DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It is understood that he was suspended for recording his teacher, rather than the initial conversation.
From the article above..
“The 2,500-Year-Old History of Adults Blaming the Younger Generation” https://www.historyhustle.com/2500-years-of-people-complaining-about-the-younger-generation/
Earlier on, we were talking about gender. The “gender identity” crew are saying there are 5 or 6 genders.
I know some people say something like this. But this is not what the radical feminist / transgender debate is about.
In Edinburgh I believe a student was sent home for saying there are only two genders.
It seems there’s more to the story than that.
Children as young as 4 are being exposed to the LGBTQ narrative, and children are given sex-change drugs.
What do you mean by the “LGBTQ” narrative? You think children shouldn’t be told that same-sex relationships exist? Like in the days of section 28?
Children have been given puberty-blocking drugs, not sex-change drugs. But the practice has been called into question in the UK and I think more or less discontinued.
I was under the impression we were talking about surgery (mutilation), not simply transvestism.
As far as I understand it, a lot (most probably the majority, I don’t know the figures) of trans-men / women will not have had genital surgery, nor want it. It’s a long drawn out and risky process.
While true that there are those born hermaphrodite (the original meaning of bisexual) and those with hormone imbalances, this is not the issue here.
That’s not what I’m talking about, and not relevant. In lots of historical societies, there have been people born male or female who have lived their lives as a member of the opposite sex. Whatever that means changes depending on the context of what society it is happening in. It’s nothing new.
One can’t resolve one’s misery under capitalism by blaming or picking at gender
I don’t think anyone claims to be “choosing” their gender. Things that we would recognise as transgenderism pre-date capitalism, therefore there’s no reason to think that it would not exist post-capitalism either.
“My name is Zoe and I am a trans-woman. By this I mean that I was assigned male at birth but identify as a woman. This raises the question of how I know that I’m a trans woman? People who ask this often expect to be provided with some systematic list of reasons as if I were explaining how I know that it is raining. One’s internal sense of self is not, however, the same as the weather. We can both look out the window and easily observe the weather together. You cannot, however, jump inside my head and experience life as I do. Instead you have to rely on my highly in-adequate attempts at conveying the richness and complexity of my first person experience to you. I might tell a person that I find a joke funny but this is not the same as successfully conveying to them how it felt to find the joke funny. Likewise, I can tell a person that I feel like a woman but this will not successfully convey to them my inner experience of this feeling.”
I’m thinking Jordan’s attempt to find a “falsifiable” definitions misses the point somehow..
Depends what you’re talking about I guess. Some concepts are unavoidably fuzzy, especially those used in politics.
I prefer Nietzsche, “it is only that which has no history which can be defined”
“Loose thinking leads to the loose use of words, but the loose use of words also leads to loose thinking.”
Time to allow Labourites and Leninists to say they are socialists then? Why not?
Out of interest where does this quote come from? To be honest, I don’t think who said had much of a grip on how language works.
There was a recent court case in the UK where a woman successfully sued for damages after being given puberty blockers.
Also in the UK, schools are no longer allowed to push the “born in the wrong body” narrative
https://www.thearticle.com/the-sexist-reality-behind-the-transgender-narrative
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-sexist-pseudoscience-of-gender-identity/Alan, thousands of articles about these topics are on the internet. What in particular do you think is special about the two you posted?
Jordan – thanks for taking the time to read my links. I think there is something in the arguments you mention. There’s a few things I disagree with though..
money’s definitely a social construct. it’s not real. it didn’t exist before humanity.
So capitalism is not real either? Phew there’s a relief!
“Real” doesn’t mean existing before humanity, or “physical”. Money, capitalism, The World Socialist Party of America, patriarchy; all of these things are real they just exist, as Grace-Chappell says a few lines on, “as the reality of historical and social formations. They don’t have the reality of the natural kinds that science is concerned with, like Panthera Tigris Tigris and H2O and tungsten. But whoever said that the only real kinds of things were the natural kinds?”
Also, I don’t think language works how you seem to think it does, it doesn’t work like geometry. A definition is not an argument, it’s not the kind of thing that has a truth value or is falsifiable. Circularly in definitions is not uncommon, or really a problem, look in a dictionary. But now we’re talking about philosophy of language..
The thing with the transgender debate is it *is* a struggle of the meaning of words and concepts, and struggles over the meaning of words and concepts of this kind are political struggles.
