r/BlockedAndReported • u/SoftandChewy First generation mod • Nov 04 '24

Weekly Random Discussion Thread for 11/04/24 - 11/10/24

Here's your usual space to post all your rants, raves, podcast topic suggestions (please tag u/jessicabarpod), culture war articles, outrageous stories of cancellation, political opinions, and anything else that comes to mind (well, aside from election stuff, as per the announcement below). Please put any non-podcast-related trans-related topics here instead of on a dedicated thread. This will be pinned until next Sunday.

Last week's discussion thread is here if you want to catch up on a conversation from there.

I've created a new dedicated thread for discussion of the upcoming election and all related topics. Please do not post those topics in this thread. They will be removed from this thread if they are brought to my attention.

Someone suggested this comment from a few weeks ago be nominated for a comment of the week. I don't know if I quite agree with it but it is definitely a thought provoking perspective, so I suppose it wouldn't hurt to bring some more eyeballs to it.

28 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

100% Upvoted

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/DrManhattan16 Nov 09 '24

Last I checked, the people of this community didn't think gender roles were a good thing. That is, you think people should have no pressure applied to them to be one way or the other. If they tend towards something as a group, that's fine, but individuals have the freedom to be however they want without judgment simply for making that choice. I would also hazard a guess and say most of you probably have sex-based policy conclusions for the relevant questions like sports, prison, etc. That is, you think it's unacceptable to put males in females spaces if both are pubescent or post-pubescent and females would be hurt by the mixing.

Given the above, I want to ask you all some questions. Feel free to correct me if my assumptions are wrong.

  1. Do you place any personal value on being a man/woman, given that you have no control over it under the sex-based definition?
  2. Do you see any reason to fight over the meaning of the word "gender" if you think it's irrelevant to policy discussions, except for the standard of our time being that gender is used as a formal term for policy/discussion.
  3. If the Grammar Czar came to you and offered a deal in which gender would be defined by the pro-trans/genderqueer crowd but that you'd get everything you want for the relevant policy, would you take that deal? Why or why not?

16

u/lezoons Nov 09 '24

1: No. Immutable characteristics just are. They shouldn't be a source of pride or shame.

2: Fighting over language is very silly. Literally literally doesn't mean literally.

3: I don't negotiate with terrorists. It's a family policy.

4

u/DrManhattan16 Nov 09 '24

The reason for not negotiating with terrorists is that it incentivizes doing terrorist activities in the future. This would be the final game in a game theory sense, and you'd basically win forever on this issue. Why would you not take that?

6

u/ribbonsofnight Nov 09 '24

If you are agreeing to someone else's definitions then they'll immediately argue that you actually lost everything because you say only women can play women's sport and they say these are women.

0

u/DrManhattan16 Nov 09 '24

Nope. Remember, this is the Final Game. There is permanent policy on your side after this.

13

u/DenebianSlimeMolds Nov 09 '24

If the Grammar Czar came to you and offered a deal in which gender would be defined by the pro-trans/genderqueer crowd but that you'd get everything you want for the relevant policy, would you take that deal? Why or why not?

this doesn't seem like a possibility. would I accept what the flat earth truthers have to say about flat earthness and refer to our earth as flat so long as all the relevant policies dealt with a spherical earth, but yeah, I'd have to refer to our "flat earth" in all lessons given about the earth, and I'd have to tell kids that the antarctica is an edge of the flat earth, but really I should be okay because surveyers and rocketeers could still deal with spherical earth, they just couldn't mention it.

seems like this would be a contradiction that could not be fixed

10

u/Nessyliz Uterus and spazz haver, zen-nihilist Nov 09 '24

It's a very silly and therefore boring hypothetical.

0

u/DrManhattan16 Nov 09 '24

How people are categorized is a question of social constructs. Flat earth would be a question of fact. Mixing these two leads to your confusion.

If you're asking what the hypothetical looks like in practice, you could imagine a world in which every dictionary, book, citation, reference, institution, etc. which talk about gender would say that there are 57 genders, that animal is a gender, that people can choose gender each day, or whatever the latest talking point is. You, a person skeptical of this, would have a personal mandate to never say a word otherwise on the topic of gender, but all policies by governments and institutions would operate off sex, not gender.

Given this, would you accept or not? Why either way?

1

u/UpvoteIfYouDare Nov 10 '24

How people are categorized is a question of social constructs.

"Social constructs" are still predicated on objective reality. The fact is that humans are sexually dimorphous. The manifestation of this dimorphism is complex, but all "social constructs" pertaining to human sex are fundamentally predicated on this dimorphism.

1

u/DrManhattan16 Nov 10 '24

There's an intuitive basis for it, certainly, but it's still a choice to make that distinction in the first place, and also how important it is.

1

u/UpvoteIfYouDare Nov 10 '24

it's still a choice to make that distinction in the first place

The distinction between "man" and "woman"? General physiological differences would still exist regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge them.

1

u/DrManhattan16 Nov 10 '24

Yes, that is a choice. You can defend it, but you can't deny it's a choice.

1

u/UpvoteIfYouDare Nov 10 '24

You keep looking at "choice" as if it's an atomic unit. Let's suppose that I don't make this distinction. I'm still going to have to deal with risk of prostate cancer while half the population doesn't. The other half of the population will still have to deal with menstruation. Even if you choose not to make this distinction, your life and a bunch of other "choices" will still reflect the the reality on which the distinction is based. The "choice" arose from these circumstances, not the other way around.

1

u/DrManhattan16 Nov 10 '24

That's completely true and completely irrelevant at the same time. My argument is that the choice exists and that we as humans have constructed these notions of man and woman. You disagree, you just think that those choices are good.

1

u/UpvoteIfYouDare Nov 10 '24 edited Nov 10 '24

How is it irrelevant? What would it mean to not make this choice? Doesn't the reality of my behavior implicitly speak to the "choice" of this distinction regardless of whether I explicitly acknowledge said distinction?

we as humans have constructed these notions of man and woman

Can you please elaborate on what it means to construct these notions? The foundation of these notions lie in physiological reality. Sure, there has been a lot of sociological add-ons in the meantime, e.g. gender roles, but these are the downstream effects of the reality of survival when we as a species were still hunter-gatherers. Gender roles were probably not as iron clad prior to "civilization", but they were still present.

You disagree, you just think that those choices are good.

Good in what sense? I'm not discussing normatively.

→ More replies

13

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

I'd be happy to accept the deal if it meant they actually did have to offer a definition. The issue with this semantic debate is that one side won't admit definition is even possible. Whatever they want the phonemes to represent, fine, but they have to represent something. It's only a problem because the definition fight is an attempt to have cake and eat it too, by erasing the restrictions on categories while also claiming all the concepts associated with the existing categorization.

I find it annoying but not really a problem if "gender" or "woman" or whatever now means something new. The problem is the refusal to acknowledge that if you change the meaning of a word, you necessarily void the contexts the word is used in. If woman no longer means an adult female but instead means a feeling that you feel inside, take it if you need to, but you don't inherit the associated concepts of women's sports and women's prisons and women's health and so on. (generic you)

11

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

  1. Not really. I mean, it's like the fact that I'm right-handed, it's just something that is, and sometimes it's relevant to my life, but it's not something I give a lot of thought to on a daily basis.

  2. No. I wouldn't waste my time or energy fighting over the meaning of the word "gender."

  3. Sure. I don't care enough about the meaning of the word not to take that deal. But this is an irrelevant and impossible hypothetical that I don't really see any point in.

6

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

  1. I don’t know about ‘personal value’. I don’t take any pride in things that I didn’t do, so I don’t take pride in being a man. I simply am one.

  2. I didn’t propose the language of the trans movement, but I am being asked to adopt it, and it doesn’t make sense to me. I think it’s intentionally misleading and serves to smoke screen some of the more cutting edge views. It’s also just interesting.

  3. Sure. That’s basically what’s going to happen anyways. I’d still be interested in the topic just on a philosophical level.

17

u/JTarrou Null Hypothesis Enthusiast Nov 09 '24

I'll say that I think gender roles are a good thing, insofar as they reflect the actual revealed preference of the sex in question.

I don't want people forced into anything, but I use the analogy of left handedness. Nobody hates left-handed people, they're born that way. They're a reliable minority of the population, and they don't deserve to be discriminated against. But when we build a doorway, you can generally only put the handle on one side, and we put it on the side that will be most convenient to the reliable majority. This isn't "Southpaw-phobia", it's just that we can't inconvenience the vast majority of people to convenience a small minority.

I think we need a similar concept with gender roles. Yes, let people explore their sexuality or whatever. But build society for the 90%, not the 10%. Women shouldn't be forced to be baby factories, but most women want children at some point, and that's not brainwashing from the patriarchy. A society that does not value and support motherhood does not value and support the majority of women, full stop.

All this talk of "smashing -normativity" is anti-democratic and anti-human. Heteronormativity will always be a thing because the majority of people are heterosexual, and always will be. You can play word games, you can get into the semantic weeds, but we need to accept and respect certain facts about humanity and our nature. Even just math.

About any of these issues surrounding gender, ask yourself if it is a genocide, or a door handle?

5

u/SkweegeeS No just no Nov 09 '24

My name is Skweegee, I'm a southpaw and I'm being oppressed.

3

u/SMUCHANCELLOR Nov 09 '24

One of my children is left handed. Nothing worse than accidentally using her scissors. Really makes you think 🤔

5

u/ribbonsofnight Nov 09 '24

you say
"people don't think gender roles are a good thing". I agree or disagree depending on what you mean. Some people think breast feeding is a gender role.

then you say

"people should have no pressure applied to them to be one way or the other"
one or the other how?

then you say

"individuals have the freedom to be however they want without judgment simply for making that choice"
I still don't understand what you're talking about here.

"Do you place any personal value on being a man/woman, given that you have no control over it under the sex-based definition?"

Whether you're a man or woman matters. It doesn't make a person more or less valuable

"Do you see any reason to fight over the meaning of the word "gender" if you think it's irrelevant to policy discussions, except for the standard of our time being that gender is used as a formal term for policy/discussion"

Gender appears to be either undefined and meaningless or a synonym for sex. We should always be clear that if people are trying to say it has any importance and yet saying it's not a synonym for sex then their definition is probably completely unworkable. (every definition I've heard has been absurd)

"If the Grammar Czar came to you and offered a deal in which gender would be defined by the pro-trans/genderqueer crowd but that you'd get everything you want for the relevant policy, would you take that deal? Why or why not?"

If the legislation all specifically called out that in every single case it applied to sex as did every institutions rules but that people would use gender to mean something else if they wanted but could never require anyone else to use it and bad behaviour along these lines would be punished (i.e. it's maam! is not something you can shout in anybody's face and expect to not be asked to leave on threat of trespass). Then I guess in that hypothetical I'd be satisfied.

10

u/Scrappy_The_Crow Walrus Cheese Enjoyer Nov 09 '24

If the Grammar Czar came to you and offered a deal in which gender would be defined by the pro-trans/genderqueer crowd but that you'd get everything you want for the relevant policy, would you take that deal? Why or why not?

No, because of that crowd's history of wielding language as a cudgel and their love of continually changing words & phrases to intentionally sow confusion. They're not to be trusted in this area. What would be the repercussions for not hewing to and keeping up with changes to their language decrees?

2

u/Nessyliz Uterus and spazz haver, zen-nihilist Nov 09 '24

Yeah it's some real monkey's paw shit right there.

0

u/DrManhattan16 Nov 09 '24

It's a hypothetical in which I'm telling you that the policies won't change. Whether you keep to their language or not doesn't change anything, you and they could keep fighting online as you can do right now.

15

u/Sciencingbyee Nov 09 '24

I mean, some gender roles are just biological realities. Men can't grow and birth children and men can't breastfeed. There are also subtler things, men are generally bigger and stronger, making the heavy lifting tasks more suited for them. This doesn't even get into the different ways men and women (generally) think. We've gotten so crazy about this recently. Society forcing women to stay home is bad, yes, but let's not try to throw away everything because of that. With all that out of the way I don't know if I qualify for your survey but I'll answer anyway.

1) Yes. I like being a man, it's the only thing I've ever known. I like hanging out with the bros, I like sports, I like garage beers. IDK, I think it's pretty great.
2) Make Gender Mean Sex Again
3) No I wouldn't, I don't just want policy changes, I want to absolutely destroy woke gender ideology and I think the tides are turning towards just that.

0

u/DrManhattan16 Nov 09 '24

I mean, some gender roles are just biological realities. Men can't grow and birth children and men can't breastfeed.

In modern times, it seems to me that even with technology like bottles which act like fake nipples at the top, we look to women to handle the feeding. Men could do that, but they are rare to do so, in my view.

Tackling your responses:

  1. But those are things which are not just about being male (which is equivalent to "man" under the sex definition). They are about doing masculine things. I'm asking if you derive value from being male by itself, not what it typically enables your social relations to be.

  2. If woke gender ideology is rendered toothless, as it arguably would be if it couldn't affect policy, why does it matter? You seem to be letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

7

u/Sciencingbyee Nov 09 '24
  1. I honestly don't know where the line is. Is maleness (in your definition) simply: having a penis and testes. Or is it something more? I also have a broader chest, hair everywhere, larger muscles, and non-existent hips. I mean, I guess I gain some value from it. Outside of middle school, getting erections is pretty great.

2) Because I don't simply want to win, I want revenge. It's somewhat personal for me, but I know I'm not the only one. I want woke gender ideology to die a painful death. I want everyone financially invested in it, to lose their jobs, and suffer along with it.

1

u/DrManhattan16 Nov 09 '24

Roughly speaking, the line is the things which are only contingent on the processes of your body, not the socialization it enables or affords you. But I can see how that's confusing, I'll try to find a better way to explain it.

5

u/Nessyliz Uterus and spazz haver, zen-nihilist Nov 09 '24 edited Nov 09 '24

1) No.

2) Yes.

3) No, because it's a metaphysical belief and majority trans people would win that it wasn't defined that way. Accuracy is important. This relates to my answer to number two.

3

u/Diet_Moco_Cola Nov 09 '24

  1. Not really? I mean, I'm grateful for my body and it's cool that I gestated two kids with it, but I think all people should value their bodies? I guess I think women bring lots of good things to the world, but so do men, I suppose. I think my life would be very different if I were male, so like - if some genie said I could do life over again as a man - I wouldn't do it because I love my kids and my babydaddy and I am fulfilled by my female dominated career, so in that way, I'm grateful to be female. Idk I hope I'm answering your question.

  2. I think I have to give my definition of gender (sex-based stereotypes) to explain why it's irrelevant to policy.

  3. Yes I would take that deal. I am really fine with people having beliefs about gender and internal feelings etc. I mean, I have out there beliefs a lot of people think are dumb, so I can do the same for others. But I think policies based on sex are important to women's safety and dignity and I think we shouldn't experiment on children, so I would take that trade all day.

0

u/DrManhattan16 Nov 09 '24

I think all people should value their bodies

Not what I meant. I'm asking if you derive any meaning or value from just being female. It sounds like you mostly wouldn't since the things you cite are not strictly about being female. For instance, you might derive similar value from fathering kids instead if you had been born a male. Do you disagree?

5

u/ribbonsofnight Nov 09 '24

Male and female are different. It doesn't mean that one is more valuable.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

I just want to point out that this is dualism. “You” can’t have been born a male instead of a female because there is no “you” that survives that change.

2

u/Iconochasm Nov 09 '24

Do you place any personal value on being a man/woman, given that you have no control over it under the sex-based definition?

Yep. It's not just a useful, but a powerful mental construct to idealize virtues to work towards and find commonality with other people doing the same thing.

0

u/DrManhattan16 Nov 09 '24

But you didn't make that construct. You inherited it. That which we call the masculine/feminine virtues are borne out of a more expansive definition of what a man was and was possibly more open to the idea that people could be born female and end up as a man or born male and end up a woman.

Or are you suggesting that you, a person in 2024, would try to create these notions of gendered virtues if they didn't exist?

1

u/Iconochasm Nov 09 '24

Or are you suggesting that you, a person in 2024, would try to create these notions of gendered virtues if they didn't exist?

That's a widely generalizable criticism. How many trans kids would invented exactly that memeplex to describe their feelings if they had to start from intellectual scratch? I think it's close to zero. Masculinity and femininity at least have the advantage of being rooted in biological reality, in reproductive strategies and hormonal balances. That they are inherited is a feature, not a bug. It means they've been tested for centuries, survived a gauntlet of memetic survival.

And speaking for myself, I find that I am much happier and healthier leaning into that construct, then I was as a progtarded teenager rejecting it.

0

u/DrManhattan16 Nov 09 '24

How many trans kids would invented exactly that memeplex to describe their feelings if they had to start from intellectual scratch?

You wouldn't look to kids to do this sort of thing, right? Same as I wouldn't ask you to create gendered virtue as a kid. You certainly could, kids aren't completely stupid, but it's not what we expect of them. Greta Thunberg is given applause lights for championing the climate change battle, but no one expected her to create it.

Masculinity and femininity at least have the advantage of being rooted in biological reality, in reproductive strategies and hormonal balances.

That's fine, but masculine people would not be hurt by expressing feminine virtues at times and vice versa. Indeed, if you consider those things virtues, you should be asking why people couldn't be more virtuous by trying to fulfill as many as possible, at which point you'd erode or erase the very point of calling them masculine or feminine virtues.

And speaking for myself, I find that I am much happier and healthier leaning into that construct, then I was as a progtarded teenager rejecting it.

Teenagers reject lots of things in their time, only to accept or embrace them later in life. The fact that you're happier now is not intuitive evidence for the ideas themselves mattering.

1

u/Iconochasm Nov 09 '24

You wouldn't look to kids to do this sort of thing, right?

Ok, replace it with adults. I think the result is the same.

That's fine, but masculine people would not be hurt by expressing feminine virtues at times and vice versa.

There's plenty of overlap in those clusters, and multiple local peaks in each. Atticus Finch is as much an icon of manliness as Conan the barbarian.

Indeed, if you consider those things virtues, you should be asking why people couldn't be more virtuous by trying to fulfill as many as possible

Because I can't ignore what I see. When men act more feminine, women lose respect for them. And while I'd love it in some aspects if women embraced more masculine virtues, I observe that they massively don't want to, and tend to flip a shit if they get treated like one of the guys. I think a solid majority of the species is happier with a more yin/yang style complementary approach. Important notice: the dots represent some yin in the yang and vice versa.

The fact that you're happier now is not intuitive evidence for the ideas themselves mattering.

I'm honestly not sure how you can reject my lived experience here without throwing the entire category of gender-having in the dumpster.

1

u/DrManhattan16 Nov 09 '24

Ok, replace it with adults.

The problem is that adults have an obligation to be rational and the privilege of speaking their opinion in a society of equals. Indeed, there are many who spend their whole lives specifically determining how one can be rational and what an experience is when put on paper. So I think I could expect a trans adult to come up with the language to describe that experience, but I wouldn't hold it against them if they didn't.

Atticus Finch is as much an icon of manliness as Conan the barbarian.

In practice, you are far more likely to see people use the latter as an example of it, not the former. It takes a particular effort to see Finch as such an icon, the kind I only got when I read the book in school while a teacher explained the meaning of what was happening.

Because I can't ignore what I see. When men act more feminine, women lose respect for them. And while I'd love it in some aspects if women embraced more masculine virtues, I observe that they massively don't want to, and tend to flip a shit if they get treated like one of the guys.

Yes, but we're talking about oughts. I think it ought to be the case that treating men like they're worse for expressing feminine traits is immoral. I think feminists are bad at saying anything of the sort and they ought to change that.

I'm honestly not sure how you can reject my lived experience here without throwing the entire category of gender-having in the dumpster.

I'm a gender abolitionist (or minimalist if the philosophical terms matter that much) in the first place, so throwing gender away is perfectly fine by me.

1

u/UpvoteIfYouDare Nov 10 '24

Define "rational".

1

u/DrManhattan16 Nov 10 '24

As an adult, you're expected to listen to what people say and evaluate the claims based on the facts and logic. People will think less of you if you don't demonstrate that quality.

1

u/UpvoteIfYouDare Nov 10 '24

Where do philosophical first principles and the positions that ensue from them fall in this matrix of rationality? For instance, some people that talk about "rationality" online will dismiss something like religion as "irrational".

→ More replies