dollar note (even one in a currency system based on gold). The note itself is comprised of polymer, and has an atomic weight. Those things are true regardless of any other fact. An advanced alien species with no knowledge of human culture can pick up a 10 dollar note and discover those things regardless of its understanding of human culture and social construction.

The value we place on that note (linked to the value we place on a finite atomic material, i.e gold) however is socially constructed. You cant study the note and decipher that fact unless you understand the social construction of the note itself (what it represents to those who made it, and the value they attributed to it).

We attribute value to 'Gold' due to its rarity. We did the same thing to Bitcoin for Gods sake.

Are you arguing that Bitcoin is not a social construction?

Pause for a second here and think about this. Go away and do some reading for a bit before you tie yourself into any more knots.

Gold being rare, lustrous, malleable, ductile and non-corroding, and therefore valuable, doesn’t change if humans disappear either.

Bitcoin is a social construct. It was invented out of the blue 10 years ago. Masculinity and femininity however were not inventions, and therefore, not social constructs.

 

[Malifice]

Gold being rare, lustrous, malleable, ductile and non-corroding, and therefore valuable, doesn’t change if humans disappear either.

It does change because we are the only species that attributes value to something that is rare, lustrous, malleable, ductile and non-corroding.

Those things are only true because we agree they are. Just like 2000 year old Ming vases are valued at a squillion dollars, or Bitcoin has value.

You are literally the only person in the world arguing 'value' is an objective trait of currency (money, antiques, gold, gems, precious metals) etc, and not a socially constructed one. 'Value' itself is a socially constructed term that holds no meaning outside of social exchanges for good and services, as agreed between two or more people.

Anyway, I'm done with this argument. You're self evidently wrong, you wont find a single economist or scientist or philosopher to agree with you that 'value' is an objective property of an object (be it gold, a Ming vase, an emerald, a 10 dollar bill, a car, or whatever) and have picked a very strange hill to die on indeed.

Personally, where you get messed up is you think 'social construct' means 'doesn't exist'. I'm not saying 'value placed on objects including gold doesnt exist' I'm (and literally every single scientist and academic in the world) are saying it does exist, but as a social construct.

 

[Snake_Baker]

There goes another thread

 

[its free real estate]

It does change because we are the only species that attributes value to something that is rare, lustrous, malleable, ductile and non-corroding.

Those things are only true because we agree they are. Just like 2000 year old Ming vases are valued at a squillion dollars, or Bitcoin has value.

You are literally the only person in the world arguing 'value' is an objective trait of currency (money, antiques, gold, gems, precious metals) etc, and not a socially constructed one. 'Value' itself is a socially constructed term that holds no meaning outside of social exchanges for good and services, as agreed between two or more people.

Anyway, I'm done with this argument. You're self evidently wrong, you wont find a single economist or scientist or philosopher to agree with you that 'value' is an objective property of an object (be it gold, a Ming vase, an emerald, a 10 dollar bill, a car, or whatever) and have picked a very strange hill to die on indeed.

Personally, where you get messed up is you think 'social construct' means 'doesn't exist'. I'm not saying 'value placed on objects including gold doesnt exist' I'm (and literally every single scientist and academic in the world) are saying it does exist, but as a social construct.

We’re the only species that measures its atomic weight. “Attributing value” is just another form of measurement. Its value is a consequence of its physical properties - it isn’t invented out of nothing (like Bitcoin).

To say gold is the same as Bitcoin, or that the concept of masculinity is the same as the rules of AFL, is the kind fraudulent language games that post modernists play to deny reality. And have done more damage to science than any other intellectual movement.

 

[kirsti]

That's just someone who doesnt identify as 'feminine' or 'masculine' or goes through periods where they identify as one or the other.

I've yet to hear of a case where a person wakes up each day deciding to identify as a different gender.

Im sure it exists somewhere in the world, but it would be rare indeed.

In any event, if they're sincere then I would give them the respect they deserve and follow what they want to be identified as. It's no different to someone who legally changes their name each day. I'd call them whatever they wanted to be called.

Why wouldnt you?

Being Brooklyn: a gender-neutral life

https://t.co/emfAwduyzK?amp=1


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[fleabitten]

In the near-beginning, as hunter/gatherers, male strength meant something. Ghosts of this line of thought linger all across the globe but in many instances our settled consumer society has left the hunter/gatherer culturally extinct.

Male strength still means something outside the bubble of middle-class comfort.

 

[its free real estate]

Male strength still means something outside the bubble of middle-class comfort.

Still means something inside it. I’m expected to do the heavy lifting and strength related mechanical chores in the house, because essentially I’m the only one who can.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Biology

 

[twotooto]

Still means something inside it. I’m expected to do the heavy lifting and strength related mechanical chores in the house, because essentially I’m the only one who can.

Next time you're 'expected' to do some heavy lifting just say
"nah, can't be ****ed"
"how come?"
"social constructs babe. I am socially constructing the s**t out of this thing"

 

[Snake_Baker]

Next time you're 'expected' to do some heavy lifting just say
"nah, can't be ******"
"how come?"
"social constructs babe. I am socially constructing the s**t out of this thing"

Equality.

 

[Bigger]

It does change because we are the only species that attributes value to something that is rare, lustrous, malleable, ductile and non-corroding.

Those things are only true because we agree they are. Just like 2000 year old Ming vases are valued at a squillion dollars, or Bitcoin has value.

You are literally the only person in the world arguing 'value' is an objective trait of currency (money, antiques, gold, gems, precious metals) etc, and not a socially constructed one. 'Value' itself is a socially constructed term that holds no meaning outside of social exchanges for good and services, as agreed between two or more people.

Anyway, I'm done with this argument. You're self evidently wrong, you wont find a single economist or scientist or philosopher to agree with you that 'value' is an objective property of an object (be it gold, a Ming vase, an emerald, a 10 dollar bill, a car, or whatever) and have picked a very strange hill to die on indeed.

Personally, where you get messed up is you think 'social construct' means 'doesn't exist'. I'm not saying 'value placed on objects including gold doesnt exist' I'm (and literally every single scientist and academic in the world) are saying it does exist, but as a social construct.

10 dollar bills get around.

 

[Frank Bunn]

It's like some people haven't read anything about anthropology or evolutionary psychology. There are recurring themes in culture after culture across the world - such as a thirst for social approval, marriage between males and females, a capacity for guilt. This is clearly genetic; where else could rules for mental development come from? And it could be said these things have objective value for humans. Then there are differences across cultures that tune how our underlying nature operates on the world and each other.

This genetic phenomenon is seen in male and female behaviour. As Darwin observed, in most classes of animal species - mammals, birds, reptiles, fishes, insects - the males are always the 'wooers' and eager to have sex. Having less reproductive opportunities than males, females tend to be 'coy' and choosy about their mates, which in turn leads to competition, even combat, amongst males about who gets to have sex with the females. And traits that females find attractive in males will be evolutionarily successful.

We see this represented in humans. Women select men that have wealth, power and social status - so it's in men's interest, reproductively speaking, to obtain those things. In some circumstances status is gained by physical prowess. Women are selected by men for youth and attractiveness, such as symmetry of facial features, which is a shortcut to their genetic quality, health, and reproductive potential. So it's in women's interest to exaggerate their youth and attractiveness. Hence the large amount of time and money spent on fake hair, fake face, fake boobs, fake height.

These ideas are not new. George Williams book in 1966 was significant. But these days even feminists believe that men and women are 'essentially' different. These biological differences between men and women give rise to different behaviours across all cultures.

Females know with absolute certainty that the children from any relationship are their own. Males do not. Hence why mothers tend to spend a greater investment of time with the children, as do the extended families of mothers. Women are more nurturing of children, the sick and the elderly. Female sexual
availability is highly valued and protected both by society and the families of females, especially for young women.

Males are stronger and more aggressive, hence more prone to violence but also more capable in warfare and sport. Males of all mammalian species engage in more juvenile rough-and-tumble play. Males are greater risk takers.

It has been shown that men's and women's brains are physiologically significantly different in a number of ways.

In contrast, the recent rise in the number of people identifying as transgender is a social phenomenon.

 

[ShanDog]

Fluoride!

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

In contrast, the recent rise in the number of people identifying as transgender is a social phenomenon.

I believe we have those numbers today because it has become more socially permissable. How many years had homosexuals (for example) done things 'in the closet' so to speak? They've always been around, same as those who believe they were born to the wrong gender. They wwere forced to the shadows but they've always existed.

They just have more options to actually live their lives as they see fit amongst a biodiverse humanity these days, which is no bad thing.

 

[Mantis Toboggan]

It may have always existed, but only now is it being actively coached by oddball parents. My wife met a lady the other day who had a child and categorically will not refer to its gender. She even referred to the child as ‘it’. I’m not saying this is the norm, but it is a growing scenario. Parents are raising kids to be confused about something, which for 99.9% of the population is cut and dry.

We can all be more understanding and accepting, but I’m not sure we should be actively encouraging this confusion in children.