Trans-Gender Identity: Contrapoints.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 вер 2024
- Understanding identity.
#Contrapoints #Gender #identity
Identity After Authenticity: Abigail Thorn's Profile:
• Identity After Authent...
----
Outro Music:
Carsick Cars - You Can Listen You Can Talk:
• Carsick Cars - You Can...
----
Hans-Georg Moeller is a professor at the Philosophy and Religious Studies Department at the University of Macau, and, with Paul D'Ambrosio, author of the recently published You and Your Profile: Identity After Authenticity".
(If you buy professor's book from the Columbia University Press website and use the promo code CUP20 , you should get a 20% discount.)
'Extremely online' isn't just using the internet a lot. It's about whether a person's identity and views are constructed by the internet more than they are informed by the real world. It's about personally seeing the internet as more real than reality.
I love the dichotomy of your online persona. having club penguin as your profile picture but engaging in philosophical conversation on the internet. It just makes me chuckle 😅😆
I agree, but I think he’s correct that this is an increasing number of people's way of being online.
The internet is more real than reality
I’m not sure if real world opinions are often informed by the real world
@@evergold1250 So lets run with that!
I liked Irvine Welshes formulation "in a thousand years there won't be any men or women, only wankers" which has always seemed to me a realistic perspective.
🤣🤣🤣A good one!!!
That was taken from Gregory’s Girl
@@fcawley2042 ah, thanks, I didn't realise he borrowed it, I should have known, the Renton character was well read.
@@merocaine No worries I was surprised myself
Who will have the babies ?
I don't think this discussion is complete without including the influence that commercialism has on our gender roles. The question is "am I trying to perform what I believe or what I am being sold?"
How much of my identity is just a commercial? Do I like having long hair or am I being told in commercials and movies that long hair is what I should want if I want to exhibit a certain profile? And is this commercialism killing us? Separating us? Helping us?
Am I this way because commercialism made me want to be?
I think this is something important to consider when curating a profile, but it's more of a parable than the philosophy that Dr. Muller is doing
this is very interesting as a thought, although in the context of trans ppl more complicated. Commercials aren't selling a kind of identity profile to trans women (for example) - they are selling it to cisgender women. There is an understanding that a certain gender role is not for certain people, and many trans people would prefer to conform if they could comfortably. But they cannot.
@@GourdClae this i've never understood. There's nothing innately female about women's fashion, so how could this be a dysphoric object for an mtf. Maybe then the object cause of desire is the being of a woman, and women's fashion is seen as an expression of being a woman, but many trans women are happy in not being feminine so there's still a partial exclusion.
@@bellumthirio139 It would depend on the mtf! some do think of it as innate, others think of is a role to play, some just have certain feelings one way or another without intellectualizing it. Some feel dysphoric abt women's fashion and some don't! It's more of a vibes based thing than a coherent thought process for many. I suspect it's mostly socially instilled.
As a cisgender man, I know that i would feel weird wearing a skirt. I suspect that (some) mtf ppl feel the same abt Not wearing a skirt
I'm glad you state this as a question, because my first thought is: "is this even bad?" Is it bad that people with more power than you influence how you perceive something that is fake after all? It is a common myth that women crave chocolate when they are on their period, but it turns out that that is only the case for women in the U.S. because there this myth has been propagated to sell more chocolate. But is it even a myth at that point (within the scope of the U.S.)? It's true; propaganda made it true. There is no deeper truth to uncover - that would be a authentistic/essentialistic way of looking at things. If women do that, then that's the truth; the reason shouldn't matter.
But does this matter? Whether women crave chocolate on their period or not is entirely a neutral concept. You could say that it is undesirable that people with more power can influence you. Well, that's just a fact by definition of the word "power", so let me rephrase that: it is undesirable that people with more power than you exist without it being deserved (like a doctor). But why fight the symptom then? Why fight the entirely neutral concept of women having long hair and men short hair, simply because it is a result of centuries of aristocracy and after that bourgeoisie influencing us like we're livestock? Is it not this inefficient method of fighting for freedom that divides us? And I'm not saying you shouldn't have short hair as a woman just for the sake of not creating dividedness. I'm saying you should realize that it is not inherently political, and acting as if it is creates dividedness (which both liberals and conservatives do). It is also easily co-opted. Just find one short-haired woman with tattoos and piercings who is conservative, and just subsidize her platform. Perfect propaganda. It is a useless fight that only liberals are concerned with, because they still believe in authenticity.
(you can of course replace "women" in the above discussion about chocolate with "people who experience periods")
As a biologist, i sometimes feel a bit irritated that a fundamental aspect of this debate is often ingored. It is the fact that gender only exist because of sex. Sex is a evolutionary product to facilitate genetic diversity, and as far as we know, the only purpose of having more than one "type" of individuals (sexes) is to procreate. Homo sapiens would have never developed any idea of gender if there would be no sexes (but its doubtful if homo sapiens could have been developed by means of non-sexual procreation, as any higher lifeform on earth reproduces sexually). There simply would be no need for it, except for a tumblr-like stereotyping of often co-occuring traits. That said, what i think, what gender is really about is, that it is basically stereotyping individuals by true and known/learned population-level biological differences, which are transmitted from generation to generation, to a point, where gender often becomes overblown, inflated, socially amplified, fixed, inflexible, and basically a nuisance. Stereotyping often happens as a short cut, a heuristic based on what has been learned before. Think of whom you would approach when you are looking for empathy or for protection or for simply someone who is carrying stuff for you. So, there is some advantage to stereotyping, of course. Learned Experience, i guess.
I think this is the fundamental base of gender: Social assignment, sometimes disruptive, so to speak, of biologically "true" sex differences onto individuals as they are growing up. "XY-carriers are on average more aggressive and risk-taking than XX-carriers" is then translated to "Its unwomanly to be aggressive" or "Men are the better firefighters" by tradition, overgeneralization and stubbornness. This is obviously bad for the individual (but it might have even some advantages on the population level, idk, think of the "eggs are valuable, sperm is not"-world. If you look at kindergarden kids, for which the shared sex is the foremost and first tribe to gather around (kids do really not care about racial differences, but they do absolutely care about their genitals), maybe there is. but this is for the sociologists :)
Thanks for this comment. I found this comment to be more helpful in explaining aspects of "gender" than this video tbh.
Now, I have no training in either biology or the humanities/social sciences. But as a layman, I've often noticed that educators of the hard sciences (or social sciences more grounded in empirical studies) try their best to _clarify_ and _simplify_ complex topics in a manner that can be understood by the Average Joe. The result might be an oversimplification and dumbing down of the actual concepts, but at least the average layman can often _understand_ some aspects of the fundamental concepts.
By contrast, I've often noticed educators in the social sciences, especially of philosophy and of the more abstract sociological/psychological disciplines, often use language and expressions that is more muddled and "confused" when they could perhaps do with words and explanations that are more common and clear.
t's almost as if they're so entranced with jargons and making things vague and ambiguous that they don't put as much effort as they could in clarifying their language. Now, I'm not saying they don't make any effort at all; all I'm saying is they could easily afford to put in more effort, but it _seems_ (to me) that they don't.
Maybe this is because of the abstract nature of some of the concepts. Or maybe it's my lack of training in the discipline. But then again, a lot of concepts in the hard sciences are even more abstract and counter-intuitive, yet I've found educators who've done a good job of explaining them to a layman like me. So maybe it's because I'm less interested in meandering philosophical explanations than I am with more concrete explanations of scientific concepts. Or maybe it's a combination of all.
But whatever the case may be, it is my general observation that philosophical and sociological educators often sound more "muddled" and "vague" when compared to thos in the hard sciences.
Some good points. I might add that some species are more social then others, and that social behavior (especially about sex) can have a radical impact on selection, to the point that the idea of "sexual selection" is used to explain much of the very weird behavior (not to mention actual physiological differences) that various organisms use their valuable energy on. The whole mess is tangled together, and I'm not sure how useful it is to imagine sex without gender in any social species. Are there any social species that are also hermaphrodites?
I'll also challenge the idea that sex evolved to *facilitate* genetic diversity. I am instead convinced that sex evolved as a *brake* on genetic diversity - to ensure that the next generation were *similar enough to the previous one* that the basic proposition of a "viable gene pool" could be established in the first place.
Sex facilitates *speciation* not diversity, it ensures that individuals can still collaborate to reproduce even (or rather, especially) if they have different ancestry, and *blocks* viable reproduction if the ancestry of the parents is too divergent. Sex thus permits only a *constrained* amount of diversity to be introduced at each generation. If the gene-passing mechanism permits too much variation (e.g. profligate mutations during parthenogenesis) then the viable population will be compromised. Diversity is driven not by sex, but by environmental constraints.
From an information-theory point of view, sex is primarily about "type checking".
this comment should be read instead of whatever word salad this video was spouting.
@@KhukuriGod I've seen this comment, and I just want to say, also as a layman in social studies, but some formation in hard sciences, that the reason for it is that social studies often involve the creation of a frame to study and interpret society and individuals. Because of it, they depend heavily in being able to express themselves precisely, so that the words they use, even common use words, are much more well defined (or they should, at least), than our layman language.
In opposition, we, from hard sciences, have the advantage to very often able to show what is being represented, when the language to do so would be too hard to understand, either as simulations or experiments. Despite of it, when we come to calculations, almost no layman would be able to understand even the basics of most hard sciences, not because they're dumb, but because it takes a lot of time to learn to communicate the concepts we work with.
Thank you for this great comment ❤
This was a pretty interesting response to the points Natalie has made about gender identity, but Im not too keen on the prescriptions at the end in regards to rejecting medical treatment to align oneself with their gender identity. I don’t think there’s any real evidence that trans people could simply logic their way out of gender dysphoria with the understanding that perhaps we care too much about gender. What we do know is that these treatments do in fact make trans people feel more comfortable in their own bodies. The idea that the risks might be too great isn’t really born out by the evidence with transition having such a remarkably low regret rate (something like 2%, with much of that likely attributable to living in a transphobic society). It sounds a little too much like the tired refrain that trans people often hear that they should learn to be happy being a feminine man or a masculine woman.
Genuine pretending is at the core of his ideas. His argument is exactly that the pursue of authenticity is paradoxical in itself and that we should embrace language more appropriated to the identity technology that we use today, profilicity. He proposes genuine pretending as a way of navigating our social reality, for all people, all identity issues, not just gender. His point is exactly that there is no way to live authentically as a man or a woman, doesnt matter your sex.
On the other hand, I think we should fully embrace medical technology that allow us to better generate our identity profiles, I do think that that conclusion came out as naive by him.
The evidence for everything you say is very weak tbh, the amount of studies is tiny and the conclusions that many trans advocates draw from them faaaaaar too strong.
@@chaosmonkey1595 that’s just factually incorrect. I’m guessing you pulled this information from Sabine’s terribly framed video where she misrepresents the facts. The benefits of transition are well documented and have been studied for almost a century.
@@popmushee to live "authentically" would be to live as you were born, to do as you want and act as you feel, without changing your body to look as something else
I love seeing good faith engagement with the body of Contrapoints' work!
“Body of []work” 😒
@@seannamei Hehe
Thank You
for expressing my very thought
"body of work" 😐😐😐😐
Charitable engagement
One confusion (which seems really inexcusable) is not using clear language to distinguish sex from gender. When someone says "there's no essential maleness", do they mean no essential male sex, or no essential male gender? (I try to use male/female for sex, man/woman for gender). He *seems* to use all these terms to mean gender, and not have any words for sex. So, when he says that babies are not born "essentially male or female", I assume he's referring to gender.
Another problem is the term "chromosomal sex" vs just "sex". Sex is defined by "what type of gametes do you produce" (or "what gamete-producing organs do you have", etc...). So, bodies have "sex". If you have a Y chromosome, you cannot have organs that produce female gametes. Your body cannot be female. Similarly, if you don't have a Y chromosome, you cannot have organs that produce male gametes. Your body cannot be male. (Note I did not say, e.g., "this makes you a male". My statements include intersex people as well.)
Finally, he talks about gender related characteristics without any reference to reproduction. This just silly. That would be like comparing hammers and screwdrivers without discussing their ability to drive nails or screws. Sex is the hardware of reproduction. Gender is the software of reproduction (with thanks to the Dark Horse Podcast for these definitions).
This whole discussion is interesting, but seems to be in denial of reality by ignoring biology and reproduction. He comes close with his analogy of aging -- you might feel young, you might identify as young, but biological reality is you're not 18 any more. But he doesn't follow that analogy to the logical conclusion: that the biological underpinning is as important as how you feel: You might feel 18, but in reality you're 55. Similarly, you might feel like a woman (gender), but in reality you're a male (sex).
Ultimately, it comes down to this: which distinction is more important to society: sex or gender?
I just heard a recommendation for increased screening for breast cancer for "women over 40". Pretty clearly, that's "woman [sex]", not "woman [gender]". And, for that matter "40 [actual age]" not "40 [feel like age]". Do we really wanna go full on "birthing persons" and pretend we don't have a word for that category of person?
Great point. He deliberately stepped into the medical and physiological spheres several times to muddy the distinctions you clarified. It felt like his philosophical take here had an agenda, not seeking truth. I tend to be skeptical about philosophers trying to sell me something (eg. There is no metaphysical gender!) When they don't actually present an argument but rather make a speech.
Yeah, I find that discussing gender and sex without discussing how important it is to distinguish both terms is just... well, pointless?
Because gender is performance tied to the cultural social expectations of given sex in a given society. Then unchanging part is sex.
Sure, we can start using the term "women" to describe people who like wearing dresses and speaking in falsetto, but eventually we are still going to need facilities for "birthing people" and to separate "women" from the "birthers" because one group is comitting violence againt the another.
I'm tired of playing musical chairs with terms.
Call it by whatever you want, sex matters, gender ultimately only matters by people completely lost on their own navel gazing.
Totally hit the nail on the head, with age, Hans. Wonderful work, sir. Fair, well thought-out, well described. Higher resolution perspective.
Hate your punctuation style lol
I think it's important to also outline the difference in how the very process of transitioning is portrayed, politically: conservatives often portray trans people as though their fantasy (in the case of a trans woman) is: "I wish I was a girl", as a betrayal of sincerity, trying to escape the inner/social role, etc. The more liberal view, aims at a different structure of desire: "I wish I could stop pretending to be a boy", as a call for authenticity, trying to be true to one's "true" self, and so on.
To me, the moment of transition proper was not in hormones or in surgery, but precisely in the passage from when I thought, "I wish I was a girl" to "I wish I could stop pretending to be a boy." To exemplify and paraphrase another trans youtuber, PhilosophyTube in her video on Transhumanism, if a person decides to take antidepressants, it is because they recognize that the insecurities and problems that would be there without it are not a core part of themselves, but precisely an obstacle to their true expression - and just as with antidepressants or medicine in general, would be hormonal treatment. This claim of identity is an unconscious assumption of what in us stands for our "true selves" and what are merely "obstacles", which is what transitioning reverses.
It's a minor shift in perspective, but it stands for the moment when you retroactively recognize, looking back, symptoms (obstacles) of an issue you now have a name for. For a while, I thought this passage from "wishing I was a girl" to "wishing I could stop pretending to be a boy" - in other words, the change in perspective of this unconscious "identity" assumption - was not just mine but an essential, universal trait of all trans people. The more time I spend on online communities, however, the more I think the truly radical position would be to think of both trans women who say they were always women and trans women who say they only became so, as both valid. It's a strange difference to reconcile, but I think it's possible.
This is such an intelligent and enlightening reply!
But they're still men . LGB DROP THE T
@@OohTarquinhow bout no
@@fangsabre how bout yes LGB DROP THE T
@@OohTarquin cute, the moron literally has NOTHING to add
"Gender" is comparable to sex-role-based fashion. Tethered to biological reality in a lot of ways but also highly arbitrary and constantly changing.
This is a fun comparison!
Well put! Thats how I think of it at least. Definitely tied to biological sex but a social construct that goes far beyond.
And tied to biology in so far as pants will always have two legs, underwear will always account for the presence of genitals and various sizes will be taken into account. As Gourd said.. super fun comparison.
The way I imagine it is kinda like how language works. Our brain is hard wired for language in general, it has a biological dimension to it.
However, no specific language is hard wired, they are purely different ways to express this more fundamental idea of language. Each one influenced by millennia of societal and cultural drifts.
So obviously gender in the more general and abstract sense are baked into our biology (via sexual dimorphism) but any expression of a specific gender is hard-wired, they are all based on our shared cultural understanding and are therefore subject to change, just like languages change over time.
@@PhilfreezeCH This is also a really cool way of thinking about it!!!
I enjoyed this video greatly; the terms "sincerety", "authenticity", and "profilicity" in the sense you use them are a great enrichment to my toolbox of concepts.
Also it seems like you're becoming more confident in front the camera which is nice to see. I appreciate your videos independently of production value but it's a beautiful extra
To me, "human adult female" is still the only definition that makes sense, is not circular (women are all people who identify as women), or behaviourally essentialist (women are people who like to wear makeup, paint their nails and watch sex and the city).
“behaviourally essentialist (women are people who like to wear makeup, paint their nails and watch sex and the city)” - God, from your comment it’s immediately clear what kind of information bubble you are in🤡 let me guess, you also think that trans people want to make all children trans and they are pedophiles, groomers
@@dobby2270 nah what he says is pretty consistent with how men who transition see women and portray them later on. I've rarely seen as much offensive all-pink legally blonde-type stereotyping as I see from MtF's bruv
the video mentions this common misunderstanding about what gender is. I'd suggest a rewatch
It's a fascinating debate and I admit I have a few ideas about it that may be a bit disorganized but well, here we go.
I believe that one fundamental aspect that has changed, and we continuously forget, about how we talk about social issues like trans matters, is that there's a big difference between how we talk about it on twitter, in which there's an audience, and how we used to "fix the world" when we talked about it in a bar with a few friends. We have really become a society of spectacle. And it's not a minor factor.
Now, I believe most people in social media are (hyper-)aware of this and the reason why many trans activists demand social recognition is not so much to be personally validated, I don't think a singular trans individual does feel particularly attacked because Matt Walsh or JK Rowling on a personal level don't want to recognize them (maybe just a little bit, as Contra exposes/jokes) but because they understand this problem as a cultural battle that, unless fought and won, may result in very real and negative consequences, not just on the cultural, but the institutional, legal, medical, etc... levels.
We think genocide is coming and it sucks. Matt Waslsh is an overtly evil man. Like Ateven Crowder or Tucker.
Given the beauvoir quote, clearly what's at stake is molesting little girls and passing them on to sartre.
It is very important to note that all this stuff as a phenomenon is absolutely linked to the internet new media technology in the wired society with relevance only in the Western hemisphere.
Brasil
@@KRYPTOS_K5 Good point.
I'm not trans, but I am queer, and the 10s of 10000s of likes Matt Walsh gets on some of his most horrific statements on Twitter make my blood run cold and make me fear for my trans friends, and myself. Commenters on Walsh, JKR or other conservative pundit posts, as well as Walsh himself, have called for men to possibly defend women:s bathrooms. I wonder if one day some woman will decide my large nose is masculine, that I'm trans, and she'll drag me out by the hair for her husband or boyfriend to beat me to hell (or to death) because they believe I'm trans and in their queerphobic ideology - trans equals pedophile/rapist/male interloper in women's spaces.
I could suffer based on an incorrect assumption of identity very easily. I don't think I'm being hyperbolic here, it's all a very fascinating debate until you're in a life or death situation. All women and some men will be in danger if this rhetoric keeps ramping up and has credibility via The Daily Wire and other major media figures.
When does something become part of one's identity? Since very young age I have been aware that I can be knocked down and physically hurt by men to a degree that is not so with girls and women. I would call this sex awareness, but I don't know if this physical vulnerability is part of my identity as a woman. Part of my sex awareness has been also the knowledge that I can get pregnant. I chose not to, but was it ever part of my identity? I don't understand why there is so much noise about identity. Yes, I identify as a woman and as a citizen of my country and as a speaker of my language. But these are not things I have created or constructed myself, they are a given and therefore require almost no validation from my part. It feels to me that identity is a construction and I haven't done much constructing.
A bit flippant, perhaps, but if other people perceive you as an idiot, that may not mean that you think you are an idiot. We try to reconciliate the external validation and our internal sense of self, and sometimes at least I feel like I want to scream to the world "but I'm not *that*". If you have no such moments, I think you are very lucky
@@AppoloniaK I don't care much about what people think about me. I think that this or that person is an idiot all the time and I believe that they do the same. So, we are pretty even I would say.
I would like to offer my own term, "gender consciousness" in response to your "sex awareness." I developed some sex awareness as a man. It's kind of hard to explain beyond the thought "this is what it means to be a man" in response to certain situations, but it is similar to your own in that some men also can be harmed by other men, and in order to be a man you need to have at least some idea of being able to defend both you and yours, women will be afraid of you so you should treat them with chivalry, etc. But at some point I realized that I would be infinitely happier if I was instead a woman. Now, having transitioned and continuing to, a lot more men can hurt me than before. Is that what makes me a woman? No, it is the knowledge of that truth of my happiness which drives me to transition that defines my womanhood. It is only a problem because we are not all fully free to transition and live our lives as we wish to, and there are constant threats to both that freedom and our lives.
I would also point out that your sex awareness reflects a physical reality, but it also entails a social reality. The fact that you can get pregnant is an important consideration, but so is whether or not you have material access to contraception and abortion. Societal changes can be made to bring about a sort of sex/gender parity, at least in some senses (hopefully in more).
Then again, so does what I have described as my own sex awareness. It is based on an assumed physio-biological reality, but then I use that to determine what that "means", and hence arrive at a conception of gender (essentialism). A man *should* be strong. Women are a means to produce offspring. And so on. But I really don't like that line of thinking, because it pretty much directly leads to fascism in some form. (see above mention of "constant threats")
To identify oneself as a gender ultimately has less to do with the material reality of the body and much more to do with the ideological reality of society. Or at least the weight of societal ideas of gender is much more pressing. What kind of society needs such strict definitions of a woman/man (as proposed by reactionaries and TERFs) and is that one we want to live in?
@@tangolettuce3538 No. It is much more a physical reality than you think. Not just periods, but all things concerning bodily functions and health. To you "womanhood" is happiness, to biological women womanhood just IS.
It's capitalism basically. Identity replaces relations and experiences when those are cut off from our control.
I am here for this one! Great content as always. You have successfully nabbed my attention.
If the feeling and identity of gender is transient, changing and/or socially induced, on what exactly do you base the need for serious medical intervention?
As an XY-chromosomal person who indentifies as a man, I cannot express how much I agree with the last statement about genuine pretending.
I have increasingly felt more gender fluidity in me as I aged, but never dared to act on it for being afraid that that was not who I actually was (authentically and essentially, which I then still believed in). I would actually admit that your videos helped me to eventually decide to go crossdress to a party (in that community and for that party that was acceptable and even normal). Not as a joke, I really wanted to try to be seen as somewhat of a woman (even though I didn't shave my beard).
The strangest thing happened. In my daily life it became much easier for me to act genuinely masculine. Before, there would always be a part of me that felt betrayed if I acted too masculine. I didn't like masculine behavior, and didn't want to be identified with it. But now, after stepping into the role of woman, it was easier too to step into the role of man. It felt like it wasn't part of my identity; just something I did.
This all ties together with my personal philosophy. I often find that people are too much invested in finding the truth or whether they deserve something, while all that matters is the question: "do you want it?" Similar with gender. Don't ask "am I truly a (wo)man?", ask "do I want to be?" Do you want to be seen as a (wo)man? And can you reach that goal? Then go for it. This also goes for my leftist goals. Don't get trapped in hour-long discussions with your liberal uncle about whether the workers deserve more rights or are just spoiled. Ask "do I want more rights?", and "is it within my power to achieve that?"
It is an unspoken rule among many people across cultures or genders or any social denominations that it's taboo to say you want something. That should be abolished. That's my philosophy. I guess that's simply a hedonistic or even Machiavellian philosophy; but I didn't study philosophy, I'm just interested.
great comment.
@@alanovski. Thanks!
This is a very important comment :) keep sharing your story
As a trans woman (I prefer the term transfeminine person) I endorse this video until its last few minutes. The bit about not submitting one's body to "invasive medical regimes", as others have pointed out, seems overly simplistic, given that such regimes have been shown to increase trans people's mental and emotional well-being. I haven't had surgeries, but I have gritted my teeth through over 100 hours of hair removal and I can say without doubt that I am consequently more at home in my body. But worse still is the final directive: "Reject gender metaphysics and theology." Personally, I agree with Natalie Wynn on this topic, but as she herself says, she is a somewhat unorthodox trans person. A large percentage of trans people DO seem to embrace gender metaphysics, and I am not confident that, based on a few Contrapoints videos, we can disregard them entirely. I think we'd do well to remember that humanity's understanding of these topics is in flux, and developing more rapidly than at possibly any other time in history. I don't think it's the time for blunt prescriptions like this one, especially if they are put forth by cisgender people. Aside from that, I enjoyed the video. Thank you. I will count you as an ally.
EDIT: I don't know if you include hormone therapy among invasive medical regimes, but if so I think it's also worth pointing out that, contrary to widespread belief, cross-sex hormones do not just affect physical attributes and appearance, and therefore are not just concerned with gender profilicity. Feminising hormones, I can say from experience, affect emotional state, personality, sexuality, the nature of sexual ideation. They are not merely conerned with appearances and many if not most trans people understand that fact.
tell that to the axe wounds, stink ditches and rotdogs LOL. woman and feminine arent the same. you dont need to be trans to be feminine and you will never be a woman
@@Bette_B123 what?
I think the hormones are the most invasive medical intervention, and a lot of people dont realize that
@@estefaniaboujon6830couldnt agree more. Theyre framed as reversible and therefore harmless when really some stuff doesnt quite go away and the effect they have on health is horrible.
I’ve consulted Dr Google for a definition of “invasive” in a medical context: “An invasive procedure is one in which the body is 'invaded', or entered by a needle, tube, device, or scope.” Other definitions are similar. So no, from a medical standpoint I guess HRT is not invasive. Then again there is no definition at all for an “invasive medical regime”.
As to HRT being reversible, I am not aware that any medical practitioner has ever said that. Maybe some misinformed parents or trans people have said it, but no, HRT is not “framed” as reversible. Some effects are reversible, others not. You can’t un-grow breasts or un-break your voice. Puberty blockers, on the other hand, are generally framed as reversible.
Aren’t facts useful?
The bit at 8:20 on aging hits close to home. I'm convinced I stopped growing up in my mid teenage years, I've just been faking it and getting wrinklier ever since.
I've had this conversation with a slightly younger friend.
I have pretty much all the things that make me an "adult"; a white collar job, house, wife, kids etc and I still don't feel like an adult.
I genuinely believe Dr Moeller's profile based identity theory.
@@samwild6630 You confuse personality and temperament with being an adult, not understanding that the concept of being an adult is a biological. You are supposed to have a fully developed brain and gained enough guided experience to be able to make decisions on your own.
@@k4yser Calm down mate.
I'm not being dishonest or am clueless. I'm also not confusing personality or temperament.
I'm talking about examining what it means to be an adult and how that operates as an identity, then how that relates to lived experience and expectations as an "adult".
This is not an essentialist statement.
That is a side effect of modern life. I however am certain that there actually can be significant and deep enjoyable development beyond vanity or how professor calls it “profilicty”. It his concept describes our reality accurately life indeed is too sad and depressing.
@@opinion4755 "profilicty" seems to me to be the saddest and most sinister aspect of social media. People trying to be a brand instead of being themselves, people traveling the world so that they can take a picture to post on instagram. The "influencer" who is always hyping themselves up and trying to figure out how to sell themselves and not actually thinking about what they believe or think but about how others will think of them if they are seen to think something. Addicts for the next hit of "likes" rather than actually trying to form real relationships with others or be honest to even themselves.
This was a really good video. As a trans person, personally i see an "ideal" version of gender, to be no idea of gender at all. Where people can be who they want to be, and present how they want to present.
But at the same time living in this society where gender is seen as ridged or specific, almost real even. As a person who doesn't align with my socially predefined gender. it can be useful to use traits attributed to the other gender, as a way to separate my current presentation from my last.
basically i use "gender" to my advantage, well hoping to stab it in the back.
so what are they presenting?
@@paveantelic7876 Lilly means that they present as themselves. They wear what they feel comfortable wearing, do what they feel comfortable doing, and shape their body through medicine and lifestyle to be whatever they feel comfortable having - it's just that all this would have no association with any sex or gender.
At least that's how I interpret what they're saying.
@@NIN0ID curiously they always represent themselves as either feminine or masculine lol
@@paveantelic7876 what about non binary people?
@@joshme3659 same thing
Great and "overdue" video. The overlap between your profilicity theory and performative gender theory is pretty clear.
I kind of like how you conveyed a good chunk of Contrapoint's work on gender in your own style. It's like a secondary source for people who don't feel her own style of making videos 🤣
The assertion that there is no true gender essence aligns with Buddhist thought, which teaches that there is no unchanging self/ego separate from the flow of consciousness. Thanks for this fascinating deeper dive into this important topic.
My philosophical background is in Daoism--which has similar views on "no-self."
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 i can see that influence in your work. the tao and many theravada texts formed my philosophical view as well. what do you make of the taoist belief to “cleave to the feminine” in relation to this?
Not sure that this is accurate. Buddhism teaches there is no true essence period. "There is no true gender essence" is typically claimed by people who do believe there are essences, just not gender.
This is line of thought is a bit lacking though because this ignores the fact we do in fact have bodies that are male or female. Your physiology and your psychology are not separate from eachother they are one whole system. The self may be an illusion but it's an illusion in the same way that a river is an illusion created by the constant flow of water. The superficial social behaviours of men and women may change over time but the core elements of masculinity and femininity remain constant
@@GayTier1Operator Briefly put, I think the distinction feminine/masculine in early Chinese thought (most famous in the form of the Yin/Yang distinction) is not really about today's questions of identity or human gender. It's a more general classification of "natural forces" as well as a basic vocabulary of strategic thinking--as in the line you quote.
Maybe I've missed it in the beginning, but do you ever define what you mean by "gender"? This made the whole video barely comprehensible, for the difficulty in parsing out what you mean by it each time you use it (and that's multiple times per sentence). Sometimes it's like you are talking about sex, other times social roles and stereotypes, or personality, fashion and other forms of self-expression, etc - all interchangeably referred to as "gender" here.
Regarding the comparison to age, sure we can "feel younger" than our age because we've been younger, and remember what that felt like. However, one can't have any idea what it might "feel like" to be older, or the opposite sex, or a different person, or struck with a disease one has never had - not anything that one has never been, much less what's impossible to become. One can certainly imagine what it would be like, but that's just fantasy. (And insistently "identifying as" something you blatantly aren't is colloquially known as "lying", and someone will always take exception to that.)
Gender is at the same time an insubstatial vapour without essential qualities and the basis of trans presentation, to the point state-funded surgery is necessary to allow better conformity to it. How does that work?
Because things which may not be physical realities can still be important. You really couldn't figure this one out on your own?
Social constructs may not be as real as physical realities, but once we construct them, they can be more important.
Being "black" is not a real thing. There is no genetic or biological basis. It is purely an invented socially constructed identity.
But if you were black in Alabama in the 1850s, this fictitious social invention would play a major role in your happiness & well being.
Similarly, the the gender identities we construct may end up playing a larger role in your well-being and happiness then the physical realities of sex.
In that sense intervention up to and including surgery may be the least destructive options.
If you're presented with a choice between:
a) having plastic surgery
b) fundamentally changing an essential element of your personality and self identity
c) overthrowing the gendered order through violent uprising and creating a new set of social norms
Surgery might be the least disruptive intervention.
It's an unsubstantial vapor without definite form that has material effects on the world, much like race. Also surgery is not necessary and for the vast majority of people not state funded. If social or medical transition lets people live better lives that they feel dignity and integrity in, why shouldn't it be allowed and part of the current Healthcare system? That is the endgoal of many treatments.
think about how national or religious identities work. should give you a clue.
That's my main question as well. If the goal of this video is to convince viewers to "Reject gender metaphysics and theology", then it follows that a world in which everyone thinks that way is the ultimate goal. But a world in which nobody has any defined concepts about gender makes gender meaningless. A biological male who would feel feminine in modern society, possibly leading that person to transition, would have no concept of femininity in a world where femininity has no defined characteristics.
I mean, ultimately, yes, but we have to live in the world as it exists now, not some hypothetical future utopia.
The only way I can make sense of the word "gender" (when it is not a synonym for "sex") is that it is empirical observations and culural beliefs about how behaviours and subjective experiences comparatively trend in the sexes.
Either way, the words boy/girl/man/woman refer to the sexes, whether they are or are not having experiences or engaging in behaviours that are more typical of their sex. It's as correct to say Natalie was born a boy as it is to say Natalie was born a baby.
Right. “Gender”, to the extent it has any robust meaning, is derivative of sex, and so cannot supplant sex. Attempts to do so are just pulling the rug out from under oneself. Only sex is real. And it cannot change. Nobody has a “gender”.
The words you are referring to do not necessarily refer to sex. When someone tells you to, for example, "please, give that woman there her tea", you are not going to run genetical tests, assess her gametes and genitals. You are going to rely on the social construct of gender to guide you.
Words have different meanings and usages in different contexts.
Moreover, as such as gender and sex are intertwined, there are and have been societies with more than two genders and with radically different conceptions of gender.
lmaooo the images when the professor talks about ages
I don’t believe that all aspects of what we call masculinity and femininity are merely socially constructed, and I don’t think this is gender metaphysics, which implies that it is not in this reality.
I think we actually do have innate patterns of behavior. We have much deeper psychology than who we believe ourselves to be.
So what I am saying is that even accounting for socialized gender, or if someone identifies with a different gender other than how they were assign at birth, or how one chooses to perform gender.
I think there are spontaneous patterns and unconscious aspects of behavior that are innate to their biological sex.
This is partly informed by Jung’s analytic psychology but a great deal from experience. I think there is an unconscious and that we can repress things in the unconscious.
I met a Syrian refugee an artist and he suffered from war trauma.
He asked me a question. He said, you studied psychology, I want to know why is it when an adult man cries women run away. But when a woman cries women runs to comfort them?
This struck me because, I, having suffered from Trauma experienced something similar.
I said I don’t know. But I noticed this too. I think men ought to be there for each other when we go through grief.
So what would be the innate pattern her? I think women may have a spontaneous harmonization with one another. And the may recoil from the tone of may grief. Maybe they fear the grief may turn violent.
But the recoil from male grief seems like a real pattern.
Obviously people believing in rigid gender stereotypes is silly and destructive and not very fun, it’s shallow.
But not considering that there might be dimensions which are spontaneous and unconscious I think we might be missing dimensions of ourselves.
and this is not to say that these deeper reflexes are “authentic”. I don’t believe in an authentic self because the self exists in consciousness. I am talking about spontaneous aspect or unconscious dimensions that we may or may not identify as an aspect of ourselves.
"Affirming care " is modern-day drilling a hole in the skull to let the evil spirits escape
I have to admit, I am a bit confused, so if I got something wrong, please correct me: so, we distinguish between biological sex and gender which is a societal/sociological/psychological component. Most people would say there are only 2 sexes. But are there only 2 genders? If there are, I assume they are what has in a given time in a given culture been perceived as masculine or feminine, correct? And here is where I don't get it: we then start talking about gender identity, which i must assume is not exactly the same as gender, and I have to wonder, isn't an assertion of being transgender just an affirmation of traditional gender roles and simply finding out I'm the "wrong" role, rather than rejecting or altering those roles? in other words, isn't it the case that those who transition because they feel they are the wrong gender, a case of buying into old- and often overhauled - tropes?
as for the gender sex distinction, even if we say gender is not the same as sex, don't we have to acknowledge that biological sex influences gender? For example, we know that in every culture throughout history, women have assumed the roles of those who give birth and take care of children, not because someone decided so (unless we say that someone is a god), but because biology prevents men from assuming this role. now, im sure we can debate about to what extend culture shapes those roles, but I don't think we can deny that sex does shape gender roles based on what we know from history.
5:01 I am afraid that this is factually wrong. Many supporters of gender theory will precisely start a discussion about how biological sex is not clear, intersex, blah. So Contrapoints is retreating here to the proverbial motte, only to go to bailey again, when she talks about sex "assigned" at birth. Why use this phrase if Contra agrees that biological sex is binary? Or does she not? This is the core of the problem with the discussion.
29:16 Small point here, but what she calls 'extremely online' is not normal. It's less a function of how long the person uses the Internet for than a function of what kinds of corners they frequent online. E.g.: Using UA-cam for 3 hours a day is *NOT* extremely online, but using 4chan for even half an hour a day is.
I have to disagree as by your own implied definition, UA-cam can be 'extremely online' depending on what content you consume (there is a lot of deeply reactionary content on YT that is informed thoroughly by some of the worst parts of 4chan).
@@alexlindstrom9971 You're removing the phrase 'extremely online' out of its full context, which is why both the professor and you misinterpret it. It's closer to whether a person's identity is more fully expressed on the internet than in real life.
A person can watch 5 hours of UA-cam a day, but if they're just watching the Office funny moments while they drive a truck, they're not 'extremely-online'.
But an active user on an internet forum board that discusses their personal problems, their views and internet culture that they are themselves part of, who is losing touch with reality because other people on the board have a more significant influence on them than a person they interact with in real life, is extremely online.
And this same pattern applies to, in this case, highly fragile and insecure trans people who live on Twitter more than they do in reality. They are the people who think of online interactions as more significant than their real life personal struggles, perhaps because they are unable to deal with them in real life.
A highly successful UA-camr is extremely online.
If you have a mobile phone connected to internet, then you are 24 hours online.
@@rockugotcha No. It's like saying that just because I have faucet in my home that I can always access therefore I am infact drinking water 24/7. That's simply not how it works...
I firmly believe that even if we had no concept of gender, everyone was just people, but male and female bodies still existed, trans people would still exist. They would say their sense of self was incongruent with the biological sex characteristics of their bodies.
I do not fit the social roles and expectations of womanhood at all but I still identify as a woman because my sense of self is mostly congruent with having a female body.
I think this sense of being a certain sex is inborn and stronger in some than in others. There is the case of John Reimer who had a botched circumcision and was “given” a vaginoplasty and raised as female, given female hormones to go through female puberty. Despite this, he maintained the sense that he was male. When he found out the circumstances surrounding his birth it confirmed this for him and he re-transitioned into a man.
This to me is very clear evidence that this sense of self is inborn and at least in some people immutable.
Fascinating video! I'm a big fan of Contrapoints and I found this analysis extremely illuminating. On the one hand, I do fundamentally agree with Prof. Moeller and Contrapoints that we should reject gender metaphysics. On the other hand, if a person from an early age, develops their gender identity incongruently with their biological sex, and it's a reliable fraction of the population in whom this occurs regardless of social conditions, then this calls for a scientific - neurological - explanation. Indeed, exactly analogously with sexual orientation, brain differences correlating to differences in gender identity have been reliably identified (see for example research by Dick Swaab).
So, while we should reject all notions of "gendered souls" or indeed whole "gendered brains", the neurobiological evidence gives us important clues as to just *how* contingent and socially malleable gender identity might be in general. Personally, I identify as a man, as gay and as a rock climber. I've been rock climbing very frequently for 20 years, so my brain must have changed physically to encode the learning I've done over this time: there'll be - in principle - a neuroanatomical signature that marks me out as a climber. This is obviously totally socially contingent, and yet also woven into my biology. There are also brain features that correlate to my sexual orientation (somewhere in the hypothalamus for starters), but this aspect of my identity isn't socially contingent: it's not changeable, it developed early (the signs were there before I ever experienced sexual desire), it goes against all my social conditioning and is certainly not under my conscious control. Similarly, my gender identity as a man is socially contingent in how it manifests, but there's northing I could do, or no social conditions I could be subjected to that could make me identify as a woman. I could change my identity as a climber by stopping climbing and taking up a different hobby, but there's nothing I can do to change my sexual orientation or gender identity. It's too deep in the brain, those systems developed too early on. This is why conversion therapy (both gay and trans) doesn't work.
I think that there is a risk that in rejecting gender metaphysics and gender identity under authenticity, we may throw away too much. This is where I'm uncomfortable with Prof. Moeller's apparent scepticism of gender-affirming treatment (e.g. surgery) as "over-identifying" with one's gender. If incongruent gender identity occurs due to early brain development, it's very deeply laid down and can't be changed; and in our highly gendered society life's going to be much easier to live if a trans person "passes". So scepticism towards surgery simply isn't warranted in those cases (but this is clearly not the case for everyone who identifies as trans). It should go without saying that anyone having any irreversible medical intervention should have all the required support to make absolutely certain it is the right thing for them; but I think I would rather trust trans people's perspectives on their healthcare than even the most insightful academic philosophers.
Well said.
"and in that clip too she adds that she too cares about social validation.... by JK rowling."
FUCKING CLOCKED
this really is the eternal trans struggle: even if you absolutely despise someone as a person, you will still care about if they see you as your gender, probably even moreso than with the people who are your allies. its just so hard to divorce yourself from the feeling of "oh i'll show them, if they just see me as [gender here] i've done it." gender really isn't just what's on the inside, it's a continuous societal conversation and trans people won't go away as long as gender is as deeply rooted in our society as it is. we're here to stay.
Ohhhh yes babeyyyy. And I'll call a man a man when I see/hear one, and believe me I'm good at it
I really enjoyed this video, Prof. Moeller. Would you consider speaking on the topic of non-bindary identity in the context of profilicity as a follow-up? Thank you!
Non binary is a sham. It operates within the same sex stereotypes it claims to be fighting.
The problem in my opinion with many feminist of gender theorists is, that they often seem to aspire to come up with universally true ideas. But people aren't universally all the same. If you want to overcome gender roles to become an authentic individual, good on you. But if you are a trans (or cis) person and are psychologically fulfilled by embracing a very traditional version of gender roles, then also, good on you. There just is a lot, that has to be answered by each individual themselves.
"If you want to overcome gender roles to become an authentic individual, good on you. But if you are a trans (or cis) person and are psychologically fulfilled by embracing a very traditional version of gender roles, then also, good on you" - THIS. As long as each *genuinely* respects other views and doesn't feel threatened by them - not just says 'i respect you' and means 'im secretly judging you/threatened by you passive aggressively' - then it all works! there are beautiful things about the traditional categories of gender as well as about ppl using neopronouns or being agender or gnc in general
I don't even want to be BOTHERED by people insisting, that their specific model for their life is THE model to base your life on. I hate people who make their life choices to feel superior, because I don't even care. And that swings all the ways there are. I have my views, on how I want to live, but that is nobody's business. I might tell somebody about it, but then I#m really only telling about myself. There would be nothing that tells anybody how they should live their lives. My life also isn't one, that should dictate how other people should live. If you're making an ideology out of what people's private lives should look like, something has gone wrong@@2b-coeur
I have class dysphoria
Lol. Me too
Its pretty common
king me too lmao
Damn i didnt realise i have one until i heard you say it exists. How can it be threated? Im really really suffering from it, send help please.
@@yglnvbrs 😒
Why do we feel so strongly about our identities if there is no true self? It might sound idiotic, but I have always wanted long hair. I have very weak hair and it thin and looks like a cobweb... but in my mind I had long beautiful hair. I used to pull pants on my head to pretend its my hair. And I thought growing up I can find a hairdo and get over myself, but at 30 started to wear wigs. I discovered hair extension a year ago and never go back!! its me. How am I to udnerstand this?
Probably not as much through philosophy as through psychology or eventually neurology. Maybe within our lifetime we will have machines that can peel the layers of your mind and extract the interactions that make your personality, interests and identity.
I also want to understand more why he thinks authenticity is ... not achieavable?
@@olympiaelda1121 Partly because a lot of "authenticity" is actually just orienting one's "self" in alignment with some "higher true self" like you were getting at with the hair; you see yourself as having this glorious hair, and so you pushed your reality to match the pre-conceived image of yourself. (I'm not well studied on this, but this came to mind)
You describe a "cosmetic" want; fortunately achieved without pharmaceuticals/invasive surgery which may have
great risk of adverse metabolic effects. Are you otherwise in good health? Did you look into nutrition?
having a strong sense of your role feels good, maybe we just have exp early in childhood that pushes toward one or another and the culture pushes us toward an assigned one at birth?
I think this is a fair handling of ContraPoints, well done. I've got a lot of affection for ContraPoints, I have been following Natalie's channel since the beginning (I.e. the "before times") and the performativity has definitely changed a lot since then. In the beginning the videos were mostly just a discussion of ideas without really situating herself within the discussion. (Hence the channel title)
As an aside - personally I can't quite give up on the idea of an ontological true self that one could (and should) try to be authentic to - I just think it's the sort of true self that escapes naming and definition, that is quite a bit more vast than the small world we have conscious awareness of, and which (rather flippantly) produces our story telling (rather than being produced by it.)
Authenticity to me is best embodied when you stop trying to name everything.
Do you believe in the soul?
Good point. I think that living authentically just means not caring so much about what others think of you. This seems to be an outdated view. I understand that I am full of contradictions and so is the society I live in. I try to play nice and respectfully disagree with the majority opinion even if that means risking people's good opinion of me. This does not feel very good and drives me to understand my own contradictions and make changes were necessary and leave things that I believe are correct. Then I live those ideas and beliefs out. With Contrapoints I think the problem arises when there is a political and moral demand made society.
I don't want to provoke a nasty UA-cam argument thread... and I think what both you and Garrett above describe definitely seeks a hopeful and positive result to pursuing authentic living. But I have to say I don't get the reasoning or "substance" behind these claims whatsoever. Firstly, "not caring what others think of you" is meaningless without being attached to some context. Standing up to (and "not caring about") the overwhelming peer pressure of a racist rally surrounding you and intervening in whatever way possible to act against it due to your own disagreement... is clearly a good sense of "self" that should be admired. But equally, standing up against to those who fight for equality and anti-racism and saying that I "don't care about your woke opinions, I have my own 'authentic' beliefs about the vital importance of race, culture and segregation" ...may just as equally be an expression of some "authentic self" and beliefs... even if not a positive one is many other (right-thinking!) people's eyes.
But far more importantly, neither has anything (so far as I can see) to do with "authenticity" in any straight-forward sense. You don't become a racist or become an anti-racist by "looking deep within" for answers... You do it by listening, reading and thinking about others opinions and experiences. In other words by "looking outwards" and seeking better answers. The feeling that seems to be described here as "authenticity" has little to do with finding an inner true self... and/or behaving authentically... and much more to do with finding some way of attaching one's accumulated life beliefs/experiences to larger revelatory explanatory concepts (that one can only ever find outside oneself). The sublime moment of the "authentic," in this sense, more likely comes from a moment of catharsis at being able to seize upon often conflicting, traumatic, puzzling or otherwise pressing events in the outside world... and reducing them to a comprehensible situation via accumulated social concepts and words ... and then bringing those words together into a coherent counter-statement. In other words... there is no "authentic" inner self to look for that is not a series of attachment words/names... being used as a counter-force to other words/names that are demanding something from you that you either accept or reject and seek to do something about. In other words it is the pursuit of an authentic outward belief/discourse to bind your life to. And not the pursuit of an authentic inner being.
I hope my answer has not been disrespectful. It has certainly been too long by far... so apologies for that!
@@Hic_Rhodus Hi. You have not been disrespectful at all. I also respectfully disagree. To sum it up poorly I believe in virtue ethics and am a ethical anti realist. That is to say that I don't believe ethics can be quantified. I think that if a person is trying to the best person they can be than they should adopt virtues such as honesty, integrity, kindness, humility ect. ect.. Sometimes living this way puts you on the outside of a social group and sometimes it puts you inside. Social groups themselves can neither be moral or immoral. Only people, and that is a stretch. I avoid moralizing because in general I believe moralizing is a human invented mind toxin. My point is that people should try their best to live with virtue and try to ignore others if they demand that you betray those virtues. That, s what I think it means to live authentically.
@@garrettbryan2717 Yeah, but the try to best to live with virtue tend to lead to reading philosophy and metamorality. Even if one knows a particular moral system (like utilitarianism), knowing one option is not enough. Though knowing them and internalizing them is different.
But that is secondary to what I wanted to say. All I wanted to write is to better have some people with similar moral system to check up on you, since we tend to out rationalize all norm.
I love when I see Prof. Moeller doing the "in quotes" gesture. I like to image he is performing a butterfly as in Chuang Tzu dream.
Gender isn't just the social role or the expression of it it's also the feeling of your perception of yourself in relation to those things.
Gender dysphoria is just the distress of failing to perceive yourself in accordance to it.
So it **can** require to be perceived as your gender by others for you to be able to feel comfortable but it doesn't **have** to.
I think you are confusing the contingent ways people find to make the feeling of gender congruent with one's perception of themselves with what people think their gender is.
I think that's a common pitfall cis people fall into because they never had to feel what incongruence feels like so for them it's a very abstract theoretical problem.
In the same way that it's a lot easier for white people to just go "I see no color I only see humans" but that's some bullshit because in both cases there are political and social pressures that forces you to feel these things and the way you respond to that is necessarily part of your identity. Of how you construct, perceive and express yourself. And you can't just will that out of existence.
Like even as someone who feels agender I experience dysphoria, mostly social dysphoria, because even that feeling of disconnect from gender norms still create situations where there is a clash between how I perceive my identity and how I'm perceived and how I express myself.
But I also think that rejecting gender as a purely oppressive construct that restrict your true self misses the mark, because it's also a way to relate to others, to construct shared signifiers, and to communicate things about yourself to others aswell as formalizing them for yourself (so it can be a tool of self discovery) gender is a cage when it's wielded as a normative force but it's a tool not all that different from language itself when it's allowed to exist more freely
I’ll try to illustrate the problem as I see it symbolically.
As to what constitutes being a man or a woman and how such can be ascertained we seem to have…as far as I can tell…the following cluster of properties put forward in these discussions.
1. Identity, or inner sense, In these specific cases I think this can be distilled down to (desire).
2. Physical presentation (fashion).
3. Action or behavior (performance).
4. Biological makeup (sex).
So let’s try the following…
Desire identity =x
Presentation=y
Action=z
Biology=n
Currently, the discourse surrounding the trans discussion seems to assert that what makes someone a man/woman is some combination of x y and z but not n. As man/woman are described as distinctly different from male/female. Man/woman being categories of gender (made up of components xyz) whereas male/female are categories of sex that is described in terms of biology (n). The move here is to posit a categorical difference between the concepts of gender and sex so that it then becomes valid to have a case where a male can be referred to as a “woman” without committing category error. This is taken as a sort of axiom but never to my knowledge justified or explained.
More specifically, of x y and z, only x is sufficient on its own to establish one’s gender. So fundamentally what it is to establish that one is a man/woman is simply to establish the existence of x. Of all possible properties x,y,z and n….x is the only essential property to the category of man/woman while y,z and n are accidental properties…or so the gender identitarian assertion goes.
Interestingly x can only be articukated in terms of yzn. As in identity in question or “identify as” can only be articulated in terms of the particulars of an identified object or the particular things that make up the identity in question. The particulars of an object one desires to embody. These take the form of yzn. Without particulars of an object of identification there is no ability to articulate an object thus there is nothing to identify “as”.
X(yzn)
Y is articulated in terms of zn. To present is to present as some material thing, it is itself an action(verb) in relation to an object(noun). One’s presentation is an ongoing action that is only articulable in terms of behavior and adornment of the physical body. How one looks(n) and behaves(z).
Y(zn)
Z is only described in terms of n. Action, potential action, bahavior, movement, these are all functions of the material body. What is the action of the body? The behavior of the body? The movement of the body? Function of the body? Etc.
Z(n)
N is described with reference to material reality. The biological body is made of matter, described in terms of function and form of that matter, the behavior of that matter and subsystems of that matter.
N(matter)
So
X(yzn)
Y(zn)
Z(n)
N(matter)
The only necessary and common component of any of these descriptions is n. Biology. Material reality. Because this category (man/woman) is not an abstract virtual one but a category that rests upon physical matter and potential. Rather than x, as asserted by gender identitarians.
This is my position, what constitutes a man or a woman can be described fundamentally as a function of n as every other component is ultimately only articulatable in terms of n. To posit any one of the other variables as THE necessary variable is to still tacitly make reference to n.
So not only is (n)the essential property to the category of man/woman. The property without which the category itself cannot be articulated/does not obtain…but the assertion that gender and sex are separate categories dissolves as the particulars that one needs to describe gender (X y and z) themselves necessarily contain a description of (n). The category of gender requires a description of the category of sex that it claims to be separate from.
Additionally the very implication within “identifying as a man” or desire to be a man suggests that there is an externally observed thing (the external thing with which one identifies or sympathizes/identifies with) that is identified as token of a type that is not of the type of which the observer is a token. Else the statement need only be I am a token of the same type ergo I embody that type. I might argue One can feel no desire [to be] a thing which one already is, one can only acknowledge that they are the thing that they are. Desire, as a concept implies a discord between a subject and object. A desire-er and the thing desired. The duality implies that the subject IS NOT the object in and of itself but not a token of a type of which the object is a token.
So yes…There is an essence of gender. That essence is biological sex.
What I don't understand (and maybe someone could helo me?): If we reject the idea of a gender essence, then how can there be gender dysphoria? What makes trans people want to transition (or even identifying as trans), if not some sort of gender identity baked into them?
Or a different question wich boils down to the same topic I think: if we lived in a world with no gender roles what so ever, would there be trans people?
> If we reject the idea of a gender essence, then how can there be gender dysphoria? What makes trans people want to transition (or even identifying as trans), if not some sort of gender identity baked into them?
In the clips that Moeller is pulling from, ContraPoints is basically explaining a "non-essence" perspective. For him, "an inner gender essence" is irrelevant. The point is that ContraPoints enjoys being treated "as a woman." ContraPoints gets enjoyment, as ContraPoints says, "personally, psychologically, and sexually". The term for that kind of sexual enjoyment is "autogynephilia", if that part is surprising to you. In this philosophy that "rejects a gender metaphysics", where or how that desire comes from is irrelevant. If you *want* to be treated as X, you engage in profile curation to receive social validation for "correctly" performing the attributes of X.
> if we lived in a world with no gender roles what so ever, would there be trans people?
Without gender roles, there's just sex; no gender. As both ContraPoints and Moeller are saying here that changing *sex* is a physical/biological impossibility, correct, that means there would be nothing to "trans-identify" as. That's why gender ideologues are terrified of the kind of real feminism that Moeller mentions here from Simone de Beauvoir that rejects gender, as it threatens their identity. And for autogynephyles, sexual gratification is on the line, so they lash out hard to protect entrenched gender roles. That's why this comment will probably get deleted. I hope you see it before it gets banished for "wrong think"...
i don't think bringing up traditional third genders is done to "idealise them" as much as it is done to show that what we call "trans gender" now is a normal part of the human experience globally, and different cultures have recognised them (even if their theory of gender culturally is different to ours) showing that in fact our own binarism of gender in the west is particular and socially constructed. So while Contrapoints will have a different view on gender, she will also see this as an example of how other communities do not deny the existence of so called "trans" identities, i.e. those that do not conform to a gender binary.
I forgot why I loved this channel!!
Now I know why Contrapoints is an ex philosopher.
What does this mean
@@shrill_2165 Contra has "ex-philosopher" in her youTube bio. Seems apropos given this tedium to me, but YMMV. She quit academia for a reason.
@@exnihilo415 the tedium of what, thinking about things? Bro, I think she left moreso for the institutional and bureaucratic factors.
@@shrill_2165 The tedium of thinking about tedious largely unimportant things is my read. Feel free to read it anyway you like.
@@exnihilo415 Identity seems pretty important to me, and to everybody, from my perspective.
Yes xx are females and xy are male biologically- so yes, babies are born for the most part, essentially male or female by definition of the chromosomes. Just because we use male and female for social construction and biological life doesn’t make them interchangeable and every circumstance. So you’re saying just Cozumel is born with an xy chromosome they are not biologically male- yes, yes they are by your own definition. Of course, I understand. The problem comes when we expect male and females to perform certain roles. Or even the ability for a society to accept people who are not part of the gender social binary.
I'm a 25-year-old in a 65-year old's body, and a multi-billionaire in a multi-thousandaire's body, but there's no known way to make the transition.
@Eidelmania does Brad Pitt delete his yt comments?
I don't know what i think or feel about this video yet, but i do know i will be watching it a few more times. Thank you.
Small nitpick, sex is defined through gametes, not chromosomes. Crocodiles for example don't have their sex instantiated through chromosomes, but they still have males and females.
Also, I'm skeptical that "gender identity" exists at all. Rather it seems that people have traits, which in turn are gendered, which is not the same thing as "being" a gender. The genders are masculine and feminime, not male and female, those are the sexes.
On point! And those traits often (if not always) become gendered through association.
"Gender identity" exists in the same way that "body integrity identity" exists. The vast majority of us never really think about whether we fit in the "right" body. Our body is our body.
But, some people with mental distortions (like believing their hand is alien, their body is "wrong" due to not being as skinny as it should be) have a strong sense of the opposite.
Instead of admitting that these people have this issue and treating THEM all of us are lumped in as having a gender identity so this distortion is "natural" and not a problem
This second paragraph is exactly what contrapoints believes!
I think societally we tend to use more than just gametes, but if you like the definition of gametes better we can use it! Sex is just whatever humans define it as anyway as far as i can tell!
@@Tseltel This is interesting but doesnt make much sense to me. I feel like, the fact that some people feel ill at ease with their body must mean that others feel at ease to a greater degree than that person does. So everybody would be on a sliding scale of more or less body integrity identity. It's also strange bc gender has existed for a very long time afaik? unless you're defining gender differently it tends to refer to a sense of a persons social role in society related to their pronouns, how they physically present anyway. I feel like everyone has those?
@Gourd Clae
Sex is something we discovered, not something we invented. Dinosaurs had males and females, despite there being no humans around.
I don't know anything about the contrapoints person, but I'm skeptical she wouldn't say she's a woman on the inside. And I don't think that makes sense, we're not men or women on the inside, we're (among other things) masculine and feminine on the inside.
the age analogy is out of place, it's a false equivalence because the body DOES transition between the different ages but the body DOES NOT transition between X to Y chromosomes and vice versa.
This is really interesting. Without wishing to be reductive, it makes me think about the difficulty I had as a cis straight woman when I was trying to work out why marriage was so important to me - despite understanding in a feminist way the constructed and fraught nature of the history of marriage, I still wanted to do it because of a deep psychological and social desire that made my relationship feel incomplete without it. I desperately wanted to sign up to the legal and social position of being married to my spouse. I would have found it heartbreaking and difficult to have not been allowed to square this circle of my own identity. I think we all construct our identities in the confines of our society, but that doesn't mean we can control what we want our identity to be and the freedom to self define and to fulfil the roles that we crave should be an absolute right in a free society.
As a feminist that defines her feminism by opposing marriage I really appreciate your comment.
I always had the exact opposite desire to you, I do not want to be marry. But not because I am a strong feminist (as I thought) but because being married does not mean a lot in my country and social circle.
Thanks. You put it well when you write "squaring the circle." Inevitably today, we're caught in between sincerity and authenticity and profilicity. Somehow marriage is inauthentic--or turns out to be inauthentic after a while. But not being married is insincere. And now, with profilicity added to mix, it gets eve more complicated. You'll never square a circle, and the futility of the attempt becomes increasingly obvious the more you try. But it can be somewhat of a relief to accept that whatever we do, we're "genuinely pretending."
Speaking as a male heavily indoctrinated into feminism in adolescence, it always seemed incongruent to me that I was raised to believe that marriage was an institution created by men to subjugate women and therefore I should oppose it as a kind of institutionalised prostitution and then finding that every women I met was obsessed with it, whilst men weren't really that kean for which they were denounced as "commitmentphobes"! I began to suspect that somewhere along the line I had been lied to! 😂
Gender has been a synonym for sex for a long time and repurposing it to mean "gender identity" is incredibly confusing. Especially since this gender identity uses the same two words that we use for sex? Why? That only creates confusion when I say "I'm a man", do I mean I have the sex of a man or that I "identify as a man"?
Why not use the very functional terms of masculine and feminine? Because that's essentially what this new term means, you want to feel like, look like, act like what is typically considered feminine/masculine.
Wanting to be treated in a specific way is just not something we get to decide as humans. I wish I was treated like a tall handsome man.
Our pronouns are based on our sex not our gender, because our sex is a immutable part of ourselves and that matters, it's a constant throughout our lives. Your degree of femininity also matters, but it can change completely during your life, it's not unrelated to but not decided by your sex.
Hey, very good and clear reasoning there. I really liked it.
Two thoughts have arised in my mind, though.
First: If profilicity is wanting to be "seen as", and therefore engaging in an tecnological performance that produces correct gender social recognition, isn't profilicity a immanent version of sincerity? Aren't we nurturing the traditional gender roles by craving for what's socially expected of a man or a woman?
Second: In my experience, I really can confirm these philosophical positions being supported. But I don't think that they are that solid and defined. I think that we spontaneously "transition" from one position to another, and even mix them together.
I am also curious about the distinction between sincerity and profilicity.
Transgender can't exist without a very rigid profiling of the two gender roles. And trans ideology often wants to dictate its views of the two gender roles on everybody. Quite a few tra*women claim to be more women than biological women.
My guess it's about where the identity is coming from. Either society tells you your gender/identity or you tell others what it's is through a curated profile. I like the part "as if I am a women" the truth comes from what we choose to tell people and not from the belief itself.
Yes, we do mix these technologies al the time. Both sincerity and profilicity are oriented to how one is being seen by others. But in sincerity, your actually present peers (e.g. family members) count more whereas in profilicity it's the "general peer" (hence the importance of pronouns). Importantly, in sincerity role expectations are stable (usually over a lifetime). in profilicity, profile expectations are unpredictable and highly dynamic.
Very interesting thought! It does seem like we've indeed returned to the idea that there does exist a concept of femininity, but that concept is a social construct. For sincerity it was just about what's in your pants. Quite the difference.
But this is a common point of contention by TERFs who still abide by authenticity. They see transgenders claiming to act feminine and are appalled by the notion that there would exist something like "the feminine" beyond biological sex. Their goal is to achieve a world in which people are defined by their sex in a biological setting, and as their own person in any other setting (which would be fine if they didn't believe that the male anatomy makes us innately prone to become sexual predators). They perceive it as going back to sincerity, which it isn't.
Regarding the "gendered body" idea, I imagine it could be useful to mention that, as most would probably agree, XX people and XY people (chromosomal Females and Males) can not only change their gender associated bodily features medically and through fashion, makeup etc., but also that these features vary naturally already. Meaning, there can be women most would agree look somewhat "unfeminine" and even "manly" and vice versa.
So, to someone who would attempt to discredit this differentiation between chromosomal gender and the "gendered body", this could be an example to show that they themselves already dont think about and experience it as "essential" as they might believe and/or argue for.
Like, how could one argue there is only males and females in an essential and binary way, while at the same time they already commonly differentiate grades of femininity and masculinity regarding actual bodies of people.
Actually with medical intervention during puberty with blockers and then cross sex hormones you can prevent a number of unwanted characteristics and push more wanted characteristics. Think breasts or Adam's apples. Also voice. This is part of why preventing access to this care to minors can be so harmful. And when you talk about athletics, if a trans girl goes through an endocrinologist female puberty she doesn't develop those "male advantages" of puberty.
Because you always grade them on a scale between those two options
How can your differentiate in between day and night if there is dawn and dusk and we always talk about how late the day is aka different grades of day and nightness? Your point is not as deep or smart as you think it is. Nearly nothing in the physical world is truly binary, but we still differentiate it that way because it is extremely useful and the edges of the spectrum are still a very relevant thing very often. Also biological sex is actually very binary in humans. There is no single individual who produces both functional large and small gametes. Not even one.
@@chaosmonkey1595 I think youre missing the first point, namely the distinction made in the video between chromosomal sex and the "gendered body" (which is at least partly constructed, profilacted, a performance, but also, and that is the main point against non-gradual binarism views, already naturally variant in how congruent it is with the chromosomal sex)
@@chaosmonkey1595 "we still differentiate it that way because it is extremely useful" - in other words, the vulgar social construction is more at hand than the messy truth that is to be found down in the weeds, just as we might conceive New Year as part of our "Christmas" holidays, even though it is a secular date.
There may not be a true gendered self, but my body feels horrible to be in if it's running on testosterone and far less horrible to be in if it's running on estrogen. I didn't publicly change my gender expression even among family for months after starting HRT, and it hadn't changed my body enough to impact how I viewed myself, but it still radically improved my daily conditions to the point where I had stopped self harming for the first time since my early teens. I've detransitioned since (primarily due to social pressure, being visibly trans is miserable and isolating at it's best) and it's only reinforced my views on it. Some people really just operate better and are far happier if they take hrt, just like any other medical treatment. I think it's easy for conversations about trans people (which will always be nearly entirely held by cis people, just by the numbers) to over-fixate on social aspects of gender because everyone experiences social pressures around their gender, but only certain trans people have experienced what actually changing the hormone you run on feels like and how monumental of a difference it makes in your daily life.
Exactly. This is one of the biggest lapses in cis (and even some trans) discussions of transitioning. Hormones change a lot more than your body.
But I’m disturbed to hear you’ve detransitioned despite that you believe estrogen was working for you. I dispute that being openly trans is always such a bad and isolating experience. Granted I’ve only been out for six months, but so far I feel more outgoing, and make friends more easily, than ever before.
@@Bette_B123 You're right, I definitely shouldn't generalize like that, it was just a particularly isolating experience for me.
As for detransitioning, even before transition I had severe social anxiety and in the rapidly worsening climate (especially in the south where I live where now there's dozens of laws targeting us) it just made it impossible for me to function. Granted I still pretty much can't, but I can leave my house without feeling afraid for my life or getting stared down by countless people and right now that's more important to me than living authentically or being happy in my body. Hopefully that can change someday, but I sort of doubt it.
@@Aaaa-gs7ww I'm so sorry to hear all that. I can totally imagine how living where you do could make you feel that way. There is a way life could change for you though: maybe one day you could move and live elsewhere. I realise if you suffer severe social anxiety this may be difficult, but maybe not impossible? Of course it's not fair that you have to leave your home in order to feel safe being yourself, but moving can also be a joyous experience.
But don't mind me, obviously I don't know you at all, and in many ways I have been blessed. I hope you find a way to improve your life whether or not you are able to present as you would like to.
The real question is whether the gender ideology makes any sense, specifically, the gender unicorn. And there’s a legitimate philosophy of science problem of whether trans arguments in favor of so-called gender affirming care are pseudoscience.
What's always been curious to me is how in the social world: gendered language doesn't seem to function as a noun. We (i.e. the general peer) don't refer to a person's gender as a separate identity in the social world; instead, we seem to use gender as a kind of social adjective.
What seems to be the disconnect for me, is the lack of coherent descriptors (and tangible organisation) within social life. It would explain why people feel so underrepresented and others so unaccepting/dismissive: no one knows how to understand, or how to describe a some-gendered person, outside of the normal processing.
For example in dating, for a heterosexual man, the descriptive meaning of 'woman' has changed. Or in the medical profession, professional sports or in public situations like toilets or changing rooms (all ongoing debates).
We don't seem to 'use' gender to refer to identity, identity (at least this curated type) feels like it has no functional meaning outside of the first person.
We seem only to use it as a descriptor, in a third-person arena, to understand each other and our relationships with the social human world.
but not men...just women. anyone else notice how no one is questioning what a man is? we talk about gender a lot, but it only ends with the definition of women, not men.
@@junipershull23skidoo
Men have dicks.
@@junipershull23skidoo no this goes for men too
I'm not sure if you touch on this later in the video, and I'm sure you didn't mean anything harmful by this, but I'll make my small pedantic correction anyway. What you say at 11:00 isn't entirely true for every individual. There are agender people who feel like they're entirely removed from the experience of gender. Although you could argue that that is just another way psychological and social gender manifests.
Does this disagreement between Contra and Abigail Thorn have much to do with their stances regarding authenticity versus profilicity as it pertains to their understanding of their own trans identities?
I believe it has more to do with the differences in how the U.S. and U.K. healthcare handle transgender healthcare.
I heard someone comment on that it could be that Abigail is in the UK and Contrapoints is in the US. How you treat these things very much affects the type of medical care you receive in the US, unfortunately. Having a medical "illness" (scare quotes intentional) can impact whether or not insurance will pay for procedures.
@@James_ER Yeah, this was my understanding as well. The mental “illness” classification can make things harder in the U.K. from what Abigail says (for instance, breast reduction surgery isn’t gate-kept for cis-women who need it). Meanwhile, with the expensive costs for healthcare in the U.S., having the dysphoria diagnosis is the thing health insurance companies require to even consider taking on part of the financial burden of transitioning.
Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong but does your warning against over identifying with your gender means you oppose gender reassignment surgery? If so, I would strongly disagree
The moment one says that one is trapped in a body and would like to have the opposite gender, isn't automatically admittance of gender essentialism? When a man says he actually belongs to a female gender, doesn't it reinforce the gender binary? Therefore, it maybe right to say that there is no gender apriori however, it would be self contradictory when you use this premise to "become" the *opposite* gender.
Nah, not necessarily. Because you can acknowledge that a thing isn't "real" in the universal sense while acknowledging that it's "real" within the context of your society.
When I say I'm black and would like to be recognized as such, it is not an admission that race is real.
@@yessum15 My point was not about whether something is "real" or not. It was about something being a binary or not. When you say you are black, you define a concept which can't exist without the existence of its opposite- a white color. If you begin with the premise that gender doesn't exist and then you take two reference points (male, female) to define where you currently are and where you actually belong, you contradict yourself.
yeah, probably! not all transgender ppl explain their genders in this way, and many of them do believe in gender essentialism!
in contra's case she has assigned herself woman bc it alleviates emotional distress. it's moreso that playing the role of woman gives her peace whereas playing any other role does not. That doesn't infer gender essentialism - but something closer to "my society and natural state have left me in a position where woman works for me." the natural state could be gender, if it is essential, or it could be some other quality, learned or not, that makes being a woman easier.
@@nobody983 I'll repeat myself. Again, no.
Because I can believe that a Black/White binary doesn't exist in the universal sense while acknowledging that it exists within my society.
Thus I self identify as Black while rejecting the objective existence of Black people.
In America I am Black. On Neptune it is unclear what I am.
Similarly, in America there is a concept of what a woman is. I don't believe that concept to be fundamentally true, but to the extent that this society treats it as such and I identify more strongly with the characteristics that this society associates with that made up category I insist on being included in it.
This is the case for most socially constructed identities.
I don't believe in the existence of VIPs, but to the extent that this nightclub treats certain guests as VIPs I believe I more closely fit your description of that.
When you step aside to allow the bouncer to let the VIPs cut in line are you truly convinced that these people are actually more important than you in an cosmic sense?
Listen to what Contrapoints says about the "trapped in the wrong body" language. Point 1 of 'Gender Critical' I think.
There are some who are experimenting with sincere+authentic refurbishment of Analytic Psychology, which I feel has the potential to meet the demands and needs of people today.
I don't disagree with anything you've said here, but I think it's actually important to further clarify that sex is in fact mutable. Just like gender, sex has multiple facets, and only one of these facets (chromosomes) is immutable. Hormones cause physiological changes that can be simplified as changing one's sex, such that medically speaking trans people who have been on hormones for a long time are (except for reproduction) largely the same as cis people with the same hormones.
I totally agree!
One's sex is mutable does not = sex is mutable. This is the difference in social theory, which posits society exists.
That "except for reproduction" aside is doing quite a lot of work. Reproduction being the reason biological sex differences evolved haha. Maybe one day it will be different, but current transition technology doesn't change sex.
Male and female are used univocally across the plant and animal kingdoms to refer to the sex organized toward the production of sperm or eggs respectively. Therefore, hormones and chromosomes do not figure essentially into a definition of sex (crocodiles are male or female despite not having sex chromosomes, your sex doesn't change during puberty even though your hormones change, etc). You may find this helpful ua-cam.com/video/s9kNwAHThA8/v-deo.html
@@thanderhop1489 You are right - if we [decide to] define male/female as only [the possibility to or past history where they] produce sperm or eggs. I'd like to note, the part in brackets, which you implied but didn't say are important though. I say you imply them because 1. We inherently make decisions about what would be a most useful when we define and 2. If we don’t add not about potential/historywhen talking about producing gametes then sex absolutely does change. For example, small babies or elderly women or woman who have had a hysterectomy etc. Of course, this is a decision we’re making - we are defining it in a way so it doesn’t change - not because the actual biology is exactly the same in the same state. That’s fine! But, the definition brings other problems. Inadvertenly we are creating a scenario that is helpful for understanding how reproduction happens in general but we are failing to get any information at all about the ACTUAL potential to produce gametes in an individual. If you say a creature is female, what are we learning with this definition? Do they ONLY produce female gametes or do they also produce male gametes? Did they produce eggs before? Will they produce them in the future? If so, how do you know they will? If they never do produces eggs, does that mean they are not female? You could say that this doesn’t matter: they are sick, old or broken. I think there are plenty of times where this is not the case - but fine! Even still, it still leaves open the question of sex. Your model doesn’t describe ALL of reality (of course none can but we know not to say they are indisputable in most cases). If we include other things in the definition such as chromosome hormones etc we avoid this problem about knowing sex but we introduce the idea that sex can change. This isn’t to says that there is a perfect definition of sex that doesn’t run into problems like this. In fact, one that includes multiple factors also obscures facts when used a binary m/f - where it is useful is we can specify CHROMOSOMAL SEX, HORMONAL SEX, etc giving us clear information instead about what an individual has or does not have. Instead, this is to say, we decided what sex is - it’s not essential. And if we decide what it is, then it must be possible for somebody to fall out of the category of male or female based on our changing definition. And if that’s possible then sex can’t be “immutable”. I don’t even agree with OP on saying chromosomal sex is immutable. In the animal kingdom that is definitely not true ( see bearded dragons) and for humans it’s not true now - but that doesn’t mean it will always be that way. Even putting that aside, like you said, including chromosomes in the definition at all is up to us - making it mutable on that basis alone. ?
The main mistake here is the presupposition that all construction is contingent; that there are no - as it were - a priori constraints on construction.
What's missing from gender ideology, and also from Carefree Wandering and Contrapoints, is the importance of evolution by natural selection in human gender. Gender is merely a polite synonym for biological sex. Humans are animals, males and females. There seems to be a conflation by philosophers like Judith Butler that gender is different from bio-gender and instead are gender roles rooted in human emotion and cultural construction. Butler specifically shies away from biology and reduces gender to gestures of performativity that become habituated over time and frequently mandated by society. For some odd reason human beings are so fearful of being animals that they are constantly finding ways to do the impossible: separate psychology from physiology. Mind-Body dualism. They have for millennia done this through theology, now through postmodern gender ideology. Carefree Wandering and Contrapoints do not go this far, but they do seem to struggle with it thinking that gender is "something different" and based in how one "feels" about their gender.
Brilliant summary, mister
I like you last point, I feel like the goal shouldn't be to abolish gender or neatly categorise it, but just accept it as a fluid spectrum
Did Nick Mullen coin the term "extremely online guy"?
profilicity seems to be like a definition of the worst evils of social media. Hyping yourself and selling your brand and worrying about how others think about you rather than what you actually want.
There is something missing in this.
We cant choose our gender!
Just like we cant choose our sexuality.
We cant choose what we are attracted to just as we cant choose as what we want to be attractive.
So obviously there is something essential to it.
A gay man remains gay, even if he chooses to marry a woman.
A trans woman is a woman even if she chooses to perform manlyness.
Our chimpanzee reletives have culture techniques that are shared only by the female individuals. That does not happen because the litte chimpanzee girl is told to behave like a girl. It happens because in social animals there is an inborn instikt that tells the individual who they should immitate... Or who they should identify with... In a gendered way. Because, in the end, sex is important. One could say gender is the sex of the brain.
Sometimes a litte chimpanzee immitates "wrong" and continued to do so as an adult... It happens, just like with humans.
Some of us social animals are gay, trans, gender non conforming, non binary... And as we cant choose it, it is an essential part of us.
I think therefor I am. My brain/consciousness is much more important for my identity than my genitals or chromosomes.
Deal with it.
P.S.:
If you count all the different condition of intersexuality together and include mild cases, they are not that rare.
What's the difference between curating a gender profile and conforming to gender roles, though? When contrapoints talks about presenting in a meticulously feminine way, is that not conforming to a gender role?
One can conform themselves to a gender role while not reinforcing or requiring gender roles from others, one can conform to aesthetic gender roles while challenging them in other fronts, etc.
I have a theory that the mechanisms of Profilicity ergo the validation feedback loops may exhasperate mental health conditions related to self, i.e. dyshorias and that rising mental health issues in young and always online people are in part at least a product of this.
Possibly. Did you read his book?
1.What makes you male/female is not your XY/XX but which gamete your body makes
omg, i feel the same way you do; I'm 59 but i swear to God i feel 36, a huge libido, hyperactivity, overthinking, hyperfocusing, so yeah, we keep adding layers of identities, and we could even "feel" so many different perspectives, experiences, but I guess a lot of people deny themselves this. I also think that the reason for the culture wars, especially when it comes to have a little f....ng compassion towards other humans, it's our internal animal instinct of violence, rage will fix everything.
Sounds like ADHD. Source: I also feel like that and I was diagnosed with it 2 years ago. It's not defect, but medication give me more control on what I want to do etc.
@@prkp7248 yeah, I suspected it in recent years, and someone who’s a therapist told me this was classic adhd. But since I moved to Seattle last year I have been having a hard time because of my expectations that come from a space that feels I’m above that, all the stuff that goes wrong, all The stressors make it difficult to accept them. That’s the thing with adhd, hypersensitivity and trauma, we know what we have to do, but either procrastinating, anxiety or depression are getting in the way. I’m trying to get a diagnosis to start medicines but it’s hard. Very frustrating for us
Culture wars are mainly about groups in power using it to elevate their status by playing all the games people play.
Life is a 10 acre farm; in sincerity everyone grows corn; in authenticity you let the land grow what it wants; and in profilicity you grow what you can best sell. How's my metaphor?
I think that your use of "male" and "female" when you seem to mean "masculine" and "feminine" is unnecessarily confusing.
I subscribed to her before the change to contrapoint, when he was a redwine drunk debunking Thunderf00t with great accuracy, then he shutdown and came back some year later, just as sharp as before In a new package, but mainpoint for me, the depression seemed gone and she seemed to like to live, contrary to before where he was clearly depressed and maybe suicidal. Happy she is alive and vocal, but maybe don't agree with all and rarlwy watch her videos anymore, too scripted and not in my intellectual interest anymore, but still very well done and educational.
You took a sharp left turn in the last minute that warrants more discussion and support. What constitutes over-identifying with one's gender? What does it mean to be a gender fundamentalist? I agree that over-committing to gender congruity is a way to over-identify with one's gender. But you are unclear about whether to "submit one's body to invasive medical regimes to better fit a gender profile" constitutes overcommitting to gender congruity! Do any medical processes which increase gender congruence constitute as being a "gender fundamentalist" in your terms?
I am a trans woman. I give myself an estrogen injection once a week - less invasive than taking a daily vitamin - which helps enormously in curating my gender profile and makes my life easier. There are physiological and psychological benefits that are obvious to me. Is this medical intervention over-committing to my gender or congruence? Is it psychologically dangerous despite its obvious subjective psychological benefits. It is a pharmacologically safe intervention.
So what are you saying here? Being trans is fine as long as you don't alter your body? If this is not what you are saying, your viewers are going to misunderstand you as being (quite comprehensively) against any medical interventions for trans folks, and this is the absolute worst thing we need right now when governments are actively outlawing our access to vital medicine. Please clarify or reconsider your viewpoint.
Over-commitment to one's identity, in my terminology, basically means not acknowledging that identity is always "genuinely pretended." This is to say two things: 1) A genuine sense of identity results (paradoxically) from "playing" (pretending) an identity. We should understand genuineness and pretending as two equal components of identity building. Over-commitment means to deny the "pretending" element in identity. 2) Human existence is incongruent and dissonant. Identity "covers up" this dissonance--and we need to cover it up to some extent in order to be able to function. However, a perfect match of the dissonant aspects of human life is unachievable. To fanatically desire complete coherence of the different aspects of identity (e.g. social persona, body, personal thoughts and feelings) is identity fundamentalism. I am not in medicine and cannot judge the concrete evasiveness of medical procedures, but I would consider it over-commitment to gender identity if one would want to try to change their body so that it "exactly matches" how one feels, or how one wishes "to be seen as." in terms of gender. I reject advertising for cosmetic surgery that suggests it can fulfill peoples wishes to look "authentic" or be their "real selves" by gendering them in specific ways. This is exploitation of gender fundamentalism.
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 I completely agree with your assessment of identity then, but I highly suggest you look into the empirical difference between treatment of gender dysphoria with bodily intervention vs people with body dysmorphia altering their bodies. In the former case, bodily interventions tend to achieve satisfaction whereas the latter do not. Perhaps you are conflating the two. A trans person tends to be satisfied with their body post HRT, whereas a cosmetic surgery addict or compulsive bodybuilder tend to never achieve an end state that brings completion or fulfillment. I think you are also overstating how much transgender people attempt to "exactly match" the opposite sexed body. My not quite but mostly feminine biology at this point is enough for me to "genuinely pretend" my desired gender. There are very practical reasons that you might not be entertaining, Consider how much easier it is to inhabit a womanly air so to speak when one doesn't have to contend with far heavier and more apparent body hair, or male pattern baldness, or chest acne, or developed upper body musculature, or faster facial hair growth. These are all practical reasons why one would desire to alter their body with HRT, because a simple estrogen shot can compeltely alter all of them whereas trying to "genuinely pretend" womanhood without estrogen is a constant uphill battle against secondary sexual characteristics. Regardless, I certainly appreciate your general philosophical lens here, I just think you misunderstand the transgender phenomenon and are far too restrictive in terms of damning bodily intervention entirely to a kind of bad faith, when certain interventions can be completely aligned with a profile-based identity understanding.
@@AnnularFrisson Thanks a lot for your detailed response. I get your point, and it seems we're in basic agreement. I am not arguing against any of the interventions you describe. My point is, that in media discourse, and perhaps also in law and medicine, a problematic language of "authenticity" is currently being promoted--and marketed. And this problematic language/ideology may, in some cases, lead to medical interventions that people may later regret.As Contrapoints says in one of her videos, "passing as" a gender is a healthier approach (it seems to me) than chasing a "true self."
Since you asked about "over-identification" with gender roles, I will give you one concrete example. Over centuries, and under conditions of "sincerity" (identification in orientation to gender roles), many Chinese women were thought of as really female only if they had bound feet. There is evidence that many Chinese women personally embraced this kind of thinking and strongly desired/identified with bound feet. They didn't want to simply "pass as" women and rather show their "sincere commitment" to the female role with their bound feet. That's over-identification with a gender role under conditions of sincerity. I hope similar over-identification can be avoided under conditions of profilicity..
@@AnnularFrisson i think you’re right in what you say, but this is a tangential but ultimately different issue than what he’s talking about. no one would say getting an tumor removed or appendix removed or stint placed is about aligning oneself to an authentic self. it’s a necessary procedure to ensure the survival of the individual, which is exactly how i see hrt and other affirming surgeries. not about an authentic self as much as positive health outcomes. but many people have lingering body issues even after hrt, too. contra is an example. and at some point, a trans person can stop having trans body dysmorphia and just have regular, to which his theory would then apply. that’s how i see it at least. but good point
wunderbar runtergebrochen. Ich wünschte, daß die ganze Betrachtung dieses Themas genau so entspannt diskutiert würde.
Nebenbei bemerkt, ich bin bisexuell, ehemaliger crossdresser und grudsätzlich offen für alles.
How about the issue of forced validation of another’s gender identity?
My take on this is that I concede my gender to how someone else experiences me in how I show up in our relationship. If they see me as feminine, they are welcome to refer to me as she. If they see me as masculine, I'm happy to be a he. Biologically I am a male, but I now surrender personal control to my gender identity.
I think it is important to use scientific research as a foundation for the gender/sex contretemps. There are two sexes but there is a tiny percentage that do not conform to this dichotomy; broken X, etc. MRI examination of female/male brains show vast differences in processing and areas of activity, especially in temporal and linguistic tasks; even here there is a continuum ( normative curve) with the 75% under the curve but a significant percentage of outliers.
Autism dominates in the trans community - it is 3 times more likely ( 400%) for a transgender to be on the autism spectrum - understandable when autism expresses as a inability to relate to social constructs.
Gender dysphoria have always been around - 1 in 20, 000 on average for most cultures.
34:11 "An existentialism of the 21st century recommends not to over-identify with one's gender, not to become a gender fundamentalist."
Why though? Surely grounding ourselves in free will and construction of meaning by force of will frees us from gender fundamentalism - i.e. it allows us the freedom not to follow strict gender roles - but it also gives us to freedom to choose to go ham on gender if we want. If you want to be a Queen, why not? That's existentialist too.
I'd say validation for one's identity always comes, to some extent, from how others perceive us. No need to involve profilicity in this very basic feature of human behavior. However, the sense of identity was built on different bases in other time periods.
And that basis is profilicity nowadays...
@@otto_jk perhaps. I'm afraid it could end up proving too much. I mean, is profilicity when "your sense of identity depends in some measure on external validation"? In which case, yes, but I don't see many alternatives.
Yes. I think he overvalues the idea of profilicity and the role it plays in most peoples lives regarding their self worth and validation.
Here's my two cents: sex, gender identity and identity in general belong to the domain of the non-rational. Ask 1000 people "what is a human?" Would they answer the same thing? Would they state something coherent? I feel both pro-trans and anti-trans influencers use arguments that have little importance in day to day living: chromosomes etc are invisible and private understandings of identity aren't visible either. Genital surgeries are as natural or unnatural as rhinoplasty or hip replacements. Besides, most of us live in artificially urban environments and navigate life using all kinds of artificial devices. There's nothing much socalled natural about us humans ...
It would be great to see this kind of good-faith engagement with some gender critical philosophers, such as Kathleen Stock or Holly Lawford-Smith.
That would be cool!
Don't take this comment the wrong way because I like your videos. I think your "profilicity theory" is as good a framework as any - and probably better than most - for making some sense of the strange developments we've witnessed in the West in the last two decades. But it's really hard for me to regard profilicity, at least in it most extreme forms (e.g. transgenderism), as an "identity technology". It's more like an identity pathology, and it's apparently contagious, especially among the young. It starts with the suggestion that human nature is infinitely plastic, or something like that - an assumption which is taken on faith and not critically examined. Do not underestimate the power of suggestion here, and the power of social media to spread suggestions! I do think transgenderism is a fad that will mostly burn itself out (sooner or later), much like the so called dancing sickness of Middle Ages, another weird mass psychogenic illness. Every age has its own peculiar madness I guess, be it child sacrifices, gladiatorial combat, female foot binding, powdered wigs, etc.
Great analysis, thanks professor
This is a really clear showcase example for your theory, and a good analysis of CP's position! I wonder now what the long-term consequence of this turn may be with regard to gender, e.g. whether established gender signifiers through profilicity will experience a dialectical albeit fractured resurgence, but also if profilicity really is a (more) stable mode for an individualist society than authenticity, as its requirements seem less obtrusive and more playful than that of authenticity's as well as offer new channels for interpersonal association. But also may make people more atomized and judgemental due to profiles being linked to choice, morality and responsibility rather than authenticity's kinda neutral predetermination.
There's a contrast between the video essay styles of Contrapoints and this channel - Natalie is an entertainer, focused on costuming, lighting, and background to add to what she says, and what she says is part of the performance. This channel is less about theatrics and performance. I wonder what it would look like for Carefree Wandering as a channel to put on such a performance lol
I have to disagree with both you and Natalie on the idea of being oneself without gender norms as utopian.
Social constructs are not eternal, nor sempiternal. Different societies have different constructs.
Her caricature of what it would imply to live in a genderless world completely misses the point. It's not about getting rid of everything that has historically been construed as gendered, actually the opposite: to open up the barriers and stop imposing on others arbitrary rules of appearance and behaviour based on gender. A good example of this that I think she'd agree with is gendered toys. Nobody is saying "get rid of cars and Barbies", what we say is "stop tagging them as toys for girls or boys, they're just toys".
This episode should be called Contradictory Points. Identity and gender are not important, yet OK to pursue via drugs and surgery? I will also point out that being extremely online doesn't mean one isn't extremely in the real world as well. The consequences of the latter is what the uproar is about in our so-called culture war over trans.
I agree on many levels. Yet I disagree on some...
I hope you read your comments and are interested in a personal experience from someone you were talking about:
I always found the idea of gender somewhat weird, because the feelings of my inner self did not match the expectations placed on me during my upbringing. I was raised as a "boy" and later a "young man".
But I never seriously questioned gender until approximately two or three years back. This is where I realised, that the expectations, placed on me externally, did not really match what was going on internally.
I had always been a troubled child. Mobbing in school, social isolation, multiple suicide attempts and later the abuse of psychoactive drugs, Opioids especially.
Now you gotta understand... Growing up as a perceived, white cisgender male in a former east-German state*... there was a lot of toxic masculinity in my social circles. So I adopted it.
Over the past two years I came to terms with the fact, that gender roles and expectations are stupid and should be abolished. Fighting internalised homophobia and transphobia is hard. I know this from experience.
Later I identified as non-binary, to be speaking in terms of "Transgender ideology", to underline the fact that:
1. I do oppose any gender role models or perceived goals for such.
2. Because I wasn't born (assigned at birth) "non-binary" I am in the simplest form trans, not cis.
And I thought I was ok with that. Until a few months ago when more and more puzzle pieces started clicking and my intermittened states of depression** connected with my own opposition of gender roles.
And my low self-esteem.
And my Substance abuse.
There are a lot of things that can trigger a quite real displeasure at the perceived incongruence of our own body and experienced self.
It feels awful. Indescribable at times even. And that's why I did not know what was going on for over 25 years of my life. I lacked the proper words to communicate myself.
I am aware that cis people have no equivalent of "gender dysphoria", which in my eyes is just a collection of all the symptoms emerging from those incongruences.
So I don't know if it is understandable for cis-people, but yeah... I am not really shocked about my behaviour back then, knowing what I now know.
If your body, your mind, your whole existence feels like shit... then it is no wonder Opioids, especially Oxycodone were my drug of choice.
Their effect profile masks the symptoms of "gender dysphoria" in trans people so beautifully well, it is frightening.
At first, when I realised how some of my symptoms and habits were connected with my perceived bodily incongruence, I felt like I was being sucked into a cult or some shit.
Because if you have a lot of problems, like for example never liking yourself in the mirror or never being able to be yourself in social situations, and suddenly you think you know why... it feels weird. Too good to be true.
Like divine intervention.
Or like being dumb enough to fall for a cult and not notice it...
But then I tried being my true self.
And I was being myself for the first time in my life.
In the right setting, with understanding people, this truly feels like what people described to me as "feeling normal", all those years back.
In the past, I was always very cynical like "yeah sure, feeling normal ...go on pretending, buddy" or stuff along those lines. But this was an eye-opener.
I can be myself if people around me are open-minded enough as to not discriminate. Kinda obvious, I know, but not so much to someone with so much internalised toxic thought patterns.
"safe spaces" are nice. I like them. And I wish we would not have a need for them at all.
But this is reality.
And especially in the "Neue Bundesländer" being yourself, through expression for example, like wearing non-gender conforming clothing, is just not that easy. I wish it was. I wish we could abolish the idea of gender and all its ramifications.
But at the current point in time, we can't. Because I experienced transphobia, patriarchal structures and violence first hand.
And I am very non-confrontational about presenting myself, because of exactly those experiences.
You get beaten up (oder "frisst den Bordstein") for being yourself if you go through the wrong neighbourhood. Neighbourhoods (oder Dörfer) I considered to be totally safe only three years prior. ...
People like me aren't using "Trans" as a label out of pure preference.
We use it out of necessity, because without forming our own support groups, trans people won't get the help they need, especially in the medical and legal system.
I know this first hand, because I have a chronic illness on top of "being trans" which needs monthly therapy and appointments.
And people do treat you differently, depending on how they perceive you. Even people in the medical sector. Even those you have known for years. One even became almost hostile towards me.
And if your bodily health is dependent on the good will of a doctor or two ('cause good luck getting a third appointment if you disagree lol) you do care about appearance and the perception others have of you.
I have met doctors openly doing the bare legal minimum or even less, because they put me into that "Transgender ideology" box without me ever even uttering a word about it.
Which means, getting the wrong treatment or even no treatment at all for some medical issues. Issues that three years prior I would never even have considered as a potential problem for me.
I'd like to enter a meaningful discourse, because I find this very interesting.
But I have some critiques I'd like to address with more nuance than what is possible through a youtube comment.
Just to give you the underline: Feminism and Trans-activism are essential in a fight towards abolishing gender-roles all together and that is why I identify as a non-binary transfem person.
Because I have to. Because my rights as a human, in theory and in practice, depend on it.
Forming support-groups without the proper language-tools, in order to connect through and discuss the shared experience of discrimination and its solutions, is impossible.
* Ja wir können auch gerne auf Deutsch weiterschreiben, solltest du das hier lesen :)
** I fought many times. They always came back. My therapist had no idea why. I was put on multiple anti-depressants over the years... and the results usually weren't "pretty".
If someone was born isolated on an uninhabited island, would that person have a gender?
If someone was born isolated on an uninhabited island, they would die
@@tangolettuce3538 Let's say there is a robot present that takes care of food, medical issues, etc.
@@dodec8449I'm guessing they wouldn't have any social phenomenons, including morals and language.
Oh this is gunna be good!!
great video! one thing, i understand that the point that she was trying to make in 20:39 was that, when GCs say "we need to abolish gender", they don't actually mean it. they don't say that when cis women do it, only when trans women do it. that's what she says after the cut, it's more of a point about hypocrisy rather that an actual concept that she was trying to demonstrate. i still like the spin that you gave it tho, i think it's food for thought!
One thing that mystifies me is that Abigail Thorn (of Philosophy Tube) now claims that gender dysphoria doesn't actually exist - I think a video on that and contrasting w ContraPoints would be very interesting with your insight!
her argument was that gender dysphoria is misclassified. that kind of dysphoria isn’t a distinct feeling, and isn’t exclusive to trans people.
there are cis women with PCOS who are insecure about the way their condition has masculinized their body. there are cis men who are suicidal because their dick is small. both of those are examples of people experience dysphoria because their body does not align with their gender.
My understanding of her argument is that it doesn't exist as a pathology that medicine can define and therefore use as a weapon against trans people. Similar to how some in the neurodiverse community are trying to remove the medical pathology focus from how it is viewed.
@@firemermaid1980 I have autism and have problems with the neurodivergence movement doing that tactic. Neurodevelopmental disorders have medical consequences and comorbidities that need more medical support and research. There’s nothing wrong with being someone needing, benefitting, or even relying on medical support when it is appropriate to do so.
Taking it off the table that medical care might be appropriate and necessary is misguided and unhelpful to the very people that are supposed to benefit. It’s more of a morality claim, as if being ill or disabled in ways that require medical attention and care was morally inferior to not requiring medical attention and care.
I would like to see efforts to destigmatize shift from that tactic to one of just being nonchalant about the concept of pathology. Pathology doesn’t mean inferiority. It means there is disease or disorder present that it would probably be most ethical and practical to take into account. I would prefer we work on thinking about it that way.
@@JaneTheMessage it is true that there can be medical needs attached to autism and adhd, same as with trans people. The problem as you say is the stigma. I don't want to take the medical support needed for either removed, but some are using the medical language to infantilize and be paternalistic to both trans and neurodivise. And that isn't even getting into the outsized portion of trans people who are also autistic.
@@firemermaid1980 In a sense, I sort of understand in laymen's terms, that the use of pronouns and awareness, and acceptance of trans people is just so that we all can have some compassion. My only objection to this dialectic dialogue is that is too freaking hard to understand with this type of language. Regular people are confuse right thinking and fearing that everybody is going to turn gay or transgender... the old existential fear
Sex(the noun), male and female are used below in reference to biology i.e. as gamete based.
The video segment where Contrapoints argues against essentialism comes from her video about autogynephilia. Contrapoints looks for an alternative explanation to autogynephilia only to find 'essential essence theory' lacking. And at that point Contrapoints seems to give up on the whole project of explaining 'transgender identity'.
However, what of autogynephilia?
It is argued that this is a condition that only males can exhibit. Therefore, it could be argued that Contrapoint's personal presentation using stereotypical / traditional female clothes/ makeup etc is an expression of a biologically male sexuality which seems to me to be an argument for an essential etiology: Contrapoints is 'transgender' because of a gynaphilic male biology.
For more context, the hijra are androphilic biological males. To my knowledge, they are similar to the fa'afafine of Samoa who present themselves in female stereotypical/ traditional ways in order to attract males i.e. they are androphilic as opposed to gynephilic. Again, this seems to be a biological basis for presenting as the opposite sex.
What I am seeing here (in autogynephilia and the hijra), is a point at which sex and gender interface. This seems to make the two inseparable. Contrapoint's presentation is predicated on sex. Likewise, the hijra's presentation is predicated on sex. otherwise, why attempt to change one's appearance?
As a footnote, whether this is correct or not, it still seems that gender profilicity requires some sort sex/gender interface. Otherwise, do you not have some sort of mind/body Elisabeth of Bohemia problem?
No she’s spoken about this before, she wears makeup and feminine clothing because it helps her pass, not because of some male sexual view of womanhood.
Probably the best video I've seen on the topic. Really well articulated. There's one bit in the conclusion I'm not so sure about though. Giving the example of "surgery to make your body fit a gender profile" - this is actually one thing which I think while it may seem as the most extreme example, is actually more do with biology or sex, rather than gender itself. As far as I'm aware there's an emerging literature on "gender" dysphoria and "brain sex" - where our brains have an inbuilt sense of what our body should be like, and gender dysphoria - or the type where you don't feel your body is the right sex (so, im really not sure why its called gender dysphoria, shouldnt this be sex dysphoria?). There is a medical aspect to the act of gender surgery, and I don't think it's always to do with aligning appearance to preferred gender expectations. Without knowing this I found it really hard to square the circle of trans peoples' experiences of gender dysphoria and I think without it, it can easily lead to a "gender essentialist" perspective. That trans people are proof that we "really are" wo/men (if you believe their testimonies anyway), because from a very young age they "knew" and "felt" like they were the other gender... So, surgery I see not as an act of performativity (though of course it really is as well for many, as contrapoints' statements show i think), but a medical procedure because of a mismatch of brain sex and body sex.
It’s not true, it’s make believe to justify gender theology.
The fact that a kid "feels" something doesnt make it real, you cant explain the existence of god with the fact that some people "feel" and "know" that there is a god
@@estefaniaboujon6830by that reasoning we shouldn’t listen when a child says they feel anxious or depressed all the time, because mood disorders are just “feelings”
Feelings are real.
Some criticisms:
-A lot of these claims are only forward looking, ignoring the implication of the statement. If you claim that there is no metaphysics of gender or theology of gender, you are building an argument on something that cannot be proved either way.
-A subtext that must be addressed is the death spiral of the European perspective toward reproduction, ancestor reverence, and their refusal to replace the word “role” with the word “responsibility”.
-An addendum to that is the refusal to acknowledge and investigate environmental factors that may play a huge role in the proliferation of the population.