Buying through this banner helps support the forum!
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 69

Thread: gender neutral debate

  1. #16
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    I'm not sure I follow. What relation does the term homophobia have with brain scan differences between men/women/straight/gay people. Homophobia is a social behaviour, it's expressed antagonism towards same-sex attracted people. Likewise, I'm not sure how these scans would effect the concept of a patriarchy.
    Regarding homophobia, what phobia or fear are we talking about? I admit there may be a homo-hatred, but there is no homo-phobia. The brain scans show that one does not "turn" between sexual orientations. Continuing use of the term is a slur and it is derogatory against heterosexuals. Given those brain scans, use of "homophobia" could be perceived as hetero-hatred. Or more simply, sexual harassment.

    Regarding patriarchy, the brain scans show differences between men and women. The "patriarchal" features are the male role in pair-bonding. For more details see Alexander and Young, "The Chemistry Between Us".

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    That's simply one way of theorising it. Of course gender is probably one of the most strictly regulated aspects of social behaviour. If you act outside of the normal expectations of your gender you will quickly encounter resistance in terms of slurs, derogatory comments, discrimination, and potentially violence depending on where you are. Putting aside the critical theory, being a heterosexual male means simply not having to face those barriers and resistance in life. Additionally, it means you readily see representations of yourself as normal and accepted in media. We don't need to think of there being some large social force overseeing these sorts of injustices to appreciate that the experience of living as a heterosexual male precludes one from a lot of the pressures that trans or queer people in general have to face daily.
    The problem with this "hegemony" is that it looks like a way to rationalize fighting a culture war. Continuing to use terms such as "homophobia", "patriarchy" and "social construction of gender" after evidence from those brain scans can be perceived by a larger population as injustice against heterosexuals.

    As a side note: There is nothing wrong with rationalizing. We are humans beings. We are not computers. We are motivated to arrive at the truth and correct inaccuracies in the rationalizations of others. If I can come to these conclusions so quickly from my rationalizations, just about anyone will be able to do so when social mood grows more negative and people look for outsiders to blame for their problems. Homosexuals and transgender people should do everything they can to not position themselves as potential outsiders.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    One common problem trans and other left-wing activists often face in getting their points across is they have habits of talking past people. They adopt the language of theory and apply it to regular people without contextualizing it properly. It's of course unfair to categorize every white male heterosexual as some sort of monstrous supporter of an oppressive regime. The vast majority of heterosexual males spend most of their time just getting on with their lives, it also doesn't mean they don't face any hardship because they are part of a privileged group. You can be part of a privileged group (like white males) while still having legitimate struggles (poverty, disability, sexuality etc.).
    As I see it, the problem with such groups is that they are throwing away the gains they make with these brain scans. They can use this new technology to justify the way they experience gender to a larger group of people who experience it differently. They need to find a way to merge with this larger group rather than continue to look for ways to engage in culture war. You seem to be saying something like that, however, I don't think the lessons from those brain scans have been learned and I don't think you take the problem of negative social mood seriously. The problem is not some theoretical hegemony. The problem is social mood that will turn people against each other when it goes negative.

  2. #17
    On the road, but not! Danik 2016's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Beyond nowhere
    Posts
    11,110
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    Regarding homophobia, what phobia or fear are we talking about? I admit there may be a homo-hatred, but there is no homo-phobia. The brain scans show that one does not "turn" between sexual orientations. Continuing use of the term is a slur and it is derogatory against heterosexuals. Given those brain scans, use of "homophobia" could be perceived as hetero-hatred. Or more simply, sexual harassment.

    Regarding patriarchy, the brain scans show differences between men and women. The "patriarchal" features are the male role in pair-bonding. For more details see Alexander and Young, "The Chemistry Between Us".



    The problem with this "hegemony" is that it looks like a way to rationalize fighting a culture war. Continuing to use terms such as "homophobia", "patriarchy" and "social construction of gender" after evidence from those brain scans can be perceived by a larger population as injustice against heterosexuals.

    As a side note: There is nothing wrong with rationalizing. We are humans beings. We are not computers. We are motivated to arrive at the truth and correct inaccuracies in the rationalizations of others. If I can come to these conclusions so quickly from my rationalizations, just about anyone will be able to do so when social mood grows more negative and people look for outsiders to blame for their problems. Homosexuals and transgender people should do everything they can to not position themselves as potential outsiders.



    As I see it, the problem with such groups is that they are throwing away the gains they make with these brain scans. They can use this new technology to justify the way they experience gender to a larger group of people who experience it differently. They need to find a way to merge with this larger group rather than continue to look for ways to engage in culture war. You seem to be saying something like that, however, I don't think the lessons from those brain scans have been learned and I don't think you take the problem of negative social mood seriously. The problem is not some theoretical hegemony. The problem is social mood that will turn people against each other when it goes negative.
    It would be nice, Yes/No if you could post a link about those brain scanning experiments showing the results.
    "I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
    Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row

  3. #18
    Dance Magic Dance OrphanPip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur but from Canada
    Posts
    4,163
    Blog Entries
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    Regarding homophobia, what phobia or fear are we talking about? I admit there may be a homo-hatred, but there is no homo-phobia. The brain scans show that one does not "turn" between sexual orientations. Continuing use of the term is a slur and it is derogatory against heterosexuals. Given those brain scans, use of "homophobia" could be perceived as hetero-hatred. Or more simply, sexual harassment.
    While the word shares an etymology with other phobias, it is not generally taken to mean a fear of homosexuals. The word arose from a psychological term for "homosexual panic" which psychiatrists used to define deep self-loathing by people who experience homosexual attractions. It later morphed as a term used to understand aversion to homosexuals by even those who don't experience homosexual urges. Since the 1980s the term has become a catch all for any anti-gay sentiment. Scholars sometimes use the word heterosexism because of the difficult associations with the word phobia. I don't see how the word is a slur or derogatory against heterosexuals since homophobia can be expressed by gay people.

    Another secondary source of its etymology was its usefulness as a counterpoint to homophile societies which were the earliest self-identified gay rights groups in the early 20th century.

    I also don't follow your point that it should be construed as sexual harassment. Is your contention that if someone is called a faggot by a stranger, then if they refer to that person as a homophobe they have somehow sexually harassed that person by use of the term homophobe?

    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    Regarding patriarchy, the brain scans show differences between men and women. The "patriarchal" features are the male role in pair-bonding. For more details see Alexander and Young, "The Chemistry Between Us".
    I would point to the concept of the naturalistic fallacy. Simply because male control and dominance can be explained by evolutionary biology does not justify its continued existence in society or its moral rightness.


    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    The problem with this "hegemony" is that it looks like a way to rationalize fighting a culture war. Continuing to use terms such as "homophobia", "patriarchy" and "social construction of gender" after evidence from those brain scans can be perceived by a larger population as injustice against heterosexuals.

    As a side note: There is nothing wrong with rationalizing. We are humans beings. We are not computers. We are motivated to arrive at the truth and correct inaccuracies in the rationalizations of others. If I can come to these conclusions so quickly from my rationalizations, just about anyone will be able to do so when social mood grows more negative and people look for outsiders to blame for their problems. Homosexuals and transgender people should do everything they can to not position themselves as potential outsiders.
    Given that most people on Earth already live in countries where homosexuals have no legal rights and a good 1/3 of the planet lives in countries where it is outright illegal to be gay, I think homosexuals and transgenders are well aware of what it means to be positioned as outsiders

    Quite simply, people haven't needed a "negative" social mood to justify oppression of LGBT individuals historically or in the present. The sole reason LGBT people have rights is because of their continued resistance to the status quo over the past 150-200 years.


    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    As I see it, the problem with such groups is that they are throwing away the gains they make with these brain scans. They can use this new technology to justify the way they experience gender to a larger group of people who experience it differently. They need to find a way to merge with this larger group rather than continue to look for ways to engage in culture war. You seem to be saying something like that, however, I don't think the lessons from those brain scans have been learned and I don't think you take the problem of negative social mood seriously. The problem is not some theoretical hegemony. The problem is social mood that will turn people against each other when it goes negative.
    I don't think you'll find that it's LGBT people who refuse to acknowledge that they experience the world differently at a fundamental level from heterosexuals. It is the anti-gay movement that insists that being gay is a choice made by weak-willed and sinful people.
    Last edited by OrphanPip; 05-24-2017 at 11:50 AM.
    "If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
    - Margaret Atwood

  4. #19
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    While the word shares an etymology with other phobias, it is not generally taken to mean a fear of homosexuals. The word arose from a psychological term for "homosexual panic" which psychiatrists used to define deep self-loathing by people who experience homosexual attractions. It later morphed as a term used to understand aversion to homosexuals by even those who don't experience homosexual urges. Since the 1980s the term has become a catch all for any anti-gay sentiment. Scholars sometimes use the word heterosexism because of the difficult associations with the word phobia. I don't see how the word is a slur or derogatory against heterosexuals since homophobia can be expressed by gay people.

    Another secondary source of its etymology was its usefulness as a counterpoint to homophile societies which were the earliest self-identified gay rights groups in the early 20th century.

    I also don't follow your point that it should be construed as sexual harassment. Is your contention that if someone is called a faggot by a stranger, then if they refer to that person as a homophobe they have somehow sexually harassed that person by use of the term homophobe?
    The people who are suggesting the alternative "heterosexism" are seeing the problem with "homophobia".

    My contention is that using the term "homophobia" indiscriminately sexually harasses others. Making up an excuse to do that would be called "blaming the victim".

    The problem with continuing to use these old words ("homophobia", "patriarchy", "social construction of gender") is that these terms suggest that it is possible for a homosexual to socially construct his or her gender and become heterosexual.


    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    I would point to the concept of the naturalistic fallacy. Simply because male control and dominance can be explained by evolutionary biology does not justify its continued existence in society or its moral rightness.
    I think I see where we disagree. You seem to think that pair-bonding is something that can be discontinued in our species and that it is morally questionable. I don't think pair-bonding is something we can change (or "socially construct" to use the old terminology) and I don't see anything morally wrong with it.


    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    Given that most people on Earth already live in countries where homosexuals have no legal rights and a good 1/3 of the planet lives in countries where it is outright illegal to be gay, I think homosexuals and transgenders are well aware of what it means to be positioned as outsiders

    Quite simply, people haven't needed a "negative" social mood to justify oppression of LGBT individuals historically or in the present. The sole reason LGBT people have rights is because of their continued resistance to the status quo over the past 150-200 years.




    I don't think you'll find that it's LGBT people who refuse to acknowledge that they experience the world differently at a fundamental level from heterosexuals. It is the anti-gay movement that insists that being gay is a choice made by weak-willed and sinful people.
    If LGBT people continue to use the pre-1970, pre-brain-scan, terminology of "homophobia", "patriarchy" or "social construction of gender", then they are also implying that their gender expression is a choice just like the anti-gay people. If LGBT people want to get past this, they have to enter the 21st century.

    I was thinking about the "hegemony" theory yesterday. I recently read a socionomics argument that the "pansies" between 1925 and 1935 were a sociometer of the depression and that something similar is happening today. The interesting thing about this theory is that it is trying to predict social changes, in this case, market crashes, based on cultural activity showing social mood. If you know of any hegemony theory research that makes predictions (not of trends, but of changes of trend) I would be interested in seeing it.

  5. #20
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Danik 2016 View Post
    It would be nice, Yes/No if you could post a link about those brain scanning experiments showing the results.
    The only thing that I have is the survey by Larry Young and Brian Alexander, "The Chemistry Between Us". I checked it out from the library yesterday and I am re-reading it because of this thread. I want to make sure I understand the argument. I'll post more links if this thread continues.

    One of the problems with social construction of gender was reference to the work of John Money (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money) and the "sex-reassignment" of David Reimer.

  6. #21
    Dance Magic Dance OrphanPip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur but from Canada
    Posts
    4,163
    Blog Entries
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    The people who are suggesting the alternative "heterosexism" are seeing the problem with "homophobia".

    My contention is that using the term "homophobia" indiscriminately sexually harasses others. Making up an excuse to do that would be called "blaming the victim".

    The problem with continuing to use these old words ("homophobia", "patriarchy", "social construction of gender") is that these terms suggest that it is possible for a homosexual to socially construct his or her gender and become heterosexual.
    I don't follow your reasoning of how the term homophobia constitutes sexual harassment of heterosexuals. Like I said earlier, gay people can be homophobic, the term originated from psychological assessments of self-loathing. Moreover, whatever it's origin or etymology, the term does not mean fear of gay people, it means animosity towards gay people.



    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    I think I see where we disagree. You seem to think that pair-bonding is something that can be discontinued in our species and that it is morally questionable. I don't think pair-bonding is something we can change (or "socially construct" to use the old terminology) and I don't see anything morally wrong with it.
    I said no such thing. I simply said that you cannot conclude that things should be a certain way simply because of how they are in nature. If we are to accept that human tendency towards patriarchal social structures is natural and good simply because there are biological explanations for it then we'd also have to accept that infidelity is natural and good because there are biological explanations for why it is so prevalent as well. Either way, I am legally married and in a monogamous relationship so I haven't a faintest idea where you got the idea I think pairing up is something morally questionable.

    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    If LGBT people continue to use the pre-1970, pre-brain-scan, terminology of "homophobia", "patriarchy" or "social construction of gender", then they are also implying that their gender expression is a choice just like the anti-gay people. If LGBT people want to get past this, they have to enter the 21st century.
    Again I don't follow your reasoning. Saying gender is socially constructed does not mean people consciously choose their gender identification. Some people think there is a positive social impact of deliberately challenging gender norms as a form of resistance. However, this is not the same as a trans person who feels that their fundamental gender identity is masculine despite having female sex organs. Nor is the LGBT community monolithic or singular in their approach to this issue, which I addressed in my first post. Large segments of trans activism are based on a medical argument that they are ill and trans rights are in fact a matter of patients' rights and respect for difference.
    "If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
    - Margaret Atwood

  7. #22
    On the road, but not! Danik 2016's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Beyond nowhere
    Posts
    11,110
    Blog Entries
    2
    These links are all useful. As I see it gender as it is considered today and that includes also all the reactions for and against, is something relatively new. When I was young even homosexuality wasn´t openly acknowledged, and transgender people weren´t heard of, simply because the word "transgender" didn´t exist. On the other hand I read an Guardian article the other day about people who wanted to be free to act as men or women in their relationships acoording to will. So the bounds of sexuality have become extremely fluid and, yes, I think part of these fluidity is the result of social construction.
    "I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
    Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row

  8. #23
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Danik 2016 View Post
    These links are all useful. As I see it gender as it is considered today and that includes also all the reactions for and against, is something relatively new. When I was young even homosexuality wasn´t openly acknowledged, and transgender people weren´t heard of, simply because the word "transgender" didn´t exist. On the other hand I read an Guardian article the other day about people who wanted to be free to act as men or women in their relationships acoording to will. So the bounds of sexuality have become extremely fluid and, yes, I think part of these fluidity is the result of social construction.
    According to Young and Alexander's "The Chemistry Between Us", the transgender brain was discovered by Dick Swaab "in a structure called the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST)". (page 30) That means it was not socially constructed. It also means the heterosexual brain (including sex differences) was not socially constructed either.

    I agree with you that the way people express their sexuality changes over time. We are not determined by these organized brain states. One could view that as "social construction", but I prefer making sense out of cultural trends in terms of "social mood". Here is an article about transgender and the Brazilian market from the socionomics institute. I am not a member, so I only see the introduction to this article, but I think these people are on the right track, they do not restrict themselves to gender and they try to predict cultural trend changes: http://www.socionomics.net/2015/04/a...ons-in-brazil/ I think social mood provides us with more constraints and opportunities than do the constraints our brains provide for gender, but gender is not one of them.

    According to Young and Alexander, it took 17 years for Money's research claims about Reimer to be discredited even when there was contradictory evidence from the start. One of those bringing it to an end was Milton Diamond in 1997. Earlier I was wondering if OrphanPip's view was a minority position, however, after reading the following, I think he may be expressing a position that is more generally believed: "Even today [2012 published date of "The Chemistry Between Us"], Diamond tells us, Money has adherents in the United States as well as around the world. His views are still reflected in some university gender studies programs that use cliches like 'the social construction of gender.'" (Page 15) I think the point of Young and Alexander is that the people holding back this science are liberals believing in social construction.
    Last edited by YesNo; 05-26-2017 at 01:04 PM.

  9. #24
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    I don't follow your reasoning of how the term homophobia constitutes sexual harassment of heterosexuals. Like I said earlier, gay people can be homophobic, the term originated from psychological assessments of self-loathing. Moreover, whatever it's origin or etymology, the term does not mean fear of gay people, it means animosity towards gay people.
    Use of the word to describe gay people who are afraid to admit they are gay is not sexual harassment. It is just a diagnosis.

    If the term refers to heterosexual people who express animosity toward gay people, then use an appropriate term like "heterosexism".

    Use of the term homophobia (say on placards or in marches) directed at heterosexual people in general is sexual harassment.


    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    I said no such thing. I simply said that you cannot conclude that things should be a certain way simply because of how they are in nature. If we are to accept that human tendency towards patriarchal social structures is natural and good simply because there are biological explanations for it then we'd also have to accept that infidelity is natural and good because there are biological explanations for why it is so prevalent as well. Either way, I am legally married and in a monogamous relationship so I haven't a faintest idea where you got the idea I think pairing up is something morally questionable.
    Admittedly the way heterosexual, homosexual or transgender people behave is something one can discuss from a moral perspective, however, the fact that they are heterosexual, homosexual or transgender is how their brains are organized.

    It might be more useful to discuss moral issues by looking at Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind". He is a liberal and an atheist (so his cultural beliefs should not be an obstacle to accepting his views). He reports research he participated in that finds six innate ("organized prior to experience") moral foundations upon which our free choices operate. Some of us balance these conflicting moral foundations better than others.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    Again I don't follow your reasoning. Saying gender is socially constructed does not mean people consciously choose their gender identification. Some people think there is a positive social impact of deliberately challenging gender norms as a form of resistance. However, this is not the same as a trans person who feels that their fundamental gender identity is masculine despite having female sex organs. Nor is the LGBT community monolithic or singular in their approach to this issue, which I addressed in my first post. Large segments of trans activism are based on a medical argument that they are ill and trans rights are in fact a matter of patients' rights and respect for difference.
    There is no need to call transgender people "ill". However, using the medical argument is the way to go because being transgender is not a social construction. What does that imply? It implies that heterosexuality is not a social construction either. The "positive social impact of deliberately challenging gender norms as a form of resistance" could well have negative social impact and lead to claims of sexual harassment.

  10. #25
    Dance Magic Dance OrphanPip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur but from Canada
    Posts
    4,163
    Blog Entries
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    Use of the word to describe gay people who are afraid to admit they are gay is not sexual harassment. It is just a diagnosis.

    If the term refers to heterosexual people who express animosity toward gay people, then use an appropriate term like "heterosexism".

    Use of the term homophobia (say on placards or in marches) directed at heterosexual people in general is sexual harassment.
    Again, that seems an odd use of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is generally used to describe unwanted sexual advances and inappropriate sexual behavior. Also, I don't believe that someone carrying a placard saying "Stop Homophobia" is harassing anyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    Admittedly the way heterosexual, homosexual or transgender people behave is something one can discuss from a moral perspective, however, the fact that they are heterosexual, homosexual or transgender is how their brains are organized.

    It might be more useful to discuss moral issues by looking at Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind". He is a liberal and an atheist (so his cultural beliefs should not be an obstacle to accepting his views). He reports research he participated in that finds six innate ("organized prior to experience") moral foundations upon which our free choices operate. Some of us balance these conflicting moral foundations better than others.

    There is no need to call transgender people "ill". However, using the medical argument is the way to go because being transgender is not a social construction. What does that imply? It implies that heterosexuality is not a social construction either. The "positive social impact of deliberately challenging gender norms as a form of resistance" could well have negative social impact and lead to claims of sexual harassment.
    I think you're struggling with a fundamental misunderstanding what social construction of concepts like gender implies. It does not imply that people's behavior are not influenced and determined by biology. It simply argues that concepts like gender are products of language and social construction, they are intertwined with how we understand our biology but they are not the same as our biology.

    What does it mean to be a man?

    Is it being born with a penis?

    Is someone born with a vagina but with the brain patterns of a man still a woman?

    Is someone with the brain patterns of a woman but who still feels a strong affinity for masculinity and identifies as masculine still a woman?

    Reasonable people could differ in their answers to those questions. Defining gender is not simple and simply pointing to brain scans of trans people as different from those of non-trans people doesn't really add much of anything to the debate.

    Fundamentally, people do not experience the world through brain scans, they experience it through their social interactions and development of their self. Personal identity arises out of how we understand ourselves in contrast to others. In a world of only white people there would be no white people, but simply people.

    Understanding that there is a biological basis for trans identity doesn't eliminate the questions of how we define gender. It simply doesn't matter to most people that trans people may be born that way. To them gender is a fixed matter of being aligned with your biological sex, they consider trans people not to be real men or women. The reason trans people have to argue for an expansion of the definitions of gender is precisely because most of society will refuse to admit a place for them within the common definition of gender.

    Also, frankly, your pre-occupation with such banalities as bewildering imagined claims of sexual harassment reflects a deep lack of appreciation of what trans people go through. Just limiting the discussion to the USA: trans people can be legally fired for being trans, can be denied housing, can once again be denied health insurance coverage, cannot travel internationally because of passport issues, are the most likely group to be murdered by a stranger, have the highest suicide rate of any minority group, and are routinely subjected to ridicule in the media.
    "If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
    - Margaret Atwood

  11. #26
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    Again, that seems an odd use of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is generally used to describe unwanted sexual advances and inappropriate sexual behavior. Also, I don't believe that someone carrying a placard saying "Stop Homophobia" is harassing anyone.
    In looking up the word in Wikipedia, I see the original definition being the following:

    Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s, the term homophobia is a blend of (1) the word homosexual, itself a mix of neo-classical morphemes, and (2) phobia from the Greek φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear". Weinberg is credited as the first person to have used the term in speech. The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the May 23, 1969, edition of the American pornographic magazine Screw, in which the word was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay


    My original understanding of the term is that one could "turn" gay. Although people may engage in all sorts of sexual activities, that "turning" can't happen because gender is not socially constructed. Continued use of the term directed at heterosexuals suggests that it can be so constructed and, based on my reading of Young and Alexander, I suspect that is a deliberate distortion of reality. I am sticking with my original interpretation of that term as a slur and derogatory comment toward heterosexuals and a form of sexual harassment especially in light of recent research.

    Another problem with the term is that it originated in the 1960s already loaded with "patriarchy", "social construction of gender" and sexual politics. These have been discredited according to my understanding of Young and Alexander's "The Chemistry Between Us". Why is any university gender studies program still using these terms? Continuing to use these terms appears to me to be a refusal to accept modern science.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    I think you're struggling with a fundamental misunderstanding what social construction of concepts like gender implies. It does not imply that people's behavior are not influenced and determined by biology. It simply argues that concepts like gender are products of language and social construction, they are intertwined with how we understand our biology but they are not the same as our biology.

    What does it mean to be a man?

    Is it being born with a penis?

    Is someone born with a vagina but with the brain patterns of a man still a woman?

    Is someone with the brain patterns of a woman but who still feels a strong affinity for masculinity and identifies as masculine still a woman?

    Reasonable people could differ in their answers to those questions. Defining gender is not simple and simply pointing to brain scans of trans people as different from those of non-trans people doesn't really add much of anything to the debate.
    I agree that the problem is defining gender. If there is any doubt about an individual's gender that should be able to be resolved with a brain scan. I don't know if there exists a "gender neutral" brain, but that question is in the back of my mind while I'm re-reading the book.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    Fundamentally, people do not experience the world through brain scans, they experience it through their social interactions and development of their self. Personal identity arises out of how we understand ourselves in contrast to others. In a world of only white people there would be no white people, but simply people.
    Brain scans tell us about individuals. We are in communities and so we are not isolated individuals. That means there is more than brain scans to consider. There are at least two other places to look: (1) Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations which have an innate component and (2) social mood as studied by socionomists.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    Understanding that there is a biological basis for trans identity doesn't eliminate the questions of how we define gender. It simply doesn't matter to most people that trans people may be born that way. To them gender is a fixed matter of being aligned with your biological sex, they consider trans people not to be real men or women. The reason trans people have to argue for an expansion of the definitions of gender is precisely because most of society will refuse to admit a place for them within the common definition of gender.

    Also, frankly, your pre-occupation with such banalities as bewildering imagined claims of sexual harassment reflects a deep lack of appreciation of what trans people go through. Just limiting the discussion to the USA: trans people can be legally fired for being trans, can be denied housing, can once again be denied health insurance coverage, cannot travel internationally because of passport issues, are the most likely group to be murdered by a stranger, have the highest suicide rate of any minority group, and are routinely subjected to ridicule in the media.
    All of that is all the more reason to stop talking about the social construction of gender and start looking at what 21st century science and not 20th century radical chic has to offer.

  12. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    918
    Blog Entries
    2
    Your understanding of the term 'homophobia' is wrong.

  13. #28
    Dance Magic Dance OrphanPip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur but from Canada
    Posts
    4,163
    Blog Entries
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post

    My original understanding of the term is that one could "turn" gay. Although people may engage in all sorts of sexual activities, that "turning" can't happen because gender is not socially constructed. Continued use of the term directed at heterosexuals suggests that it can be so constructed and, based on my reading of Young and Alexander, I suspect that is a deliberate distortion of reality. I am sticking with my original interpretation of that term as a slur and derogatory comment toward heterosexuals and a form of sexual harassment especially in light of recent research.

    Another problem with the term is that it originated in the 1960s already loaded with "patriarchy", "social construction of gender" and sexual politics. These have been discredited according to my understanding of Young and Alexander's "The Chemistry Between Us". Why is any university gender studies program still using these terms? Continuing to use these terms appears to me to be a refusal to accept modern science.
    Nothing about the term homophobia implies people can be turned gay. Neither does a discussion of social construction of gender imply that gender identity or sexuality are matters of choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    I agree that the problem is defining gender. If there is any doubt about an individual's gender that should be able to be resolved with a brain scan. I don't know if there exists a "gender neutral" brain, but that question is in the back of my mind while I'm re-reading the book.
    Why should people have to subject themselves to a brain scan. Also your grasp of this science is rather superficial as well. The brain is not fixed from birth it develops just as our bodies do and changes due to our experiences in ways that are not fully understood. There is some evidence of different brain structures of certain parts of the brains of trans people prior to transitioning, which are different from those of trans people who are undergoing hormone treatments. However, there are still cases of identical twins where one twin is not trans and the other is. There is evidence of biological and genetic influences on trans identity but there is no way as of yet to determine someone will be trans simply from a brain scan. And none of this really has any relevance on whether gender is socially constructed or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    All of that is all the more reason to stop talking about the social construction of gender and start looking at what 21st century science and not 20th century radical chic has to offer.
    All that does is sidestep the pressing issue of what it means to accept people as trans and as the gender they identify with. Most of society will have to undergo a radical redefinition of gender even to accept that it should be based around brain chemistry (an old argument anyway) rather than genitalia.

    Most Western societies on a legal level define gender based on genitalia. To change your gender you must undergo a sex change operation.

    Some more liberal Western democracies have defined gender as whatever identity one authentically presents, thus allowing gender changes without sex reassignment surgery.

    Most other countries in the world define gender as strictly the biological sex you are born with and do not allow sex changes or for someone to change their gender legally.

    This question of brain scans is not relevant to either the debate about gender identity or to the current struggles of trans people internationally. No nation on Earth is using brain scans to determine gender, so the question is moot.

    Even if we changed the criteria to be the size of a structure in the brain. We would have to arbitrarily pick a demarcation that separates the male from the female brain, it's not so obvious an answer and it doesn't solve the issue of how we define gender as a society.
    "If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
    - Margaret Atwood

  14. #29
    On the road, but not! Danik 2016's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Beyond nowhere
    Posts
    11,110
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    According to Young and Alexander's "The Chemistry Between Us", the transgender brain was discovered by Dick Swaab "in a structure called the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST)". (page 30) That means it was not socially constructed. It also means the heterosexual brain (including sex differences) was not socially constructed either.

    I agree with you that the way people express their sexuality changes over time. We are not determined by these organized brain states. One could view that as "social construction", but I prefer making sense out of cultural trends in terms of "social mood". Here is an article about transgender and the Brazilian market from the socionomics institute. I am not a member, so I only see the introduction to this article, but I think these people are on the right track, they do not restrict themselves to gender and they try to predict cultural trend changes: http://www.socionomics.net/2015/04/a...ons-in-brazil/ I think social mood provides us with more constraints and opportunities than do the constraints our brains provide for gender, but gender is not one of them.

    According to Young and Alexander, it took 17 years for Money's research claims about Reimer to be discredited even when there was contradictory evidence from the start. One of those bringing it to an end was Milton Diamond in 1997. Earlier I was wondering if OrphanPip's view was a minority position, however, after reading the following, I think he may be expressing a position that is more generally believed: "Even today [2012 published date of "The Chemistry Between Us"], Diamond tells us, Money has adherents in the United States as well as around the world. His views are still reflected in some university gender studies programs that use cliches like 'the social construction of gender.'" (Page 15) I think the point of Young and Alexander is that the people holding back this science are liberals believing in social construction.
    Sorry for answering only now Yes/No. I was also bewilderd by your use of the term
    "homophobic".
    I didn´t know about these brain scans, but I agree with Pip that it only reduces everything to a biological basis. And the danger of this kind of reduction is that from there the reduction from LGBT to an illness is just a step.
    When I talk about social construction (maybe I´m not using the correct expression In English) I mean the influence of the social and cultural environment on sexual trends.
    For example, just now we live in a time which somehow permits sexually diversity
    to emerge more freely than bevor, even with the negative reactions and problems that are related to it.
    "I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
    Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row

  15. #30
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Danik 2016 View Post
    Sorry for answering only now Yes/No. I was also bewilderd by your use of the term
    "homophobic".
    I didn´t know about these brain scans, but I agree with Pip that it only reduces everything to a biological basis. And the danger of this kind of reduction is that from there the reduction from LGBT to an illness is just a step.
    When I talk about social construction (maybe I´m not using the correct expression In English) I mean the influence of the social and cultural environment on sexual trends.
    For example, just now we live in a time which somehow permits sexually diversity
    to emerge more freely than bevor, even with the negative reactions and problems that are related to it.
    I am traveling at the moment and not able to discuss this because of time and internet issues. I don't think looking at brain scans to obtain gender information implies diagnosing illness. It simply is another way to identify gender. One doesn't need to actually have any brain scan if gender identification is clear.

    I was thinking about the issues in this thread while traveling and I think there is a solution that involves three components with scientific data, not radical chic politics, to back them:

    1) Alexander and Young's "The Chemistry Between Us" to identifying gender differences in individuals without resorting to social construction of gender.
    2) Jonathan Haidt's "The Righeous Mind" where six moral foundations are identified providing the social context missing from Alexander and Young's survey. This data shows that liberals are not as well balanced on Haidt's moral foundations as conservatives causing issues with conservative acceptance of LGBT individuals when those individuals' gender concerns are packaged with liberal moral rhetoric.
    3) Socionomics for understanding why liberals shifted so far to the individual rights' side over the past two hundred years on Haidt's moral foundations and where that might lead in the future.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Who won this debate?
    By t0sh in forum General Writing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-26-2016, 11:27 PM
  2. The English Language Needs a Neutral Gender
    By cuppajoe_9 in forum General Writing
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 11-27-2012, 10:04 PM
  3. Debate: Literature
    By Crapbuster in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-15-2007, 01:50 AM
  4. Losing debate with my bf...help!!
    By dowriteme in forum General Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-23-2003, 09:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •