Chaze
Jedi
With all due respect mate, if you haven’t actually watched the film yet, it’s okay to just say that.
Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
With all due respect mate, if you haven’t actually watched the film yet, it’s okay to just say that.
You're missing the crux of what he wrote.
We have no idea how people in the distant future will think or act. We'll also have zero control over what they do, think, or say. We'll also be dead. Which makes caring about any of it kind of pointless in the here and now and also impossible in the future because, you know, we'll be dead.
Archaeologists may care about treating your remains with respect, but that's not what Joe was writing about. He was responding to what you wrote.
Again, you're missing the crux of what he wrote.
Of course it's impossible to define something as A if you don't know that A exists. That wasn't his point.
His point was to highlight how cultures put people into binary categories because there's only two kinds of sexual organs. The categories and definitions thus followed the observable reality. Not the other way around.
He could've written "sex organs" instead of "chromosomes", but I think he assumed you would be able to draw the logical conclusion that he wasn't actually suggesting previous cultures, who didn't know about chromosomes, based their sex categories on chromosomes but on how chromosomes express themselves, i.e., sex organs.
Apparently, he should not have made that assumption. That you couldn't figure this out should give you pause.
I can think of a few historical figures who didn't fit the societal mold of their time or ours due to certain proclivities, so it is possible to recognize things outside our societal frame of reference. We might not be able to know exactly what some random Celt thought about themselves and what they liked to do in their spare time, but if there's no evidence for suggesting otherwise it's probably a safe bet they were straight, were average people for their time, and saw/thought of themselves much like average people do now.
You may think that's an unsupportable position. But I tell ya, if I could get the odds of being right about that in a casino, I'd bet the farm every time.
Yes, that's basically what he's saying.
Read the bolded words again. But this time, read it very slowly.
We've weighed and measured the Queer Theory challenges to current norms and find them to be insufficiently rigorous and ironically uncritical.
Queer Theorists lean far too heavily on culture as an explanation for behavior and don't fully appreciate the biological complexity that underpins social behaviors. Partly due to ignorance, partly to a psychological and emotional deficiency, and partly to arrogance.
Have you ever noticed how some animals have sex-specific behaviors? When a female cat or dog goes into heat, for example, they behave in ways male cats and dogs never act. Similarly, a male cat or dog has behaviors which a female does not engage in. This is true of all animals. This is because each animal has a complex biological and instinctive substratum which is necessary for species survival. If there's not a substratum of instinctual drives and compulsions, then there's nothing which can learn social behaviors. It can't be any other way. The social is and must be built on top of the biological.
The same is also true of humans. In order for there to be any sort of socially taught or learned behaviors in people, their must be a vast and complex biological and instinctive behavioral substratum which social pressures can shape. This is the key misunderstanding of social constructionists. They think much of what makes society what it is learned through mimicry. But that is a gross oversimplification which misses the real driver of human behaviors. The fact of the matter is that without enough supportive biological underpinnings certain social behaviors will simply never take hold.
Which is why there will never be a society where the vast majority of women are engineers and soldiers while the vast majority of men are caretakers and homemakers, because men and women are not, on the whole, biologically designed or driven to fulfill those roles.
Constantly refining what we think of as masculine or feminine aspects or behaviors is hardly suggestive of evidence for social constructionism. The reason it's plainly observable to you is because you're convinced it exists and see only further confirmation of it.
What you're describing is a problem of objectivity. Queer Theory cannot fix that.
And yet, you're being carried away into purely suppositional understandings of the world that are based on the worldviews and ideologies of pathologically disturbed people.
Not everything is entirely socially constructed, and, again, the social constructs must match the biological and physical reality to a significant enough degree. Otherwise the construct isn't going to work or last very long.
Straight from that documentary. That's not an answer to the question.You are living in a different "conceptual" reality then. Not sure anything others here say will be useful. You would fit much better in an LGBT forum.
No, it's simply that we use the terms male and female in reference to sexual organisms other than humans. We don't call a male chimpanzee a 'man' either. Man and woman are concepts linked directly to adult male and female in humans, humans are complex but this concept isn't especially. It's probably to distinguish ourselves from the rest of the living world (and maintain politeness and dignity) as we are wont to do in so many ways. Quite rightly, in my opinion.
How can we make any sense of the complex when debating such simple facts wastes our precious attention and energy? A lot of this boils down to semantics and people are tying themselves in knots over it while the world burns.
I think Sam Harris just (Career-wise) dug his own grave.
Wasn’t he debating with JP that man didn’t need God or spirituality-based stories to have ethics and morality? That man could be atheist and just be moral too. Pick good leaders and let them show us the way. JP then asked him “based on what?” and “who picks the leaders?”
Harris’s Wiki page say that his work/teaching is on ETHICS, among other things.
In this video Sky News show they elucidates a recent interview with Harris where he states such things as:
(Not exact quotes)
Hunter Biden could of literally had corpses of children in his basement. I would not have cared. A conspiracy to steal the election was absolutely warranted.
Harris: Trump is an existential threat to our democracy.
Interviewer: But you suggest destroying democracy in the name of democracy? (By stealing the election)
Harris: ah ah aha…
If you followed the debates, it’s a must watch. (9 minutes long)
Wasn’t he debating with JP that man didn’t need God or spirituality-based stories to have ethics and morality? That man could be atheist and just be moral too. Pick good leaders and let them show us the way. JP then asked him “based on what?” and “who picks the leaders?”
Harris’s Wiki page say that his work/teaching is on ETHICS, among other things.
In this video Sky News show they elucidates a recent interview with Harris where he states such things as:
(Not exact quotes)
Hunter Biden could of literally had corpses of children in his basement. I would not have cared. A conspiracy to steal the election was absolutely warranted.
Harris: Trump is an existential threat to our democracy.
Interviewer: But you suggest destroying democracy in the name of democracy? (By stealing the election)
Harris: ah ah aha…
If you followed the debates, it’s a must watch. (9 minutes long)
Your position is all wrong, Ajay. We all know that emotions go before biological facts. The females of the human species FIRST expressed motherly feelings and AFTER were able to become pregnant. Until then, new humans were brought by storks, thus the popular legends on the theme.
If the males of the human species expressed their motherly yearnings first, they would have been the ones procreating, but alas, they had bad timing. We all know that once you are “it” first, you are “it” for a very long time. Nonetheless, I won’t forego easily my firm belief that the male reproductive organs are still just waiting for the motherly yearnings to grow sufficiently so that they too can morph into effective baby-creating, baby-carrying, baby-ejecting machinery.
I have a friend who is, what I would call, an atheistic moralist. And you get a lot of the same stuff that is highlighted here. Basically ends up as doublespeak. They are blind and oblivious to anything you point out to them. The end justifies the means.
I totally agree with the reference to Sam Harris as a person who thinks he is smarter than he actually is, though slightly better spoken and disguised than Bill Gates. But when I have listened to a variety of his talks or debates he doesn’t make sense. His system of para-logic is not even consistent, much as he is in this interview. Makes me think he is either stupid and arrogant or a dis-info agent. Honestly I have no idea which.
bianca etezete
Dagobah Resident
...is that what you would call solipsism? Or what is the name for that kind of ... i do not know how to call it
I am seriously disturbed by the amount of stuff like this I see on the net, and in real life there is def a multiplication of sightings of "gender-challanged" peeps (mostly very young, I would guess around 17/18yrs old)... mostly male....
There’s some interesting stuff in the Lethbridge books about sex and dowsing male or female energy in objects. One interesting fact is that graphite reversed the energy that could be dowsed if it was close to an object when it came to sex. It is interesting that graphene oxide is one of the nanoparticles they’ve placed in this jab and could possibly lead to even more gender confusion inside the body. The dowsing information was in the book The World of T. C. Lethbridge by William Shepherd.
bianca etezete
Dagobah Resident
that is very interesting. I was told, multiple times, taht only female fetal stem (?) cells are used in jabs (pre covid), in all the child shots. so my theory is that all the feminisation we see in men is not only due to the propaganda, but might also be an effect of bringing in - at an early age - female cells. Does that make sense to you?
This isn’t the thread to discuss it, but just read the book if you’re interested, it’s only about 100 pages and free online. The short version is that certain materials have either male or female energy when dowsed and placing other materials next to them will reverse the energy.
For instance I believe gold dowsed as female energy alone, if you add a small amount of graphite next to it a reversal happens.
I can’t say if your theory is correct or not, probably has more to do with DNA but this isn’t the thread to discuss it.
This little video got me thinking about my so called identity. Female/woman is actually pretty far down on the list, but maybe the first thing someone might notice about me. Latest iteration of a Tower of Babel, seems to me. Divide and conquer is working very well. I'm always reminded of that theme in They Live! about the method of mass hypnosis being beamed at us via communication/entertainments.
What a powerful and to-the-point message!
