This post started as a response to a Comment on a poem/article I posted yesterday. It was becoming so long, even by my standards, that I decided to make it into a post. You'll need to read it first to understand this post.
The Backstory
The Comment that inspired this post was made by @prydefoltz.
For those who don't know, Pryde and I have history. While I've been absent from Steemit for a couple of months due to "real life issues," prior to my absence, Pryde and I had developed a near-daily ritual that I refer to as, "My Daily Spanking."
Generally, I'd write something with philosophical implications, and she'd spank my ass for it. While this may sound like an unhealthy relationship, I think we both get something very valuable from it ... an appreciation for the fact that another Smart Person can have a very different viewpoint than your own.
Our relationship is the quintessential Ying/Yang:
- Male vs Female
- Old vs Young (she's the old one)
- Western Philosophy vs Eastern Philosophy
- Factual vs Spiritual
But, we're also both:
- Canadians (though I live in the US)
- Poets and writers (with a penchant for verbosity)
- History buffs
- Extremely philosophical
Pryde is a very smart gal and I do not easily best her at anything and that, I suspect, is part of the appeal ... steel sharpens steel. Make no mistake, while I disagree with Pryde on a number of issues, I hold her mind in very high esteem and I visit her feed almost daily. You should too.
Disclaimer
In my responses, I answer beyond, sometimes well beyond, the specifics of Pryde's comments in an effort to address the underlying issues "more globally," and hence, I am often not speaking to her specifically ... but rather, to an audience-at-large. Her comments are but a writing prompt. Hence, please do not attribute to her, by deduction from my comments, things she did not say!
Pryde's Full Comment
Just because some people who go to university like twitter doesn't mean that university is just like twitter.
Seriously though, very few people ever wake up to how they've been brain-washed. No one is immune to or has missed out on getting programmed in some way or another. I remain more interested in understanding and coming to terms with my own programming. I cannot see clearly until I see myself clearly.
To your gender argument. Gender and biological sex are not the same thing and so yes there are infinite number of genders and two main sexes, although there are those who do not biologically fit there too. Genders are social constructs ... a collection of beliefs and expectations associated with a particular biological sex. Since our beliefs and expectations surrounding what it means to be masculine or feminine is continually changing ... there are infinite variations in gender. To say, this is what it means to be a man and this is what it means to be a women and done ... is to simplify a much more complex and evolving subject and thus we have gender studies, in the same way we might have psychology or anthropology or any other field of cultural studies.
The poem was great.
Comment/Response
Ah, Pryde ... there you are. I almost included in the article a subtitle captioned, Pryde ... I'll See You in the Comments Section, regarding the "infinite number of genders" bit. Let's begin:
Gender and biological sex are not the same thing and so yes there are infinite number of genders and two main sexes, although there are those who do not biologically fit there too.
As I mentioned in the article ... how do you know?
There is no supporting evidence for the assertion emanating from Biology, Chemistry, Neuroscience, Genetics, etc. Such assertion is purely a philosophical opinion emanating from the Gender Studies Department. The rest of the Academy does not concur.
Yes, gender is partially socially constructed as are all aspects of our personalities. But that's not the claim. The claim is an absolute that refuses to accept the gargantuan influences that biology Has to Have... and DOES have ... upon gender. The aim of Gender Studies activists is not to make us genderful, but rather, genderless ... when something can mean anything, then it means nothing. Gender infinity makes gender, in effect, a meaningless concept with respect to human categorization. And that's the goal.
Even though I think it's wrong, I would have no problem with the social construction assertion ... if it were framed as a philosophical opinion or a hypothesis yet to be validated. I have a huge problem when it is framed as a fact. If we don't make the distinction between evidence-based facts and evidence-free belief, then anything that anyone says is a fact, becomes a fact.
"In my opinion, 2+2=5."
"Oh, OK ... if that's your truth, then I accept it."
Pragmatically (not descending into pedantic debate about what the meaning of "is" is), there has to be some way for society to reach agreement upon what will be considered objectively true and what will be considered objectively false. The Enlightenment was about replacing Appeals to Authority (it's true because that's what God said ... or at least that's what we think he said) with standards for analytical measurement (empiricism).
The Far Left has come full circle, replacing God with Marxist and postmodern philosophers.
Genders are social constructs ... a collection of beliefs and expectations associated with a particular biological sex. Since our beliefs and expectations surrounding what it means to be masculine or feminine is continually changing ... there are infinite variations in gender.
This is the Blank Slate argument. That hundreds of millions of years of evolution left no mark and that we are born with no biological imperatives. That everything we are, or are not, is the result of our experiences in the world ... that it's all a matter of circumstance. The problem is that there is a mountain of scientific evidence, emanating from every hard science that you could name, that says that this is wrong. Massively wrong.
That it's not Nature vs. Nurture. It's both.
When thinking about Nature vs. Nurture, I like the chess metaphor. Your biology (Nature) is a chess set. You're born with a board and a number pieces, each subject to rules about how they can move. Within the constraints of those rules, there is an infinite number of variations of the game that you can play (Nurture). Postmodern philosophy wants to pretend that there are no constraints, no rules of the game, no biological imperatives.
Of course, this segues into the debate about Free Will vs. Determinism. Yes, we have Free Will ... but only within the boundaries allowed by the rules of the universe: Science. Free Will is a bounded condition.
If you don't believe this to be true, here's a way of testing your contrarian hypothesis: Take an elevator to the top of a tall building; shake your fist at the Heavens, declaring loudly and in bold voice, "I am a bird" ... and then jump.
What I suspect you will find is that the universe doesn't care about your self-identification as a bird. Either you are a bird, or you aren't, and any ambiguity about your truth-claim will be resolved by the result. It doesn't matter if you really, really wanted to be a bird. Nor does it matter that your not being a bird hurts your feelings. There are some things about your reality that you don't get to override. And, my saying so, doesn't make me a birdaphobe. It simply means that I disagree with your assessment of reality.
To say, this is what it means to be a man and this is what it means to be a women and done ... is to simplify a much more complex and evolving subject and thus we have gender studies, in the same way we might have psychology or anthropology or any other field of cultural studies.
Fair enough. Everything about the human mind, and subsequently human behavior, is complicated and as you state, our understanding of how it all works is evolving.
The point of my poem and accompanying article, though, was not to limit exploration of the issue (or others) but, to the contrary, encourage it.
But such exploration is predicated upon the ability to communicate openly and freely about the subject of discussion. Far Left activists, however, are trying to shut down discussion. They're trying to ban the debate. They're trying to force everyone to accept their hypotheses as First Principle Truths without having to do the hard work of earning consensus.
That's not how universities are supposed to work.
If Far Left activists were being intellectually honest about the validity of their truth-claims, why aren't they begging to engage in long-form public debates, replete with PowerPoint Presentations showcasing the plethora of evidence that supports their position?
Why, instead, are they resorting to: Pulling fire alarms; protesting (rioting) when those of opposing viewpoints seek to articulate their rationale in a public forum; seeking to limit speech articulation, and therefore idea expression, with speech codes, euphemization and trigger-warnings; and, an endless barrage of ad hominem attacks?
The poem was great.
Pryde, this is an utterly brilliant conclusion! I couldn't agree with you more. Truly, you have a gifted mind.
In Sum
Irrespective of your views about any of the issues discussed in Pryde's Comment or my Reply, what did you just witness, both in the original post and in this one?
Two people, with substantially different worldviews, exercising their Freedom of Speech to intelligently engage one another in civil discourse. Note what you did not witness: Name-calling; imputation of moral turpitude; or denigration of each others character.
And, if it hasn't happened yet, check back soon for what you are about to Witness.
My Daily Spanking.
@guiltyparties @anarcho-andrei @chairborne
