Debates over sex and gender

Sam Martinez9 said:The atmosphere here in Seattle is just... heavy. It’s one of those days where everything feels slightly out of sync, much like that feeling you get when a planned road trip through the Rockies gets derailed by an unexpected blizzard. Just a quiet, lingering sense of stillness that settles over everything.

It seems to me that you’re reducing men and women to mere drivers of sexual impulse, and in doing so, you're reducing the entire spectrum of human connection to nothing more than sexual encounters. Fortunately, relationships between men and women are incomparably more complex than that. Love itself isn't just "sexual" love. Love is something else entirely—something deeper. When it exists between a man and a woman, it might be fueled by sexual desire, but that certainly isn't a requirement.

We were just discussing this over at the Philosophy department, so I figure we ought to approach the topic from a different angle here. You all are more than capable of doing just that.

If electronic music, blues, and jazz don't sit right with you, then we simply aren't on the same wavelength. Personally, I can't stand country music. It’s grating, it gets under my skin, and I’ll admit it—I have a genuine phobia of anything even remotely resembling a honky-tonk anthem. My usual strategy is just to walk away when it starts playing, but if someone were to lock me in a room with nothing but a loop of bad country hits, I can promise you one thing: all that pent-up frustration would be directed straight at the stereo. I’d leave nothing but scrap metal and broken wires behind.

To my mind, when we talk about a phobia, what we’re really seeing is an expression of pure hatred.

Precisely. Men and women—people, more broadly speaking—aren't merely biological vessels driven by the impulse to have sex. Human connection is far more complex than that; sexual intimacy is certainly not the sole thread that weaves people together.

It seems like nowadays, people are far too quick to judge someone based solely on their outward appearance—whether it’s the clothes they wear or how much makeup they're sporting. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard it said, or read it posted here, in the sense of: "Look at how that person carries themselves; there's no way they actually know what they're talking about." If we were being truly consistent with that logic, the only person on the planet permitted to have an opinion on anything would be Brad Pitt.

It’s entirely possible that this is exactly why so many creators struggle to offer anything beyond mere aesthetics and sex.

Look, humans are complex creatures—or at least, we ought to be. When we’re discussing philosophy, we really should be delving into those deeper, more nuanced layers of existence. As for physical appearance or sex? That belongs over in the erotica subforum, not here in Philosophy.

Wait, what?

It feels like even our vocabulary is undergoing some kind of identity crisis now where words can just change who they are whenever they want!

I mean, at its core, a phobia is just a fear, right? And I really don't think fear and hatred are even remotely the same thing.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Wait, what?

It feels like even our vocabulary is undergoing some kind of identity crisis now where words can just change who they are whenever they want!

I mean, at its core, a phobia is just a fear, right? And I really don't think fear and hatred are even remotely the same thing.

Have you ever actually stopped to consider what—and why—one feels hate? What is the actual root cause of it? How do people typically react when they are faced with fear, or with the things they are afraid of?

Jose Edwards16 said:It could also work like this—if that makes sense, I guess.
Hey there.
bok Ž
Send me a nude!
Hey Z.
Man, you really have some nerve...
Ž: I'm a trans woman...
🙄

I guess I could say you’re leaning pretty hard into stereotypes with that last point—maybe just a little bit.

Whenever I'm stuck in some debate and a woman brings up that whole "men are constantly thinking about sex" trope, I usually just counter with—well, I focus on the word "thinking." Because at the end of the day, thinking is a mental process, right? And if we're being honest, isn't philosophy basically the ultimate peak of human thought? I guess it's hard to argue with that logic.
I mean, when I say sex—yeah, I'm a guy. 🙂

I mean, if electronic music, blues, and jazz don't count, then you’re probably missing the point. Personally, I can't stand country music. It honestly hurts my ears—it just gets under my skin—so I guess you could say I'm practically country-music-phobic. My usual solution is just to walk away from it, but if someone actually locked me in a room with nothing but a loop of country hits playing? Yeah, I’d probably lose it and take my frustrations out on the speaker. I'd smash it to pieces.

Basically, I think a phobia implies an active expression of hatred.

I'd have to agree there—sure, actual phobias exist, but it seems like the trans community views any kind of criticism or questioning of their views as an outright assault, immediately slapping the 'transphobic' label on it.
So, I guess I'll just tell them they're clearly acting this way because of excess testosterone, despite being on estrogen.
And wouldn't you know it? They'd probably claim *that* critique is 'transphobic' too. ☕[/URL]

I'm not entirely sure how much of our cognitive process depends on testosterone levels. By that logic, would an astrophysicist like Mike Tyson be considered to have a testosterone deficiency simply because he devotes such a vast amount of his mental energy to astrophysics?

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Wait, what?

It feels like even our vocabulary is undergoing some kind of identity crisis now where words can just change who they are whenever they want!

I mean, at its core, a phobia is just a fear, right? And I really don't think fear and hatred are even remotely the same thing.

Fear is the path to the dark side.
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate... leads to suffering. 🤣

Sam Martinez9 said:Have you ever actually stopped to consider what—and why—one feels hate? What is the actual root cause of it? How do people typically react when they are faced with fear, or with the things they are afraid of?

I'm not entirely sure how much of our cognitive process depends on testosterone levels. By that logic, would an astrophysicist like Mike Tyson be considered to have a testosterone deficiency simply because he devotes such a vast amount of his mental energy to astrophysics?

It seems to me that people always respond to fear in the exact same way: Fight or flight.

As for what I’m actually afraid of? Well, I guess it's the sight of crosswinds hitting a jet stream.



😛

Laura Jones56 said:I suppose anyone here who claims to speak on behalf of men is just trolling until they actually marry a trans woman; only then might I consider their convictions to be anything more than a joke.

Can I get a pass here? I’m 65 years old, not Joseph Manley, so I’m definitely not looking to pull an all-nighter at the altar right now. 🙂

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Oh, I honestly wish I could just find myself a man in a woman's body! I suppose I would marry him in a heartbeat, since it feels like it might just be the most perfect, ideal way to get the best of both worlds, 🤣

The catch is, you'd probably have to be gay just to agree to marry you. 🐔

I guess I should probably start by saying that... well, there isn't much to say, really. It’s just one of those things—you know? Just sitting here, thinking about how everything sort of drifts along. Maybe it's just me, though. I tend to wander off into these little mental side quests quite often—it's a habit, I suppose—but anyway, back to the point. There's this sense of... I don't know, stillness? It's hard to pin down without sounding overly dramatic, which I try to avoid, even if I fail occasionally. It's just a thought. A quiet one. Nothing more, nothing less.

steelridge58 said:If someone from the trans community actually popped into this thread, they’d probably have a legitimate case to complain about the hostility, the labeling, and the insults being thrown around, mostly because there's almost zero actual civilized debate or constructive questioning happening here.

I mean, what exactly counts as 'civilized' in that little jab you made above, where you suggest they're "clearly acting this way because of excess testosterone even though they're on estrogen"?

If we keep steering conversations on philosophy like this, I really don't see how this community is going to last much longer.

I only brought that up as an example—just a way to get the point across, I guess. It would be their right to respond to it, anyway. You could probably take that as irony or sarcasm, if you really wanted to... maybe.
So, stylistic devices—that's the thing. I could have just said, "I don't agree with trans ideology," or whatever—but that’s not really how this works, I guess. It's more about the way you frame it.
Is it just like... the ultimate insult? The kind where you don't even bother responding anymore because someone just immediately labels you a 'transphobe' to shut the whole thing down? I guess that's how it works now—you say something, and suddenly you're the villain in their narrative. Maybe. It feels like a way to dodge the actual point, honestly.

I asked in a previous post whether that statement from the LGBTQ activist Jammi—you know, the one where he said trans women aren't men who became women, they're just women because they're women—is actually a circular argument. Since I didn't get much of an answer there, I decided to do a little digging online... and yeah, turns out that is indeed what you call a circular argument. So, my question is—since circular arguments tend to pop up in philosophy quite a bit—does that actually count as valid reasoning? Or is it just a logical dead end?☕

From Wikipedia : Quote
I guess I should probably start by saying that there isn't much to go on here—just a blank slate, really. It’s almost funny, in a way—how much weight we tend to put on a single word or a starting point, when sometimes there isn't actually anything there to begin with. Maybe it’s just a placeholder, or maybe I'm overthinking things—which, let's be honest, is kind of my default setting. Anyway, if there was supposed to be something more substantial behind this, I suppose I'm still waiting for it to show up.

Circular reasoning—or *circulus in probando*, if you’re feeling fancy—is basically that logical trap where your argument starts out by assuming exactly what it's trying to prove. It’s a bit of a loop, I guess. You end up using the conclusion as one of your premises, which means you aren't really moving the needle at all; you're just spinning in place. That said, I suppose a circular argument could technically be considered valid if both the conclusion and the premises happen to be true... though it doesn't really get you anywhere, does it? An argument built on this kind of mistake usually follows this sort of structure: The premise is that P is actually true—but only because of Q. Or maybe it’s just an illusion, I guess. It’s all tied up in how you look at Q, really. The premise here is that Q is actually caused by P—or at least, that's how it looks from where I'm sitting. I guess you could say it's all down to P, maybe. It's a bit of a stretch, perhaps, but there's a certain logic to it—if you look at it through a specific lens, anyway. Or maybe not. We'll see. P. conclusion: P is right. Link

I mean, I guess I could have just labeled the whole "Nein" directive an "insult" too—you know, under the logic that it’s basically telling men they actually need to start using their own brains for once—since that’s pretty much what it implies... anyway.
I guess we spend way too much time "thinking" with our heads instead of actually using our brains—if that makes any sense. I was just trying to replicate what I thought was the best approach, which is basically the idea that "thinking with your head" is synonymous with being a man. Or maybe that's just how I saw it at the time.
So, I guess it’s really up to Nathalie now—whether she wants to actually prove her point or just keep digging her heels in. It's all her call, really.

So, moving on—Sartre, who I guess you could call one of the heavyweights of French literature, shows up in that Nekrasov drama about the chanteur Gilbert Becaud...Nathalie, when that poet passed away, Desiree...)
He ended up on a blacklist labeled "individuals who should be executed for the greater good of America." When Becaud heard the news, he just leaned back against the wall—hands held high in the air, mind you—let out a laugh, and shouted: Go ahead—fire away.!
I mean, I have to say, I really dug that bit by Becaud—you know, how he took that whole Sartre thought and just flipped it into a complete joke.
I guess Sartre lost a little bit of my respect—not that I’ve actually sat down and read his stuff, mind you. I just know the general gist of his work, though... but honestly, I still think it's pretty cool how he turned down the Nobel Prize when they offered it to him. That was a bold move, I suppose.
It doesn't really matter how much weight Sartre actually put behind his words—maybe he just couldn't stand listening to Becaud's ballads. Instead of just saying, "I wish that guy would stop singing about Natalija," he had to make it wholeally philosophical, I guess.
He wrote: 'He needs to be liquidated for the good of France.' Maybe he was just being dramatic—I mean, it could have been a total exaggeration, I guess.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:It seems to me that people always respond to fear in the exact same way: Fight or flight.

As for what I’m actually afraid of? Well, I guess it's the sight of crosswinds hitting a jet stream.

😛

That isn't quite right; we're actually looking at two entirely distinct reactions here.

I prefer to engage through actual dialogue rather than commenting on YouTube clips.

Frankly, this feels more like a series of jabs than a genuine conversation, so I won't be participating further unless we can pivot toward a serious discussion.

lonetrucker4 said:The catch is, you'd probably have to be gay just to agree to marry you. 🐔

I mean, if that's the case, does that kind of make me gay too? 😁

Sam Martinez9 said:That isn't quite right; we're actually looking at two entirely distinct reactions here.

I prefer to engage through actual dialogue rather than commenting on YouTube clips.

Frankly, this feels more like a series of jabs than a genuine conversation, so I won't be participating further unless we can pivot toward a serious discussion.

Oh, I suppose you could say that, though I feel like we're talking about two completely different responses. But then again, it usually feels like it's either one or the other, since there doesn't seem to be a third option, which is why people tend to group them together.

The real point I'm trying to make is that, in my view, neither of these reactions necessarily implies any kind of hatred, even if that's how you're interpreting it.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Oh, I suppose you could say that, though I feel like we're talking about two completely different responses. But then again, it usually feels like it's either one or the other, since there doesn't seem to be a third option, which is why people tend to group them together.

The real point I'm trying to make is that, in my view, neither of these reactions necessarily implies any kind of hatred, even if that's how you're interpreting it.

Sam Martinez9 said:Have you ever actually stopped to consider what—and why—one feels hate? What is the actual root cause of it? How do people typically react when they are faced with fear, or with the things they are afraid of?

I'm not entirely sure how much of our cognitive process depends on testosterone levels. By that logic, would an astrophysicist like Mike Tyson be considered to have a testosterone deficiency simply because he devotes such a vast amount of his mental energy to astrophysics?

Fear is the catalyst for hate. We tend to loathe the things that frighten us. You see it even in families, where children harbor resentment toward an abusive parent simply because they are afraid. That "fight or flight" concept you mentioned... well, that's mostly applicable to animals. Humans often find themselves paralyzed in situations where fighting back or running away just isn't an option.

Sam Martinez9 said:Fear is the catalyst for hate. We tend to loathe the things that frighten us. You see it even in families, where children harbor resentment toward an abusive parent simply because they are afraid. That "fight or flight" concept you mentioned... well, that's mostly applicable to animals. Humans often find themselves paralyzed in situations where fighting back or running away just isn't an option.

Actually, I’d argue that animals also frequently find themselves trapped in those exact same positions where fighting or fleeing isn't an option. 🤔

To me, it feels like hatred is actually a reaction to a perceived threat, while fear is more like being paralyzed by that threat without having any answer at all. It’s almost as if hatred is the "fight" response and fear is the "flight" response, so I guess I'm not quite sure how you reached the conclusion that they are one and the same.

@Bolaji, we really need to consider that terms like 'transphobia' (along with all those other 'phobias'—homophobia, xenophobia, and my personal favorite, Islamophobia, lol...) are actually misnomers. We aren't talking about a clinical phobia in the medical sense, like arachnophobia or claustrophobia. The term was just coined that way to trigger a specific association, even if the connection isn't actually there. These are essentially 'activist' labels designed to shape perception. George Orwell would be proud of how they use word choice to influence the collective consciousness.

It’s clear this strategy is working on quite a few people in this thread. 😬 I'm looking at everyone who is so terrified of being labeled a 'phobic' of any kind that they preemptively shift their entire ideology just to align with the official progressive dogma.

lonegardener said:@Bolaji, we really need to consider that terms like 'transphobia' (along with all those other 'phobias'—homophobia, xenophobia, and my personal favorite, Islamophobia, lol...) are actually misnomers. We aren't talking about a clinical phobia in the medical sense, like arachnophobia or claustrophobia. The term was just coined that way to trigger a specific association, even if the connection isn't actually there. These are essentially 'activist' labels designed to shape perception. George Orwell would be proud of how they use word choice to influence the collective consciousness.

It’s clear this strategy is working on quite a few people in this thread. 😬 I'm looking at everyone who is so terrified of being labeled a 'phobic' of any kind that they preemptively shift their entire ideology just to align with the official progressive dogma.

I don't know about you, but I think one of my absolute biggest phobias would be any kind of contact with another man's genitals. If that were to happen, even by accident, I honestly think I'd spend the next three months scrubbing myself with industrial disinfectant and fishing in a lake just to feel clean again. So, in that very literal sense, the word 'phobia' is actually perfectly accurate.

On the flip side, I guess every other man feels like a bit of a threat; I think the first thing my brain does when I meet another guy is subconsciously assess whether I could actually take him in a fight if things ever went south. And it's not even a conscious thought, it's just this totally subconscious reflex.

Then again, when I see a woman for the first time, I think my brain's initial subconscious process is basically just wondering if I'd want to sleep with her or not. 🤷

Kenneth Cruz67 said:I don't know about you, but I think one of my absolute biggest phobias would be any kind of contact with another man's genitals. If that were to happen, even by accident, I honestly think I'd spend the next three months scrubbing myself with industrial disinfectant and fishing in a lake just to feel clean again. So, in that very literal sense, the word 'phobia' is actually perfectly accurate.

On the flip side, I guess every other man feels like a bit of a threat; I think the first thing my brain does when I meet another guy is subconsciously assess whether I could actually take him in a fight if things ever went south. And it's not even a conscious thought, it's just this totally subconscious reflex.

Then again, when I see a woman for the first time, I think my brain's initial subconscious process is basically just wondering if I'd want to sleep with her or not. 🤷

🤣 Well, in your case, "phobia" might actually be an understatement, lol. Personally, I’d probably call it a "strong aversion" or something along those lines.

lonegardener said:@Bolaji, we really need to consider that terms like 'transphobia' (along with all those other 'phobias'—homophobia, xenophobia, and my personal favorite, Islamophobia, lol...) are actually misnomers. We aren't talking about a clinical phobia in the medical sense, like arachnophobia or claustrophobia. The term was just coined that way to trigger a specific association, even if the connection isn't actually there. These are essentially 'activist' labels designed to shape perception. George Orwell would be proud of how they use word choice to influence the collective consciousness.

It’s clear this strategy is working on quite a few people in this thread. 😬 I'm looking at everyone who is so terrified of being labeled a 'phobic' of any kind that they preemptively shift their entire ideology just to align with the official progressive dogma.

Hold on, why exactly do you think this strategy is actually working?
From where I’m sitting, it isn’t; everything seems to be carrying on just as it always has (which, for the record, I’m fine with).

These topics and all these invented problems don't affect the vast majority of people, yet those of us who have spoken up find ourselves completely outside the horizon of anything that minority could possibly make sense of. Essentially, it’s just a tiny handful of people who are actually being targeted by this "strategy."

It seems quite obvious when you look at the bigger picture. Based on my own social circles, I don't see anyone preoccupied with people who have male bodies but identify as women. That doesn't even come up as a joke. In the usual way of things, people stay busy with standard male-female nonsense. Granted, they might not express open hostility now; in that sense, perhaps they’ve been tamed. But that isn't strictly due to some grand "strategy"—it's more that petty conformism is an inherent part of the "civilized" lifestyle. It doesn't just accompany that way of life; it *is* that way of life.

Regardless of all that banality, there's a telling sign: nobody on this forum uses nicknames like gay or lesbian. It’s only when you see handles like homosexual that you can actually start to worry about what's really going on here.

lonegardener said:@Bolaji, we really need to consider that terms like 'transphobia' (along with all those other 'phobias'—homophobia, xenophobia, and my personal favorite, Islamophobia, lol...) are actually misnomers. We aren't talking about a clinical phobia in the medical sense, like arachnophobia or claustrophobia. The term was just coined that way to trigger a specific association, even if the connection isn't actually there. These are essentially 'activist' labels designed to shape perception. George Orwell would be proud of how they use word choice to influence the collective consciousness.

It’s clear this strategy is working on quite a few people in this thread. 😬 I'm looking at everyone who is so terrified of being labeled a 'phobic' of any kind that they preemptively shift their entire ideology just to align with the official progressive dogma.

It isn't about some phantom phobia. It's about people trying to make life livable without feeling like society has collectively decided to cast them out.

ruggedraven36 said:It isn't about some phantom phobia. It's about people trying to make life livable without feeling like society has collectively decided to cast them out.

Manageable? I wonder if our standards have truly become that low?

And honestly, what does "manageable" even imply in this context?

Are we talking about protecting them, granting special rights, or suggesting they are somehow better, worse, or just different from everyone else?

Integrating people into society naturally brings both pros and cons. I guess the question is whether we should strive for inclusion if it means shielding them from negativity, perhaps even through force?

I’m a huge fan of Quincy, but since he’s currently being targeted by the transgender community, I was wondering how you view their criticisms and these attempts to cancel both Quincy and Dave Chappelle?

Here is a short clip that might be worth watching; it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on Quincy himself, as well as the reactions and viewpoints from the trans guests in the studio.



Who do you think is actually right here?

👍

Let me bring this back to center stage.

Look, if we’re going by that old saying, "If a grandmother had a penis, she'd be a grandfather," then obviously that one little detail is what makes the difference.

No single gender holds a monopoly on nobility... both sides are equally capable of being noble-minded.

From an evolutionary standpoint, differences exist, BUT those differences serve as advantages for both sexes.

A quick little allegory for you:

Think about choirs. You have all-male choirs and all-female choirs. You also have mixed choirs, but those are made up of male and female members—not some strange "mixed entities." That’s exactly why they sound so beautiful and harmonious.

Now, don't get me wrong, "mixed entities" can still make for world-class soloists.👍