• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Gender Identity

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 6:08 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,051
-->
There seems to be two problems with gender identity, first is the erosion of traditional gender identities that seems to be part of the current extreme left narrative which, paradoxically, is combined with an explosion of possible gender identities and the importance of those gender identities being acknowledged and represented. Personally as I see it gender identity is derived from gender roles, the expectations that society imposes upon us and thus serve as qualifiers of those identities, in other words to be a “man” or a “woman” one must accept the burden of responsibility that comes with that role before they’re entitled to the privilege of that identity. Now if we can understand and define what those responsibilities are we can work out how the non-binary genders fit into this framework and that I think will alleviate (or at least explain) a lot of the issues people have with non-binary gender identities.

Before I continue let me preface this: being male does not make someone a man, being female does not make someone a woman, when I talk about the responsibilities of being a man or woman I am talking about ideals to aspire to, or not, one may not wish to be manly or womanly.

Traditionally the responsibilities of a man are to be strong (both physically and emotionally), to be a provider and a protector. When the call to arms goes out it is the man who answers, when the ship is sinking it’s the men who stand aside while the women and children board the lifeboats, if a woman should ask a man for assistance in a physical matter he is obligated by his pride as a man to offer service (be she in danger or simply has a burden to carry) within reason of course. These are the sort of things that are qualifiers of being a man, to ignore a call to arms is cowardly and a man is not a coward, likewise not to let the women and children go first, and when assistance is asked of a man he can refuse but it is a matter of ego, a man can refuse but he doesn’t want to because despite the responsibilities a man is proud of being a man.

Now not all guys are strong or brave or whatever but that’s not the point, the point is that this is an ideal to aspire to and identify with and that’s what makes a gender identity more than just an arbitrary label, by looking like a man, acting and talking like a man and calling myself a man I am signalling my adherence to the ideals of manhood, that I am bound by the responsibilities of being a man even if those binds are self-imposed. Truth be told I’m not actually very strong or particularly brave and so you could say I’m not much of a man and accordingly that is how society treats me, little is asked of me and I am given little respect, it’s really a “you get out what you put in” sort of deal.

Now I could go over the responsibilities of being a woman but that’s not really necessary for the point I’m trying to make, instead I simply want you to understand that how people feel about gender identities and how people adhere to those gender identities is greatly influenced by the roles of those gender identities and the responsibilities that are inherent to those roles. Put simply if the ship is sinking and the call goes out “women and children first” how does identifying as straight/gay/bi/asexual or one’s position on the masculine/effeminate spectrum affect that? I think for the most part this isn’t an issue, a gay man is still a man, an effeminate gay man is still a man and accordingly they should be afforded the proverbial “man card”, does anyone else watch The Venture Bros? Remember that scene where the Sphinx crew are going to a strip club in their downtime and they invite the flamboyantly gay Shore Leave, not because they expect that he wants to go (he is very gay) but because he is “one of the lads” and it would be wrong not to invite him.

Indeed Shore Leave is a great example of what I’m talking about, he is very gay but most definitely an adherent to the ideals of being a man, it’s not something exclusive to heterosexuality. If the call went out “women and children first” you would expect him to be standing aside with the other men because that’s consistent with his character. I think all but the most extreme right wingers are okay with sharing the “man” gender identity with someone like Shore Leave indeed I think many would be willing to applaud him as an exemplar of a man.

Likewise I don’t think most men have any issue with women who are legitimately manly, I’ll admit there’s a certain degree of feeling emasculated by being in the presence of a woman who is more manly than oneself but there’s no resentment behind that feeling, just a little shame and jealously. A woman need not be gay or identify as a man to be manly or even unattractive, indeed being manly can be an attractive trait for a woman (think of the sort of characters played by Sigourney Weaver) just as emotional intelligence and the ability to be nurturing can be attractive traits in a man. Instead I think where people take issue is when someone declares that their gender identity is opposite to their actual gender because they’re wearing pants or a skirt (whether they’re gay or not simply doesn’t matter).

If someone wants to be called a man but isn’t willing to act the part or only wants to be a fair-weather man then to anyone who values the meaning of being a man (the actual identity of the gender identity as opposed to it just being a meaningless label) these people are detestable. Hence why pansexuals in particular face a lot of hostility and I’ll include myself in that, I’ve entertained the notion, I’ve considered it and I’m still not okay with it, because I think when someone gets to redefine themselves on a whim it detracts from the meaning of having a gender identity at all. However there is an important caveat to this, if someone wants to be androgynous and identify with neither gender identity that’s fine, that doesn’t cause any issues and as I said earlier it’s a “you get out what you put in” sort of thing and if someone wants to be a neither that’s fine, just don’t expect people to pay much respect to your non-identity.

HOWEVER if someone is androgynous and embodies both the ideals of being a man and a woman then that’s worthy of praise and respect, just as a woman who is brave and strong or a man who is emotionally intelligent and nurturing has elevated themselves above being just a man or just a woman someone who is androgynous who takes on the responsibilities of being a man and a woman is something ascendant. Furthermore we could take this into stranger territory, if gender identities are essentially based on the responsibilities of that gender’s role we could create other roles with other responsibilities, indeed this is how identities work in general if you want to identify as something you need to meet the qualifiers or otherwise the identity has no meaning.

Feel free to make up whatever gender identities you want, so long as you give them meaningful qualifiers and don’t expect to receive respect for adhering to that identity unless there’s associated ideals/responsibilities to adhere to.

Now because I'm sure this will be the first thing people will want to talk about I think the traditional womanly ideal is obviously motherly stuff just the manly ideal is fatherly stuff (granted the examples of going to war and going down with the ship are at the most extreme end) so being nurturing and patient and reliable and having the skills (cooking, sewing, first aid) of a traditional matronly figure. Of course that's the traditional ideal (how things were for hundreds of years before technology radically changed everything) now days most people don't darn their socks and nor should they, that would just be silly, and I think adherence to strict gender roles has gone out of fashion, these days it's far more acceptable for a woman to have manly skills and interests and for men to have the same.

Being a good housekeeper and motherly figure (even if one doesn't have children) doesn't seem as glamorous as being the protector and the provider but the thing is there's very little opportunity for guys to be manly these days. I mean I earn a decent wage but not enough that I could be the sole breadwinner for a family, not easily anyway, instead these days it's the norm for both partners to work and contribute more or less equally to the household's finances. Likewise the world isn't a perfectly safe place and I'm a lot more comfortable walking around alone at night than I imagine a woman would be but that's not because I'm too big and tough to mess with, I'm just not of interest to most would be attackers (I don't wear anything worth being mugged for) and if I am mugged it'll probably be at gunpoint at which point how big and tough I supposedly am is completely meaningless.

I think being a man isn't really a point of pride anymore indeed it barely means anything anymore, the only skills that remain manly are those that the vast majority of women simply have no interest in doing and like a lot of men I wonder if I only qualify as being a man because the bar has been brought so low that being male is practically the only qualifier left and even that is debatable.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 6:08 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,051
-->
And how are you going to implement this absolute hegemony over people's identities?

Make everyone wear form cealing boiler suits, shave their heads, forbid them from using gendered pronouns and send all the dissidents to gulags and concentration camps?
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Yesterday 10:08 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,075
-->
To me, I act as the ideal female archetype I have in my mind. I know what femininity is. Just as I do masculinity. But to embody the perfect female type I must be more intimate and familiar with it to manifest it. As it is accumulated the experience of what something is in every representation creates a core representation. And object perceived by all angles and dimensions. All females encountered are angles of the female archetype.

So it looks at the self. Who am I on the inside? If I identify as masculine it is dominating and in control. But I do not feel that way. I am more submissive. Being so falls in line with the female archetype.

people like me is the reason they say: There are no real girls on the internet.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 2:38 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,671
-->
Gulag for gender prescriptivism. Wokescold for binary pronouns and ban from sex for a number of days equal to the difference between body hair count and human average.
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Today 2:08 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,405
-->
Imo, there's really no erosion of traditional gender identities, because people have no idea what "traditional gender identities" is in the first place. There can't be an erosion of something if you haven't an idea of what the thing is in the first place, or if we can't agree with what that really is.

Gender imo is the culture of the sexes that arises from the segregation of roles for adult male and females, that's all. Someone's gotta have to plump out the babies, and naturally, the female would be the caregiver, because during the 9 months of pregnancy, the female would have to rest somewhat, not going to work, while the male is. And for the next 3~5 years, the mother would be caring for the baby, until it can be let off somewhat and do things on his or her own. Consequently, society organically and structurally gears itself into what we call the "traditional gender roles". I dunno why people have this notion that there's an 'erosion'. In most cases, like 99.99%, the female gives birth, not the male. Sometimes the mother or the female parent can be the breadwinner, but that doesn't mean suddenly there's an entire shift in society where the adult males would be caregivers. Doesn't work like that.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 6:08 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,051
-->
Imo, there's really no erosion of traditional gender identities, because people have no idea what "traditional gender identities" is in the first place. There can't be an erosion of something if you haven't an idea of what the thing is in the first place, or if we can't agree with what that really is.
In other words you refuse to acknowledge anything I wrote and you're dismissing it all as fake news.

Wow that's uh, that's... fuck you?

I dunno why people have this notion that there's an 'erosion'. In most cases, like 99.99%, the female gives birth, not the male. Sometimes the mother or the female parent can be the breadwinner, but that doesn't mean suddenly there's an entire shift in society where the adult males would be caregivers. Doesn't work like that.
How fastidiously empirical of you, males do the impregnating and females do the gestating, that's it, shows over, go home everyone nothing to see here.
BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!?!

Yes you have accurately defined "gender" and I absolutely agree that "gender identities" are in large part derived from gender (I mean obviously it's right there in the name) but you're totally disregarding the "identity" for you see a gender identity isn't just a matter of biology it's a matter of culture, dare I say ANTHROPOLOGY. You see humans are human no matter where in the world they're from, the same biological impregnation/gestation duality applies regardless whether someone is American, African, Russian, Australian or Czechoslovakian. But the culture is different and accordingly the gender identities are different, people are subject to different expectations and those expectations may differ based on the region and age group, so of course giving a conclusive specific definition of "traditional gender identities" is practically impossible but to deny that they exist is only to profess your own utter ignorance.

Now I actually don't think you're ignorant, I think you're disingenuous and sophistic.
Which is so, soo much worse.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 6:08 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,051
-->
Gulag for gender prescriptivism. Wokescold for binary pronouns and ban from sex for a number of days equal to the difference between body hair count and human average.
Define trolling for me.

Generally I define it as adding nothing of value to a discussion and participating only to make fun at the expense of the other participants but I'd like to hear your take on it.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Yesterday 10:08 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,075
-->
It is hard to take gender identity seriously when one does not look like the gender they wish to portray. Identity crises are about acting the way you look. Do I act in accordance with how I look? To be yourself you need to look as you are on the inside. Projecting into the person in the mirror. That is why we have avatars on this forum. Looking at your avatar is like looking in a mirror. That is the you you want to look like. That is your identity here. People treat you how you look and the expectations society places on you is a meatspace thing. You cannot change gender in the real world. That does not mean you cannot change radically in appearance. It is just easier to do it with an avatar. Identity problems diminish when looks are not a factor.

 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 6:08 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,051
-->
4brz9alkgj441.jpg

You cannot change gender in the real world. That does not mean you cannot change radically in appearance. It is just easier to do it with an avatar. Identity problems diminish when looks are not a factor.
Indeed and to be perfectly clear just because I'm saying there are traditional ideals of being manly or ladylike doesn't mean that being male or female means one ought to be judged by those ideals, if you're born male and you want portray yourself in a ladylike manner then do it! As I keep reiterating to people I'm a transhumanist, I am absolutely on board with people wanting to be something other than what they were born as or at least appeared to be born as, I want to take my brain out and put it in a robot for fucksake what an utter hypocrite I'd be if I took issue with people being transgender or yes even furry.

Likewise I don't take issue with people wanting to have non-hetero-normative gender identities, I'm a Tim Curry fan, I was dancing along to the Rocky Horror Pictureshow when I was faaaar too young to be watching (or maybe that was the right time?) the crux of my OP is that I support the identification and recognition of gender identities (the more the merrier, makes the world more interesting) with the stipulation that said gender identity cannot be a subversion of the entire point of having a gender identity.

An identity must have qualifiers or else it has not meaning, that is an axiomatic truth. If I were to call myself a furry but in no way participated in the community or played the part or signaled it in some way (i.e. having a furry avatar) then it would be a lie wouldn't it?

That's my problem with pansexuality, it's a subversion of having a gender identity, I can understand identifying with being bisexual or asexual or or even something completely non-gender related like being left or right aligned politically or being a transhumanist or whatever. But your identity can't be "I make it up as I go".
Does that not make sense?

Believe it or not I'm trying to make peace here, I have right wing friends and I don't agree with them but I try to understand their point of view and the perceived degradation and homogonization of culture is something that's frequently brought up which always struck me as strange given that the left is supposedly all about diversity and freedom of expression.

Isn't it?
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 2:38 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,671
-->
Troll
/trɒl,trəʊl/
verb

Deciding what people's beliefs are, then
1602761169320.png

when they embrace the caricature you assigned them.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 6:08 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,051
-->
What does pikachu face mean?
Talk to me Hado, use your words, I want to have a serious discussion with you.

So far you've jeered me without making any actual arguments, at least none that I can discern, perhaps pikachu face has some profound contextual meaning that I'm not aware of?
What does this say about you if you will not have a serious discussion with me?

I suppose (and I am literally trying to read between the lines here so forgive me if I get it wrong) that you're saying I'm trying trying to impose flanderized gender identity ideals upon people, well I'm not and I've repeatedly said I'm not and if I use the most extreme examples to try and illustrate what gender identities are it is only because I have to, because I'm talking about something that varies wildly by region and demographic, in which commonality only exists in those most extreme examples.

Fundamentally I think you're accusing me of having some ulterior agenda, that I am arguing from some disingenuous position, if you think I don't actually care about diversity or people's right to be identified as they wish and have that identity be acknowledged and respected, then make your case.

C'mon call me out, do you have a point to make or not?
 

Muteki

Existence reflects upon itself
Local time
Yesterday 9:08 PM
Joined
Aug 31, 2020
Messages
44
-->
I find it difficult to bring myself to care about such preconceived identity frameworks in the first place.

Gender is often another of one of those facets people like forming their personalities around, both imposed by and self imposed by any various demographics.
It's a very "human" way of thinking, to follow whatever those social norms are, feel accepted, maintain some vague concept of community or vain recognition and some will follow such conventions without so much as a real second thought.

Granted, as you say the original framework of how genders were perceived has changed radically. People began fabricating knew roles, continue to create even more confusing sub-groups, and convince themselves they must adhere to this whatever thing either they or someone else supposes is the "correct" way to be for X group. Throw in pack mentality and the internet and now you have a recipe for a chaotic cesspool of uncertainty, incidental emotional manipulation, group hostility, identity crisis and so on.

I get the feeling I could be forgetting to adjust for another aspect here, but honestly it's too ridiculous for me to even take seriously.
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Yesterday 9:08 PM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
That Carl Jung's idea that we all contain both the archetypal masculine and feminine within ourselves is accurate is fairly plain to me, as I can easily detect elements of both within myself. To me, at least, it makes sense that this should be the case since our literal composition is a combination of both male and female DNA, the sources of which are themselves composed of both.

Yet the fact remains that we are born with a definite biological sex, and usually included in the package is an aligning temperamental disposition.
Because women are somewhat debilitated by pregnancy and childbirth, and because the child is then dependent on the mother specifically for a while, men naturally are called upon to protect/provide for women during this time, protecting/providing for their needs while they are inhibited from doing so themselves. This much, at least, is a fundamental distinction in the roles of men and women that is highly difficult to circumvent.

Beyond this, most societies have extrapolated the responsibility of men to care for women to be general, and it is here that we start to run into problems.
Because we all contain both masculine and feminine archetypes, it is entirely possible for a biological male or female person to identify themselves more closely with the traits of the opposite sex.
While I would suppose that a balance between the two, or rather a complete access to both, is the ideal, I see no reason to think that there's anything inherently wrong with identifying primarily with the archetypal traits of the opposite sex. I, personally, being biologically male, tend to lean slightly feminine in my approach to life, and to be attracted to women who display a similar lean towards the archetypal masculine, and I have seen plenty of people in similar situations who lead perfectly healthy and even incredible lives.
But while I believe this kind of identification is perfectly acceptable, I don't think that it should change the way we view ourselves on a biological level. It seems to me that having all men who lean feminine and all women who lean masculine change their gender identification accordingly serves to solidify the stereotypical images of men and women by eliminating the natural variation that are the cause for the complaint against considering gender biologically fixed.

In essence, I think it's a silly solution to the issue because its way harder than the obvious and harmless approach of realizing and accepting that people have the potential for expression of both archetypically masculine and feminine traits, and that it is perfectly acceptable to do so, and does not make you less of or a worse member of your sex.

Why the solution to "I'm male but I exhibit what I am told are feminine traits" is "I must actually be female" and not "these traits must not be as fixed by gender as they are claimed to be" frankly baffles me, especially when what is being decried is the overly-rigid definitions of gender. I think looser definitions of gender should be allowance of differentiation within the male and female groups, not denial of the biological fact that the two groups are separate and do exist.

Good gravy, these get long fast. Hope that's digestible.
 

Muteki

Existence reflects upon itself
Local time
Yesterday 9:08 PM
Joined
Aug 31, 2020
Messages
44
-->
Mine and Antares posts more or less complete my overall reasoning.
When you consider neuroplasticity and perceive others based on their individual merits, many social constructs like this easily fall to the wayside.

If only everyone could be such as flexible, we'd hardly have a reason to discuss it.
 

onesteptwostep

logos, life, love, longsuffering
Local time
Today 2:08 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
3,405
-->

Imo, there's really no erosion of traditional gender identities, because people have no idea what "traditional gender identities" is in the first place. There can't be an erosion of something if you haven't an idea of what the thing is in the first place, or if we can't agree with what that really is.
In other words you refuse to acknowledge anything I wrote and you're dismissing it all as fake news.

Wow that's uh, that's... fuck you?

I dunno why people have this notion that there's an 'erosion'. In most cases, like 99.99%, the female gives birth, not the male. Sometimes the mother or the female parent can be the breadwinner, but that doesn't mean suddenly there's an entire shift in society where the adult males would be caregivers. Doesn't work like that.
How fastidiously empirical of you, males do the impregnating and females do the gestating, that's it, shows over, go home everyone nothing to see here.
BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!?!

Yes you have accurately defined "gender" and I absolutely agree that "gender identities" are in large part derived from gender (I mean obviously it's right there in the name) but you're totally disregarding the "identity" for you see a gender identity isn't just a matter of biology it's a matter of culture, dare I say ANTHROPOLOGY. You see humans are human no matter where in the world they're from, the same biological impregnation/gestation duality applies regardless whether someone is American, African, Russian, Australian or Czechoslovakian. But the culture is different and accordingly the gender identities are different, people are subject to different expectations and those expectations may differ based on the region and age group, so of course giving a conclusive specific definition of "traditional gender identities" is practically impossible but to deny that they exist is only to profess your own utter ignorance.

Now I actually don't think you're ignorant, I think you're disingenuous and sophistic.
Which is so, soo much worse.

Honestly speaking I didn't even read the OP because tldr.

Also I did not deny gender roles.. read a bit more carefully. Shouting out "ignorance!" isn't a very good way to forward your ideas ~.~

My point is that there isn't an erosion like you seemingly emphasize. For the most part, females will be caregivers, and males will be the one working their asses off to make ends meet. Maybe 25% of the families in western, modern societies have females as breadwinners, (it's most likely much lower), but that still doesn't point to an 'erosion'.

The word "erosion" connotates that "traditional" roles are taking damage of some sort, as if it's an institution which must be challenged or morphed into something more progressive.

That in itself is just a projection of the ones who want to progress those notions. There isn't an erosion, just a mere change in society due to the advances of capitalism, which has alleviated the females from their roles because capitalism allowed for the relaxation of labor.
 

dair

brackish
Local time
Yesterday 10:08 PM
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
3,732
-->
You've been doing a lot of that "you didn't answer me to my liking RAWR fuck you and all your descendants." lately. Seems rather tiring to me. You know that saying about flies and vinegar. You can bully people into engaging with you, but you're unlikely to get the input you want.

Anyway, you should totally get a cat. :cheerleaderkitties:
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 6:08 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,051
-->
I'm not trying to pressure people into giving me the answers I want, I'm quite happy for people to disagree with me and explain why, that's good constructive discourse.

But onstep was being a sophist and Hado was being a troll and if people want to pick fights with me rather than engage in a constructive debate then I'll oblige them.

I'm just being accommodating :D
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Yesterday 9:08 PM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
I think being a man isn't really a point of pride anymore
I agree that embodiment of masculine or feminine ideals (or, dare we say, both) is worthy of praise/respect regardless of the gender of the embodying person, but if this is what your espousing, what's there to mourn in the fall of arbitrary pride in being or embodying one gender as opposed to the other?

If someone is strong or courageous or very genuinely and openly affectionate or a good caregiver contrary to their gender's norm we shouldn't consider them less of a man or woman for it.
For both women and men, competence is the measure of worth. If you are highly competent you deserve respect, and that's the end of it.
To be a man is to be competent. To be a woman is to be competent. Both essentially just mean to be mature. If men and women tend overall towards different areas of competence, that doesn't mean those who don't follow the trend are less mature members of their sex for it.

To be a man is to be a competent male, whatever your competence is, and likewise to be a woman. The overall trend does mean that we will tend to think of the two as being different, but that tendency should never drive us to shun those who move against the grain.
Thus we should not take pride in embodying a gender's ideal image for the sake of the gender, but for the sake of the ideal.
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Yesterday 9:08 PM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
You know that saying about flies and vinegar.
But that saying is wrong. You catch absolutely zero flies of any kind with honey, and potentially dozens of fruit flies with just a little bit of vinegar.

And on that subject, I was watching a pot the other day, and you know what it did?
It boiled.

...

So yeah.
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Yesterday 9:08 PM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
Before I continue let me preface this: being male does not make someone a man, being female does not make someone a woman, when I talk about the responsibilities of being a man or woman I am talking about ideals to aspire to, or not, one may not wish to be manly or womanly.
Ok, wait, I forgot you said it yourself earlier in the post. So what exactly is the issue?
If you're trying to get at that there seems to be a general lack of mature competence (including and maybe especially typically masculine competence) among men, I would agree.
These days if you display masculine competence as a man you're looked down on as promoting a tyrannical, power based, malevolent patriarchy, which is clearly not true, and definitely a horrible thing to tell men trying to be competent in the way they best can.
And at the same time, men being more overtly feminine may be praised by the same people condemning masculinity as tyranny, but many people of both sexes still look down on this, possibly in part because it might be visible to men and women alike that you're nature is much more masculine than you're being forced to act, and they find this suppression of the self unattractive (which it definitely is, as it inhibits competence).

So really the only people might be benefiting from this are men who actually are more typically feminine, but even that's still a maybe, since people who still respect masculine ideals may mistake you for one of the forced-into-submission, or just generally grow to dislike all effeminate men as a sort of overcompensation for the widespread challenging of the masculine ideal.

Anyway, since you say yourself that all that matters is embodying an ideal, either way, when you say you think being a man is losing its meaning is this what you're getting at?
If no, what?
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 6:08 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,051
-->
Honestly speaking I didn't even read the OP because tldr.
Cool I'm just going to ignore everything you write then.

Thus we should not take pride in embodying a gender's ideal image for the sake of the gender, but for the sake of the ideal.
Makes sense to me.
Once we start saying being manly isn't exclusive to being male and being ladylike isn't exclusive to being female the whole gender aspect seems kind of redundant doesn't it?

Thank you I appreciate that you're taking this seriously.

Anyway, since you say yourself that all that matters is embodying an ideal, either way, when you say you think being a man is losing its meaning is this what you're getting at?
If no, what?
Oh yes I like you, you ask difficult questions, you strike at the heart of things.

Truth be told I'm still trying to figure that out myself, I think traditionally (as opposed to currently) people could identify with their gender and there were very clear qualifiers for that identification. On one hand that was good, it gave people a clear understanding of what they should aspire to and a strong basis of confidence for those who did so successfully. On the other hand people don't all fit the same mold, the lack of other ideals to aspire to created a clear but also quite brutal hierarchy, there were the jocks and nerds and woe betide you if you were a nerd.

I think more archetypes is better but I am admittedly torn between the appeal of diversity (making the world a more interesting place) and having clear ideals to aspire to. This is due in part to the traditional male ideals being somewhat antiquated, we no longer live in a world where being strong or tough or stoic serves much of a purpose and that saddens me. I feel like I don't measure up to the "real men" of prior generations and that I never will because the world has moved on, like I've lost my heritage.

Sure I can go to the gym and build muscle and learn martial arts and bushcraft and blacksmithing and all that really traditionally manly stuff, but it sees so infantile doesn't it, like I'm just play acting being a man not actually being one.

I don't think we should go back to an earlier more reductive culture where there's few archetypes to identify with but I don't want to throw away the old ones either, I truly think more is better and even if gender isn't really relevant to identity anymore can we still have gender identities?
I want to be proud of what I am, if only a little.

Also fuck pansexuals, trying to subvert the very notion of having identity yeah real fucking clever you deconstructionists, like absurdists trying to come up with their own original version of absurdism because they're so fucking desperate to be unique.
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Yesterday 9:08 PM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
Once we start saying being manly isn't exclusive to being male and being ladylike isn't exclusive to being female the whole gender aspect seems kind of redundant doesn't it?
Well, not entirely. There are still some biologically based gender roles specifically as I talked about regarding childbirth, though admittedly even some of those are less fixed now.
I think more archetypes is better but I am admittedly torn between the appeal of diversity (making the world a more interesting place) and having clear ideals to aspire to.
This is due in part to the traditional male ideals being somewhat antiquated, we no longer live in a world where being strong or tough or stoic serves much of a purpose and that saddens me.
I think when it comes to archetypes there are exactly two in regards to gender, and that the variation is a consequence of manifesting both to different degrees. I would also say that the ultimate idea is the complete embodiment of both ideals whether simultaneously (not sure what that would look like) or being able to move freely from one to the other.

As for strength serving a purpose, surely we can say that strength is not purely physical. Strength of mind has always been a valuable trait, but it was never so widely required as it is now. Our societies are a firestorm of complex technical issues mixed with an infuriating sea of emotional conflict as the feeling-inclined reject the thinkers as heartless bastards incapable of understanding the weight of the issues and the thinking-inclined dismiss the feelers as empty-headed fools.
The person with the fortitude of mind to actually develop both sides of themselves, even if they still retain a strong preference one way or other, is incredibly valuable for their ability to communicate with and bring to reconciliation groups that seem fundamentally opposed.
And I think the simple endurance of the emotional and intellectual strains we deal with is a strength itself.

They way I personally view strength is essentially encapsulated in the phrase "steel yourself". It's potentially physical, sure but even then it includes a psychological element and all of it is basically endurance of the trials we face. Our trials are seldom of physical strength, but who can doubt that we have trials nonetheless?
Endurance, perseverance, getting back up every time you're knocked down by life itself, being willing to face your own prejudice and folly, and change the way you see the world and act in it, over and over and over again, that's the strength I see in the hero's of our world.
To face that with courage, to face the world itself, that is our calling. The one who can face the world with nobility, standing tall and without fear.

That is the man of our age.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Yesterday 10:08 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,075
-->
The problem with being the ideal man or ideal woman is not the expectations. It is perfectly fine to be the ideal. But not everyone can achieve the ideal. And that is fine too. The problem is with judgments we place upon each other. That it is wrong to be or act a certain way. Now we should all respect each other's boundaries but tolerance for who a person is should be considered as well.

Where some people feel like they do not fit into the ideal is of course what we are talking about. According to the ideal boys and girls play with different kinds of toys. This has been shown to be natural and inside the norm. The femininity of items and masculinity of items follows a curve. Girls like pretty things is not a controversy. But what if boys like pretty things? Given an option of feminine and masculine item boys like items that you can be rough with not things to be handled with care. Boys break things is the simple reasoning. They choose on average masculine items. Boys that choose feminine items take care of them. Find them delicate. And keep them safe.

Now when approaching gender we have to say there is overlap and extremes between what is typified of the genders. It is in the mind so to say. It is a temperament. Identifying with the opposite gender one imagines to be the opposite gender. Identifying with one's own gender alienates oneself from the opposite gender seeing them as other, not fully self. A Hypermasculine man may see women as other because they only see themselves as a Man. They are alienated from Woman. The same for Woman being hyperfeminine being alienated from Man.

Alienation occurs because at the extremes men and women are unable to conceptualize how the other thinks. These men can't understand women and these women can't understand men. Men idealize what men are and want to be men. But in the case of Gender identity, some men idealize women and want to be more like them because they understand them. The more is understood the more the opposite gender will be idealized.

Idealizing does not necessarily mean one is transgendered. It is all in the mind, not the genitals. I want to be in the mind of the opposite gender. Because it seems so much more interesting than mine. I do not wish to be alienated from it. I do not care about the expectations of others what a man or woman should be. Those are stereotypes from alienated individuals. I just want to be in the mind of the feminine. And whatever thinking/preferences that entails.
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Yesterday 9:08 PM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
According to the ideal boys and girls play with different kinds of toys.
Important point of clarification: This is not the ideal I'm talking about. What you're describing here is the general temperamental trend. To some degree you can say it is the stereotype. But it should not be considered the ideal. The ideals are the manifestations of the archetypal masculine and feminine, which, I'll emphasize again, are both present in everyone.

Also, I am not espousing cross-gender identification, as I think it's clear that gender is biologically fixed. As I said earlier,
Why the solution to "I'm male but I exhibit what I am told are feminine traits" is "I must actually be female" and not "these traits must not be as fixed by gender as they are claimed to be" frankly baffles me
I am, rather, advocating the removal of any standard of masculinity or femininity that is not based either in biological fact or on maturity and competence. I'm not even claiming that one must embody the masculine or feminine ideal (the archetype) to be considered masculine or feminine. As far as I'm concerned, to be a man or a woman means to be mature, to be aiming at the ideals. Which archetypal ideal you emulate more is completely inconsequential to whether you should be respected as a man or woman. Any embodiment of the ideals is worthy of respect, is a mark of maturity, is what makes the difference between a male and a man, a female and a woman.

And the ultimate ideal is to realize that you contain the potential to manifest both ideals within yourself. The hypermasculine man who cannot understand women also cannot fully understand himself. Try as he might, no amount of manifesting the masculine ideal will erase the fact that he contains the feminine as well.

The only reason anyone should be considered a lesser member of their gender is if they exhibit no ideal at all. If you are not even trying to aim at the ideals, if you're just sitting around being pathetic, then, and only then, you deserve to be berated for your failure to be a man or a woman, because it just means that you are failing to be mature.

Your concern that men and women fail to respect one another or those of their own who pursue the opposite ideal is fair, but ever so easily solve if we just teach our children (and everyone else) that both archetypes are present in everyone and that to pursue either is laudable. We should teach that both sides need to be developed to be a really complete human being, but that to prefer one or another is fine, and that the important thing to understand is that just because you favor one ideal does not mean that the those who favor the other are wrong, and just because you favor the ideal typical of your gender does not mean the atypical are wrong, or in any way lesser than you in terms of the gender they are.
In all cases, seeking to expand one's sense of self by exploring the less expressed archetype should be fully and totally encouraged. We need people who are capable of understanding each other, and for that we need people who are capable of understanding themselves.
 

dair

brackish
Local time
Yesterday 10:08 PM
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
3,732
-->
You know that saying about flies and vinegar.
But that saying is wrong. You catch absolutely zero flies of any kind with honey, and potentially dozens of fruit flies with just a little bit of vinegar.

And on that subject, I was watching a pot the other day, and you know what it did?
It boiled.

...

So yeah.

Wow Antares. You're so smart. The real mvp.

I had no idea that idioms could be technically incorrect. I've even caught flies with vinegar mixtures before and somehow just failed to make the connection. You're doing the lord's work. I'm in awe of your wisdom.
 

dair

brackish
Local time
Yesterday 10:08 PM
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
3,732
-->
Also fuck pansexuals, trying to subvert the very notion of having identity yeah real fucking clever you deconstructionists, like absurdists trying to come up with their own original version of absurdism because they're so fucking desperate to be unique.

Do you know what a pansexual is?

As a term it's basically used to communicate that someone's sexuality or gender identity is irrelevant to their attractiveness to the person identifying as such. The clearest example would be someone who, for simplicity's sake, might identify as bisexual to normie morons, but also has attraction to trans folk or nonbinaries or genderqueer, and that sets them outside of a strict bisexual definition. It's simply a more precise term, there's no reason to tantrum over it.


You two are just inventing a bunch of standards (or more egoistically 'ideals') with which to judge yourself better than others imo. It's pretty weak.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Yesterday 10:08 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,075
-->
Gender is biological in both the body and brain. I was just trying to explain for myself what cog was getting at about embodying an archetype. Specifically the opposite archetype. Why do I have a fox girl avatar? Is it because I am a girl in real life? No, it is because male avatars do not appeal to me. When I connect my avatar to what I write I am female. The way I look must match to how I express myself. So the avatar is projecting how I sound on the inside when I write. It conveys a tone, Avatar + writing.

Guys that have guy avatars feel like their avatars when writing. The only male avatar I've had was commander Data from Star Trek.



I like to be as neutral as possible and data just seems to convey me. But it is because data is a certain type of male. And my avatar currently is a certain type of female.

Fox girl is pretty but not Hot.



What I say will be taken a certain kind of way because of my avatar. Imagine me writing all this with a Hot avatar. It would just not be me. I am cute, not hot.



I am a certain way. I want to be treated in a certain way. I want others to see me a certain way. In terms of gender, look at the Avatar. In real life or online.
 

Daddy

Evil Jew
Local time
Today 12:08 AM
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
124
-->
I don't know, arguing that gender identity is basically boiled down to gender roles seems pretty misleading. I think most would agree that people have a nature and can be nurtured; a gender role can just be a natural extension of someone's nature or it can be more of a nurtured role. But that doesn't nullify the idea of there being a nature to begin with; and I think that's basically gender identity, even if that's not a logically satisfying answer.
 

Daddy

Evil Jew
Local time
Today 12:08 AM
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
124
-->
Of course, I don't disagree with your assessment that if someone claims a gender, they kind of do have to live up to that role or on the surface it seems kind of meaningless. So I don't know, maybe we're not in disagreement anyway.
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Yesterday 9:08 PM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
Wow Antares. You're so smart. The real mvp.


I had no idea that idioms could be technically incorrect. I've even caught flies with vinegar mixtures before and somehow just failed to make the connection. You're doing the lord's work. I'm in awe of your wisdom.
Yes, thank you. But please, don't gaze upon my splendor too long, the brilliance of my egotism has been known to be blinding.

I was trying to sound pedantic on purpose, though, as a joke.

I mean I am curious why you would use an idiom that is incorrect to the degree that the opposite of its claim is true — personally I avoid this one for that reason.

But hey, if people understand what you mean, what's the problem? It's just a personal call for me. And anyway it's obviously true that being nice to people tends to produce better results than being caustic, so it's not as though you weren't making a fair point.

I mean, look, clearly I understood: I'm here trying to catch flies with honey instead of vinegar.

Really, it was a jest on my part, no more.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Yesterday 10:08 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,075
-->
I think most would agree that people have a nature and can be nurtured;

Yes, there is more than one way to be male or female (gender expression).

Our nature comes first.
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Yesterday 9:08 PM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
You two are just inventing a bunch of standards (or more egoistically 'ideals') with which to judge yourself better than others imo. It's pretty weak.

I think I have made abundantly clear that I am in favor of removing any and all standards besides human competence and whatever remains biologically fixed in people. That's fewer standards, not more. And competence isn't a standard of our invention. It's simply the only useful way of determining people's relative value to humanity, and the way not only we humans naturally order ourselves, but also animals down to f-ing lobsters, who we split with evolutionarily before there were trees. Competence hierarchy is no construction of mine. It's not even a construction of humans.

Nor am I the originator of the idea of the masculine and feminine archetypes. I did cite Carl Jung for that the moment I first mentioned it. If you're telling me you're prepared to offer a refutation of him on that I'm certainly open to hearing it.
 

dair

brackish
Local time
Yesterday 10:08 PM
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
3,732
-->
While this is a typology forum, typology is bubblegum pop science at best. Jung is a mystic. I'm not interested in mystics, especially outdated ones.
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Yesterday 9:08 PM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
I am a certain way. I want to be treated in a certain way. I want others to see me a certain way. In terms of gender, look at the Avatar. In real life or online.
I think that's entirely fair, and I agree wholeheartedly, except I think what is being shown here is not gender but nature. My main point here has been that we've conflated the typical differing natures of men and women with gender itself, and I think it's entirely unfair. I'm saying that just because our natures exhibit non-gender-typical traits does not mean we are not members of that gender. The traits are not tied to the gender, and thus having masculine or feminine traits says nothing about whether you are male or female. We have a perfect right to our natures, and if they are atypical of our genders it is of no concern to anyone.
Again, I don't think the answer to stereotypes of men and women is pretending that everyone who doesn't fit their gender's stereotype is actually of the other gender. I think the answer is getting rid of the stereotypes, and judging people based on whether they make themselves worthwhile and noble.
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Yesterday 9:08 PM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
While this is a typology forum, typology is bubblegum pop science at best. Jung is a mystic. I'm not interested in mystics, especially outdated ones.
Hmm.
Well, for one, Jung wasn't a pop science typologist. Meyers-Briggs theory is pop psychology more-or-less based on serious work by Jung, who is mainly regarded for being, along with Freud, one of the two great minds of psychology as it exists today.

Whether or not Jung is a mystic and/or you're interested in mystics has no relation to whether or not his ideas are accurate. And considering that his ideas currently form one of the two main branches of psychology I might just venture to guess that probably his work is not so easy to dismiss.

But even if an ad hominem at a dead man is all you can offer in refutation to that point, you still have yet to address my main argument, other than to misrepresent it.

Look, I'm here because I value the chance to engage in fair and courteous debate and discussion with intelligent people. It's a welcome challenge to me to have to make real effort to formulate my thoughts to give a fair and meaningful response to a legitimate and intelligently formed argument.

However brutal a dubstep drop it might make to two-line trash talk my argument, it doesn't make for much of an improvement to either of our lives. If I'm wrong, I would benefit to realize it. But telling someone that they're wrong isn't really enough when they've presented a coherent standpoint and you do nothing to actually undermine it. I would legitimately love to debate you. I welcome the chance, even if it means getting by butt kicked. But it means nothing if you won't argue against my actual argument or you dismiss it entirely without consideration or reason.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Yesterday 10:08 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,075
-->
Stereotyping is a problem but only in the contexts of what true gender is. If gender were not real there could be no stereotyping. Now in the case of identifying gender, that is intuitive. Because we have the imprint of gender inside us. So when we encounter people they imprint on us a male feeling or female feeling regardless of appearance. In children this is clear. A boy may identify as being a girl and they feel like a girl to us. They just are a girl in the practical sense. They should be treated as one. So gender is not just sex. It is a feeling and expression. Look at gender dysphoria, it is a physical body dislocation. In a sense, our bodies prevent us from becoming and living as another gender if we are the genders we are born as mentally. That fact is I will never fully know what it is to be a female unless my body becomes female. Transgenderism is on a spectrum. An expression is enough for some people. Me is that I would not be opposed to becoming physically female if I could switch back. Then I could know and feel what I am as a female and act female. It would be embarrassing to act female the way my body is now but I would wish to even though I have no gender dysphoria. I just want to know what it would be like to be pretty and have a feminine voice. And just to be in society and see what it's like.

A gender nature would be how I see individuals as having it inside them. People have referred to me as a "her" because of my expression. It is not a facade or act it really how I am inside. I imprint on others as female here. But I am not a complete female. I only know 5-10% of the experience of being female is. I would not call it transgenderism because I do not want to change. But it is a 45/55 split. I'd 10% more identified with the female than the male. Not enough for gender dysphoria but enough to imprint as a girl on others.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 2:38 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,671
-->
My god you are a snowflake sometimes.

I was trying to imply that despite your enormous 1665 word post, you failed to lead people to your position from the very start because you act as if your views go without saying.

There seems to be two problems with gender identity, first is the erosion of traditional gender identities that seems to be part of the current extreme left narrative which, paradoxically, is combined with an explosion of possible gender identities and the importance of those gender identities being acknowledged and represented.

So right here is where you lost me.

The erosion of traditional gender identities seems like part of the extreme left narrative.
This is loaded af. What does this even mean? The extreme left are complaining that men aren't men and women aren't women? They lust for tradwife and construct hierarchies based around shared inspiration from past rigid gender identity? Who are the extreme left? Communists?

I questioned this narrative being attributed to the "extreme left", and onestep questioned it full stop. Your first two responses were rejecting your unsubstantiated premises and your response to me was to further mischaracterise and then yell "troll" and your response to onestep was "fuck off" and "disengenuous and sophistic". Instead of introspection or discussion you go on the attack really fast because you don't respect other peoples responses, but both responses were at around the same level of your OP, you're just more interested in your views than you are in other people's. Onestep basically just acknowledged the biological realities and their cultural implications that underlie gender roles - he's not being sophistic or disingenuous you just have zero respect for views you don't hold unless they come from someone you already hold in high regard.

So when I say:
Abolish gender move on
I'm really trying to elicit the same frustration in you that you gave me. I made strong conclusions and didn't substantiate them.

I genuinely believe in gender abolition. My answer to your farcical questions are probably very similar to what your answers would be if I asked how you expect to implement absolute hegemony over people's beliefs regarding religion. I see gender prescriptivism as analogical to religious indoctrination. It starts from birth the moment a child is immersed in blue or pink, gets a gendered name and gendered pronoun based on biological sex. They pay more attention to people that share the identity that they've been assigned (because that's how vicarious conditioning works), and even without strong gender prescriptivist intervention from parents they will have it hammered into them by peers or extended family. I frame the virtues of the gender roles that you are concerned as eroding as just virtues that should not be gated by gender. If you want to lift heavy things for people do it. If you want to be socially harmonious and raise children do it. Men do themselves a favour when they use makeup and women do themselves a favour when they learn to deadlift. Do what works for you and try not to perpetuate a system that alienates others for doing the same.
 

dair

brackish
Local time
Yesterday 10:08 PM
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
3,732
-->
You've inserted yourself in a conversation in an extremely obnoxious and useless way. Then you made demands on me to make up argument for you by appealing to some sort of Jungian authority. What on earth makes you think I'm even remotely interested in debating you? I promise you, I'm not. You can believe in a flat earth for all I care. I hope you take this as the invitation to not talk to me that it is.

You may well, actually my ass. <3
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 2:38 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,671
-->
Hmm.
Well, for one, Jung wasn't a pop science typologist. Meyers-Briggs theory is pop psychology more-or-less based on serious work by Jung, who is mainly regarded for being, along with Freud, one of the two great minds of psychology as it exists today.

Sorry but that's not true. Jung is in the same school of thought as Freud, but while Freud is a household name Jung is hardly even referred to in psychology academia and when he is, it's rarely about what he got right.

Jung did not do science. He did not bother with evidence as he was concerned with meaning. Out of all the stuff he came up with, the only thing that actually informs current psychological understanding is introversion and extroversion (and maybe complexes? Not sure if it's a meaningful contribution). His popularity is not based in the psychology community but in the pseudo-psychology community.

Jung is no Freud as he's had nowhere near the same influence. Freud is no psychologist even by archaic pre-replication crisis standards of psychology. Pre-replication psychology fails to meet current scientific standards of psychology. Current scientific standards for psychology are still way too low to be considered reliable and valid science globally.

The bars Jung fails to clear are so very low if you want to consider him a scientist. I consider him more in the class of Nietzche. Also, I think it's antithetical to science as a process to think in terms of theorists and not theories.
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Yesterday 9:08 PM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
You've inserted yourself in a conversation in an extremely obnoxious and useless way.
I believe it was you who joined this thread 4 1/2 hours after I posted an on-topic argument to comment, not on the issue of the thread, but the way someone else was posting.
If that's not enough, after I responded to someone else's arguments to further the discussion I had the sheer audacity to make a light-hearted joke playing myself for the fool, after which I continued to participate in the discussion another three actually-effortful posts before you sarcastically insulted me for making the joke, this being your only new post besides a refutation of a minor point of definition, that being thus far your only contribution related to the thread.
I then took the time and effort out of the main discussion to explain that the joke I made was deprecating myself for humor and not malicious empty criticism of your analogy, to which you gave the non-response of insulting both myself and Cognisant for our discussion on grounds I maintain are untrue, and again adding nothing to the discussion yourself.
Challenging your casual smearing of my argument with the brush of straw man, you ignored completely my main points and fixated instead on my citing Jung as a source, whom you dismissed ad hominem, and set this as your only and entire grounds for dismissing my arguments. Still you add nothing to the discussion yourself.

Who the hell is it who's "inserted themselves into a conversation in an extremely obnoxious and useless way"?

Then you made demands on me to make up argument for you by appealing to some sort of Jungian authority.
No, I asked you to do more to prove your claims than simply state them.
That's not a demand to "make up an argument". That's a demand that you back up your claims that directly insult me so that I have any reason to believe you.
As for appeal to authority, I suspected you'd try and construe that, but I made only the general claim that the ideas that form a currently standing branch of psychology are obviously not extremely easy to knock down, or else they would not be standing, psychology being as it is an academic field, and thus challenging your offhand dismissal of them.
What on earth makes you think I'm even remotely interested in debating you? I promise you, I'm not.
I never claimed to think you were. I said I was interested in debating you. Since you seem to be confident in your assertions and I would like to see whether it's because you have actual good arguments or because you simply come off as arrogant naturally.
You can believe in a flat earth for all I care. I hope you take this as the invitation to not talk to me that it is.
Cool, I still respect you. I wish you would return the favor, at least in debate, but either way, talking to me is up to you.
You may well, actually my ass. <3
Fare thee well, and your troubles pass.
— .
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Yesterday 9:08 PM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
Sorry but that's not true. Jung is in the same school of thought as Freud, but while Freud is a household name Jung is hardly even referred to in psychology academia and when he is, it's rarely about what he got right.
Yet somehow he manages to make the top 10 in a google search for "famous psychologists"
Jung did not do science. He did not bother with evidence as he was concerned with meaning. Out of all the stuff he came up with, the only thing that actually informs current psychological understanding is introversion and extroversion (and maybe complexes? Not sure if it's a meaningful contribution).
To quote Wikipedia (since it's a good source for "common knowledge"): "He created some of the best known psychological concepts, including synchronicity, archetypal phenomena, the collective unconscious, the psychological complex, and extraversion and introversion."
His popularity is not based in the psychology community but in the pseudo-psychology community.
Popularity is no determiner of accuracy either way, and popularity of extrapolations of his work do not impugn the work itself.
Not to mention, scientific rigor is no guarantee of utility, and utility may exist independently of scientific rigor, so perhaps the reason the "pseudo-scientific" extrapolations are so popular is because they are useful.
Jung is no Freud as he's had nowhere near the same influence.
He founded the field of analytical psychology, which exists alongside psychoanalysis, hence "one of the two main branches".
Influence is no determiner of accuracy.
Freud is no psychologist
I assume you mean Jung here, and it would seem that he is considered one.
even by archaic pre-replication crisis standards of psychology. Pre-replication psychology fails to meet current scientific standards of psychology. Current scientific standards for psychology are still way too low to be considered reliable and valid science globally.

The bars Jung fails to clear are so very low if you want to consider him a scientist. I consider him more in the class of Nietzche. Also, I think it's antithetical to science as a process to think in terms of theorists and not theories.
If you look at the my actual citation, I cite Jung as the source for the idea, i.e. the source of the theory, and I do so with alongside testimony of personal experience, in a conversation about subjective vs objective gender identification.

I'll give that some of Jung's renown is indirect because of MBTI, but certainly not all of it, and in any case, such does not affect my point: that casual, arbitrary, and logically fallacious dismissal of the point I'm making because I cite Jung is indecorous and uncivil for a serious and genuine discussion of a legitimate societal issue.
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Yesterday 9:08 PM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
I genuinely believe in gender abolition.
It starts from birth the moment a child is immersed in blue or pink, gets a gendered name and gendered pronoun based on biological sex. They pay more attention to people that share the identity that they've been assigned (because that's how vicarious conditioning works), and even without strong gender prescriptivist intervention from parents they will have it hammered into them by peers or extended family.
So might you consider that we should simply remove our non-fact-based ideas about gender and raise children teaching them that they have a fixed biological sex but that that carries only very limited roles, and that beyond that they are free and welcome to develop whatever traits suit them best?
If you want to lift heavy things for people do it. If you want to be socially harmonious and raise children do it. Do what works for you and try not to perpetuate a system that alienates others for doing the same.
I mean it sounds like we're aiming for the same results. Is abolishing gender identity even as involves biological fact necessary?
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 2:38 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,671
-->
He had the title of psychologist, but is famous for contributions that are not scientific. Psychology is a scientific study. So he was 'great' and a 'psychologist' but not a great psychologist.
To quote Wikipedia (since it's a good source for "common knowledge"): "He created some of the best known psychological concepts, including synchronicity, archetypal phenomena, the collective unconscious, the psychological complex, and extraversion and introversion."
Now google those concepts and discard the ones that aren't empirically verified.
Not to mention, scientific rigor is no guarantee of utility, and utility may exist independently of scientific rigor, so perhaps the reason the "pseudo-scientific" extrapolations are so popular is because they are useful.
True that not all that is verifiable is useful. But if it's useful, you can probably measure it right? If you can't observe the effect then it's probably not very useful.
He founded the field of analytical psychology, which exists alongside psychoanalysis, hence "one of the two main branches".
Influence is no determiner of accuracy.
Google "main branches of psychology". Do you understand how subjective this title you've bestowed is?
I assume you mean Jung here, and it would seem that he is considered one.
No I mean Freud. That paragraph was a summation of the sheer distance between Jung and effective psychology. So when I said Freud is no psychologist right after I say Jung is no Freud, I'm saying that Jung is even worse than Freud who isn't a psychologist. By 'psychologist', I mean an expert in the science of psychology, not that either of them never held the title.
I'll give that some of Jung's renown is indirect because of MBTI, but certainly not all of it, and in any case, such does not affect my point: that casual, arbitrary, and logically fallacious dismissal of the point I'm making because I cite Jung is indecorous and uncivil for a serious and genuine discussion of a legitimate societal issue.
More snowflaking. It's not a crime for me to question your lord and saviour Jung. You claimed something that I think is wrong and I'm giving you my reasons why. I know a fair bit about this area and am sharing that with you. That doesn't make everything I say logically fallacious or indecorous or uncivil. This is a discussion and I disagree with you for substantive reasons.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 2:38 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,671
-->
So might you consider that we should simply remove our non-fact-based ideas about gender and raise children teaching them that they have a fixed biological sex but that that carries only very limited roles, and that beyond that they are free and welcome to develop whatever traits suit them best?
We should believe what the evidence tells us, and that means acknowledging a lot of gendered behaviours. There are biological realities but also socially conditioned ones that compound them. I certainly agree we should remove non-fact-based ideas about gender but we might have different ideas about what that looks like.

How is biology fixed?
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Yesterday 10:08 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,075
-->
It is not that Jung is unverifiable it is just that what is verified is in the subject so you cannot verify objectively what is in someone else but only verify what is in yourself.

I've experienced synchronicity before and the shadow and the Anima and the self. Experiencing the self was something miraculous. It may not be scientific but I verified it internally. Also when keeping a dream journal I unlocked my ability to flow state. Jung is subjective, not objective. You cannot know what is in the mind unless you know what is in yours.

We intuitively know what gender is. Jung afaik only said the female and male archetype was in us. I do not think he described what male and female were.
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Yesterday 9:08 PM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
Edit: I somehow missed the entire post before this VV and basically, I get your point. Fair enough. I still maintain that Jung is credible insofar as his work has utility, which it seems to, even if it's subjectively verified, esp. since it seems it subjectively verified by large numbers of people in roughly the same way. Beyond that, as far as I know or can tell, you're right.
More snowflaking. It's not a crime for me to question your lord and saviour Jung. You claimed something that I think is wrong and I'm giving you my reasons why.
I'm just doing that same thing. My defending of my (more or less) informed opinion does not (I hope) blind me to considering that you have a point (or even all the points). Fair enough?
I know a fair bit about this area and am sharing that with you.
Well, thank you.
That doesn't make everything I say logically fallacious or indecorous or uncivil. This is a discussion and I disagree with you for substantive reasons.
This is all true. I was talking about dair.
 

AntaresVII

Lord of Minhiriath
Local time
Yesterday 9:08 PM
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
94
-->
Location
Beyond the reaches of time, wandering among dreams
It is not that Jung is unverifiable it is just that what is verified is in the subject so you cannot verify objectively what is in someone else but only verify what is in yourself.

I've experienced synchronicity before and the shadow and the Anima and the self. Experiencing the self was something miraculous. It may not be scientific but I verified it internally. Also when keeping a dream journal I unlocked my ability to flow state. Jung is subjective, not objective. You cannot know what is in the mind unless you know what is in yours.
Is there a point at which widespread subjective verification becomes practically indistinguishable from objective verification?
So, shortly, Jung's work has utility, and so value insofar as it does.
We intuitively know what gender is. Jung afaik only said the female and male archetype was in us. I do not think he described what male and female were.
That would seem to leave us with the historically biologically necessitated gender roles as our guides to the archetypes, no? Our basic biology doesn't seem to have substantively altered in the timespan that we've developed all this technology (which might be good if our technology were suddenly wiped out by a solar flare or something) so the archetypes which we are now more free to choose and move between are best visible as a sort of conglomeration of men and women's historical roles over the vast expanses of time. To be fair, you still have to account for some social factors influencing perceived roles, but insofar as these vary across culture and time we can cut out that which is inconstant and be left with a clearer picture of the archetypes.
Presumably we would find the image of the male as protecter and the female as nurturer still in place, as that seems to be the most basic idea held about gender roles, and is based in in the solid biological structure of reproduction. Beyond that, Idk. But this gives us at least a rough post to mark each side.
 
Top Bottom