Is gender a social construct?

[siftingmaterials]

So, you agree with me?

Maybe you can restate your big picture in another way. Along the lines of, I think the big picture is...

The way you answered seemed to affirm what I had said.

If like you say, this has been politicized, and polarized, for what purpose? Or is it just organic, and agenda less. What is the big picture? In your opinion?

Well, I'm not sure I know what you mean by separating out the 10% of the population who have a certain moral compass. I would say that ideological division drives clicks, ratings, moves money, gets people elected or deplatformed, so on and so on. I think that there are people who rise into positions of influence for the purposes of using that power maliciously. I also think it happens accidentally. Division drives social re-ordering and creates a cultural class of 'the defeated,' which perpetuates long term ideological divide. Further, when ideas clash, synthesis takes place. Often a new idea, new insight, or new ways of thinking emerge after or during the collapse of a conflict between two long-held positions. I think that's a natural 'physic' of our mental, intellectual, linguistic world. So it's a bit of both, I think.

 

[whitecoast]

If there's a thread on this forum where you'd want to discuss things like understanding life or the power/impact/threat of interpretation, I'd be happy to. But I'm just as happy to leave it. We're not gunna be able to resolve our points of view without a lot of discussion. If that's something you're interested in, you can let me know and point me in the right direction!

For what it's worth I don't think anything you've said about interpretation vs perception, in and of itself, is particularly new or controversial (my beef was more due to how it was being applied and the missing context of ID). You could talk about it more I guess if you wanted, but consider it may just be a case of your mind spinning its wheels due to an over-active intellect due to lots of formatory thinking or use of sexual energy. Such activity superficially looks like you're advancing truth and knowledge, but rarely does it lead to a change of fundamental understanding or action based on that understanding. Just something to consider.

 

[siftingmaterials]

For what it's worth I don't think anything you've said about interpretation vs perception, in and of itself, is particularly new or controversial (my beef was more due to how it was being applied and the missing context of ID). You could talk about it more I guess if you wanted, but consider it may just be a case of your mind spinning its wheels due to an over-active intellect due to lots of formatory thinking or use of sexual energy. Such activity superficially looks like you're advancing truth and knowledge, but rarely does it lead to a change of fundamental understanding or action based on that understanding. Just something to consider.

I get some pretty dismissive replies on this forum, but yours takes the cake. I hope your humility comes as easily to you as your sense of superiority.

 

[pinkfreud]

Hi, siftingmaterials.
I’m curious about your experience with clashing ideas resulting in synthesis. Can you give me an example of a time when you witnessed synthesis in action?

 

[siftingmaterials]

Hi, siftingmaterials.
I’m curious about your experience with clashing ideas resulting in synthesis. Can you give me an example of a time when you witnessed synthesis in action?

There are awesome examples of an attempt at synthesis in the Enforcement of VAX escalating thread. We could choose a mundane case:

Thesis: In this case, it's reasonable for people to consent to vaccination.
Antithesis: Not in this case, no.

Here's the most extreme example that came up:

Thesis: mandated vaccination is slavery
Antithesis: no it isn't
Synthesis: begins around page 16 as people begin to "synthesize" the input and extrapolate from a position that exists in a state of seemingly total negation.

Maybe they're contributing their biases a bit in their conclusions, but their conclusions are tempered by that negation created by the antithetical position. If we were dedicated to the discussion, we were forced to stick to our guns and regress to thesis/antithesis, or to advance and synthesize.

What I'm trying to highlight by bringing up synthesis is that it is inevitable, unless what you want to create is an intellectually stagnant environment. Even extremely dogmatic doctrines of faith undergo synthesis over time. Accepting and welcoming this process into discussions is one way to combat polarization and politicization.

If you read back some, you can see that someone is trying to get me to politicize the issue of gender. They want me to combine my own view with theirs and make it traversable for them. That person is working toward a synthesis (assuming they're acting in good faith). Whitecoast believes in Behesian Intelligent Design. Biological evolution is the historical antithesis of intelligent design and he's treating me with a kind of dismissal that exposes his discomfort. Something about this interests him, but what it is isn't clear to me. Maybe he was looking for the dopamine hit he'd get from trying to shut me down.

This is, by the way, one way that you can identify conservative or reactive tendencies in others. Are they investigating? Are they exploring? Or are they shielding a perceived vulnerability? Are they threatened? When someone is challenged by an idea, do they seek to engage and synthesize, or do they regress to thesis?

Another example of synthesis might be found in the forum guidelines in the fashion of an analogy. The analogy relates to a group of blind individuals touching the same elephant, trying to arrive at a true description:

they all think that the elephant is the part of it that they are feeling and that is all there is. Objective is when they begin to share their observations and come to the realization that the elephant is more than what each of them experiences independently.

It was actually this analogy that convinced me to join this forum. The promise of this analogy is noble.

 

[whitecoast]

At the risk of sounding condescending, I see a lot of my own behavior in how you write about some things, and that often can be a reason there may have been some charge behind what I said, and I am sorry if that was the case because that doesn't really help you very much. It's ironic because I get served humble pie a whole lot in the Darwin thread, where I got fixated on one idea without digesting it in the proper context of the larger thread (it starts around post #345).

Whitecoast believes in Behesian Intelligent Design. Biological evolution is the historical antithesis of intelligent design and he's treating me with a kind of dismissal that exposes his discomfort. Something about this interests him, but what it is isn't clear to me. Maybe he was looking for the dopamine hit he'd get from trying to shut me down.... This is, by the way, one way that you can identify conservative or reactive tendencies in others. Are they investigating? Are they exploring? Or are they shielding a perceived vulnerability? Are they threatened? When someone is challenged by an idea, do they seek to engage and synthesize, or do they regress to thesis?

The problem is that you can't identify whether someone is regressing to thesis unless you actually know in advance what the synthesis is. In some cases the anthithesis is simply wrong, and attempting to assimilate it as anything but an example of what not to do is a regression away from Truth. You can identify emotional charge around an idea or concept, but that is a quality distinct from the veracity of the idea itself. (I was feeling zero percent threatened btw; it was more indignation at the amount of previous research done here being ignored ).

It was actually this analogy that convinced me to join this forum. The promise of this analogy is noble.

A research forum is a very noble idea, yes. A research forum is not the same thing as a debate forum though, and I'll explain the difference below.

A debate forum is where people primarily argue, and can do so without reference to prior gathering of information. If you jump on a standard debate forum you'll see the same debate subject in countless threads over and over in the past, and they don't build off one another except in ways they derive from topical sources of information the participants get exposed to over time.

A research forum is where information is assembled and brought to the awareness of others, so greater understanding can be reached by everyone collectively. Duplicate topics get merged together as an archive of the historical development of the understanding on the last thread pages. Information that is shared is done so taking full cognizance of the types of information and knowledge gathering which has gone before it.

If someone is asking for information about a protocol that is in a thread, they get told to use the search function and go look through the thread to find the information. If someone is sharing false knowledge based on premises which have been debunked previously, they get told to consult the threads where that topic was satisfactorily settled and use it to correct their conclusions (this is what I did above). If they have true information which refutes the thesis, they would post it in the thread and trigger a recapitulation, possibly trigger a paradigm shift. That's the synthesis in action that you mentioned. But what synthesis is NOT, in the context of a research forum, is starting with a false premise, not engaging with the prior research which refutes it, and proceeding to carry on with deduction to reach a conclusion which is unsound and not supported by the research that was done previously here. Is that dismissal? I and others here tend to see that more as being respectful of the time and energy invested here previously, as well as the time and energy of people who read the forum, who do not wish to invest energy in reading information which may not be valid or sound. This comes back to the other part of the forum introduction about keeping the signal-to-noise ratio as high as possible for the signal of Truth.

To use the elephant analogy, it would be like the man holding the trunk saying, "an elephant is like a snake," and then developing a thesis on the natural history of its mammalian evolution without also looking into the work the other men have done to study the sides and legs of the elephant. Yeah, you could write some hugely complex argument about evolution the "snakephant," but why would you want to? Moreover why would you spend time reading about that, knowing what you know about elephants and their legs, sides, ears, and tails?

And for what it's worth, all I said was that that particular thread of discussion may not generate the reception you wish. If you want to write huge amounts about it anyway, more power to you. I just didn't want to mislead you by saying I was interested, or possibly set you up for disappointment of some kind. As someone who loves ideas a whole lot, I understand it can be a labor of love, but there's parts of us also that at least want to be appreciated for what we attempt to bring to the table. Whatever we share which we enjoy thinking about may not necessarily be of use to others, externally considerate, or even true in the less fortunate cases. In some cases it may generate the opposite of what we wished, and in a mechanical world where everything is run by unconscious programs that is totally normal. With that caveat, all I want to say is that I didn't mean in any way to discourage you from using your mind in the best ways possible.

 

[pinkfreud]

This is actually a funny realization I’ve had since 2020 - that each “side” believes the other is politicizing something. I am guilty of the same!
That being said, the invitation to consider whether something is because it is, or is because it is told to be, seems to be political by definition. That doesn’t mean that there is necessarily a problem or fault in doing so, but it can’t be ignored.

 

[pinkfreud]

So I visited the page you cited, siftingmaterials, which was nice because I hadn’t been to that thread since the first page.
I think I’m trying to figure out how intelligent design is the antithesis of biological evolution, as you say.
You noted that you view the cosmos as having intent, but you did not arrive at that conclusion through the notion of intelligent design.
I, like many on this forum (as far as I can tell), can hold the idea of intelligent design and the concepts of evolutionary biology simultaneously without internal distress.
So then, I’m guessing the root of the discussion here is, does our species benefit or suffer from intentional gender modification?
And if so, is that intention to be put forth by the individual? By the species?

If gender is a societal construct in someone’s mind, does that imply that they feel somehow outside of that society in their own interpretations, perceptions, and experiences of gender?

And then finally, is it society’s responsibility to adjust its constructs for the comfort of that individual?

When it comes to somebody’s sense of ability to manifest intent, what perceptions hinder them?
Fear of not fitting in, fear of shame, or actual guilt?

All I know is that telling someone to be kind doesn’t make them so. It only creates a meaningless and performative atmosphere. So I am generally against legislating morality as long as individual actions are not impeding another’s physical free will through physical harm.

Just some thoughts. Apologies if this is off in the weeds.

 

[siftingmaterials]

I think I’m trying to figure out how intelligent design is the antithesis of biological evolution, as you say.

Thanks for your reply. I think you raise a lot of interesting questions!

I don't think I did say that! I said a theory of biological evolution is an antithesis to a theory of intelligent design (and I suppose I more mean the orthodoxy behind it, being that the universe was materially created with purpose by an intelligent being). Evolution removes the need for purpose. That's a negation of the foundation of any purposeful universe thesis.

So then, I’m guessing the root of the discussion here is, does our species benefit or suffer from intentional gender modification?
And if so, is that intention to be put forth by the individual? By the species?

That's not a question I ask, honestly, but I'm interested in this idea you bring up of intention being put forth by a species. Do you mean the way humans globally seem to have an intention to weave culture or raise their young? What is a species-wide intention?

If gender is a societal construct in someone’s mind, does that imply that they feel somehow outside of that society in their own interpretations, perceptions, and experiences of gender?

What an awesome question. You're in a category of analysis called meta-cognition with this question. If I could ask it in a different way: When we measure our lived experiences against socially constructed descriptions of being (being a man) is that self-reflective experience othering, alienating, painful, essence-less, prideful, disappointing, powerful, affirming, exultant, connective? We'd like to know. I guess it sounds like it might vary from person to person. Does that make any sense?

 

[siftingmaterials]

The problem is that you can't identify whether someone is regressing to thesis unless you actually know in advance what the synthesis is. In some cases the anthithesis is simply wrong, and attempting to assimilate it as anything but an example of what not to do is a regression away from Truth. You can identify emotional charge around an idea or concept, but that is a quality distinct from the veracity of the idea itself. (I was feeling zero percent threatened btw; it was more indignation at the amount of previous research done here being ignored ).

Maybe some folk who are reading this exchange can back up and see the larger pattern here. It's the truth claim itself that sets off this process. Reiterating your truth-claim doesn't wave away the fact this process takes place. You and I and anybody else can take this moment to step back and observe it happening. This is observable. The only convincing necessary here is that people attempt to observe it happening as they progress through their own inquiries.

But what synthesis is NOT, in the context of a research forum, is starting with a false premise, not engaging with the prior research which refutes it, and proceeding to carry on with deduction to reach a conclusion which is unsound and not supported by the research that was done previously here. Is that dismissal?

Are you suggesting that a pre-requisite of me discussing gender is that I accept intelligent design as the truth? I'm not here to debate, I'm here to share my thinking. I don't need you to believe what I believe. I'm happy to engage with you or anyone here. Do you need me to believe what you believe before you'll entertain my views? What the hell kind of ethic for research is that? If that is so, then I'm fine if you don't entertain my thinking and instead leave it to more curious people.

To use the elephant analogy, it would be like the man holding the trunk saying, "an elephant is like a snake," and then developing a thesis on the natural history of its mammalian evolution without also looking into the work the other men have done to study the sides and legs of the elephant. Yeah, you could write some hugely complex argument about evolution the "snakephant," but why would you want to? Moreover why would you spend time reading about that, knowing what you know about elephants and their legs, sides, ears, and tails?

Pull out one degree of magnitude. If you're so certain that my thinking is dismissible and that there is a high truth value in intelligent design, you are still only one set of hands feeling one part of the elephant. Nothing either of us can claim about the universe or gender or anything else changes that. We all have ideas about what's happening and what is the case. I don't pretend. I shared my view. I have a process of inquiry that leads to my view and as it relates to gender I'm happy to share.

 

[siftingmaterials]

In some cases the anthithesis is simply wrong

I have to double back here just to mention: the truthiness of either thesis or antithesis isn't the point. The point is that when they come together, they negate each other. The way we overcome that negation is by asking other questions, examining common factors, so on and so forth. It may be that a new theory, or a new inclination, emerges that is quite like, or nothing like, one or both of its priors. The beauty of this is that you can accept your lack of control over the pursuit of something like truth rather than fight to regulate and limit a process that is happening regardless of your intentions.

 

[Glenn]

Are you suggesting that a pre-requisite of me discussing gender is that I accept intelligent design as the truth? I'm not here to debate, I'm here to share my thinking. I don't need you to believe what I believe. I'm happy to engage with you or anyone here. Do you need me to believe what you believe before you'll entertain my views? What the hell kind of ethic for research is that? If that is so, then I'm fine if you don't entertain my thinking and instead leave it to more curious people.

These things have been discussed at length in threads such as: Darwin's Black Box
You can enter into the discussion there if you choose.

 

[pinkfreud]

Sorry for putting words in your mouth, siftingmaterials. I am in good faith, but I’m working at the art of precise speech, so my presentation is still sloppy at times.

I suppose a species-wide intent would be the whatever drives behavior among members of a species to cooperate or separate. I’m thinking of altruism in hives and mammals, which can drive individuals to take actions against their self-interest to further the interest of the group. I’m also considering how less cooperative species, such as maybe snakes or tigers, don’t hang out in groups at all and that seems to have worked out for the species at large.

There is also the idea of collective unconscious, which I don’t really know “what to do with,” but may tie in.

So I understand that whether or not a person feels outside of society varies from person to person. I only have a bit more to voice in that vein.
A reactionary conservative might shy away from New definitions and novel expressions of gender, yes? And in this same way asserting that gender is a construct might disregard old ideas about “nature.”
Consider the saying, “Some people ask why. I ask why not?”
That would be the very creative, very open extreme of liberal, yes? “If we have a problem, then let’s do this because we’ve never tried it before.”
So when gender as a social construct comes up, some people think, “Why would anybody invest energy into such a philosophy? Gender seems natural to me.”
I would tend to think that those people do not feel outside of who they are, or outside of their “place in the world.”
And then others might say, “Why wouldn’t we invest time into such philosophy?” And I would tend to think that those folks are maybe unhappy filling out paperwork that reminds them they are powerless against the nature of their gender. Or maybe they don’t like seeing reminders of how different their sexual preferences are. Or maybe they are still hung up on thinking they have to style themselves in a way that feels uncomfortable. And of course, those who know and love people who are bothered by such things want to support them.

So when the question is asked, “Why not?” The conservatives will have their reasons. Sometimes it is strictly dogmatic, but sometimes they are explained away as almost superstitious because it is so easy to do so.

That is why, I think, these questions are important. If gender strikes at someone as being imposed by society, which is imperfect, then maybe a part of said person is imposing the “constructs” on themselves, or maybe they want an easy out of their own imperfections.
I can’t think of another reason that it would come up, but I’m curious if anyone else can.

So then, if we are going to run with “natural gender” as archaism, we have to wonder what kind of society we would have without doing things the way we have for so long. Would it be better than now? The same? Worse?

One difference that is apparent is that, if gender is a construct, then we can do whatever we want. If it is “natural,” then we are powerless to change it. So this paradigm shift will probably make people who want to change genders feel more powerful.

The next difference I could anticipate is, especially in the transition period, we might be so stoked on this new cool thing we figured out that we construct an environment that selectively favors those who are on board with the new idea. Kind of a lower level “intelligent design,” if you will. We’re constructing our own society, yea? With the purpose of dropping the shackles of archaic constraints?

A reactive conservative would call it “playing God,” or some such thing.

So what are the constraints? Maybe the expectation to dress a certain way, or to reproduce, or to stay in a specific line of work, or to tick a certain box, or stay in only certain spaces designed for public use. Or maybe the inability to menstruate or carry a growing fetus due to biological function.

So then, over time, we might see a drop-off in the number of births. If reproduction is so wholly voluntary and an out-dated model of how we express gender, then why would people do it? Sure, many would still be drawn to the idea of having a child, raising family, etc. but now that’s kind of feeling like shackles, isn’t it? Never mind the economic and environmental impact, and how guilty would one feel bring a new life into the world right now?

Also, if more people are constructing their own biological sexes, then that doesn’t leave much of a window to use the standard models.

Maybe that’s a good thing. Plenty of messaging seems to say so (again, environment is more favorable to those who aren’t constrained.)

And then I see the species would become much more dependent on technological systems. Already it seems our evolution is directly related to our tech.we can’t see in the dark so we made lights. We don’t have fur so we made clothes. We can’t always have open fires, so we have stoves indoors, and on and on. And maybe the species feels it a safe bet to rely on tech to forward the generations.

And all of the stories about hubris, they could well be superstitious.

I have my doubts, though. Anyway, thanks for reading!

 

[Alejo]

I have to double back here just to mention: the truthiness of either thesis or antithesis isn't the point. The point is that when they come together, they negate each other. The way we overcome that negation is by asking other questions, examining common factors, so on and so forth. It may be that a new theory, or a new inclination, emerges that is quite like, or nothing like, one or both of its priors. The beauty of this is that you can accept your lack of control over the pursuit of something like truth rather than fight to regulate and limit a process that is happening regardless of your intentions.

So... a debate?

But anyway, if I understood correctly, and to summarize, you do think that genders are a social construct, yes? and you're not here to debate about it with others, you're here simply to share your thinking. Not to question yourself or your theory of life, but to simply expose yours, so that others can see it, is that correct?

 

[siftingmaterials]

So I understand that whether or not a person feels outside of society varies from person to person. I only have a bit more to voice in that vein.
A reactionary conservative might shy away from New definitions and novel expressions of gender, yes? And in this same way asserting that gender is a construct might disregard old ideas about “nature.”

Yeah that's interesting! What sort of construct would gender be? I would think a socio-historical one, yes. And like any historical category, it seems to rely on its continuity. So there would be a concern that, like in situations of colonization, for example, the socio-historical category would be rewritten rather than added to. Who would keep account? This problem already exists. Western historians have failed to curate an honest account of so many aspects of pivotal events and the stories of cultures past and present. Who are our historians, and what would hold them accountable? We have to be careful.

So when gender as a social construct comes up, some people think, “Why would anybody invest energy into such a philosophy? Gender seems natural to me.”

Yes! The naturalistic fallacy, some call it. Do I judge it "good" because I think it's natural? Do I judge it "natural" because I think it's good? We might desire to react and so we lean on bias, make these judgements with these looping rationales. Why?

This is another moment where synthesis occurs, by the way. Those points of view negate each other totally. This helps us see the limits we come up against when we lean on a fallacy of reason. It also helps us see the way through, though!

If gender strikes at someone as being imposed by society, which is imperfect, then maybe a part of said person is imposing the “constructs” on themselves, or maybe they want an easy out of their own imperfections.
I can’t think of another reason that it would come up, but I’m curious if anyone else can.

I think this is wise. It fits with a trauma-informed model that the way we receive abuse is a signifier of how we might abuse others (or ourselves). The major institutions in our culture were purpose-built to dominate us and subjugate our will and judgement and it makes a lot of sense that the commands of the dominators would compete against each other within our own psychology (and also against our self interest).

So then, if we are going to run with “natural gender” as archaism, we have to wonder what kind of society we would have without doing things the way we have for so long. Would it be better than now? The same? Worse?

It's an interesting question. I would only add that without an accurate comparison there is no measure. We really don't know what it was like.

One difference that is apparent is that, if gender is a construct, then we can do whatever we want. If it is “natural,” then we are powerless to change it. So this paradigm shift will probably make people who want to change genders feel more powerful.

Yes this is the pitfall of the naturalistic fallacy.

Also, if more people are constructing their own biological sexes, then that doesn’t leave much of a window to use the standard models.

There was a time when it was a death sentence to act against the doctrines of faith. The Protestant viewpoint was inconceivable to many Catholics in 16th century Europe. One wonders if the ensuing wars waged by the church - and the resulting continental oppression - contributed to radicalization or not. But I would suppose it did. The anabaptists being one example. Had there been an understanding of the need for plurality within Christianity at the time, they may have arrived at more tolerant cohabitation much sooner.

More on the unfortunate distortion of history: I've always wondered about the life of Saint Thecla, who is one of the rare martyrs of early gender non-conformity in a Christian context. What survives of her life is already pretty radical - her, and her movement to render down identity to "reason and spirit." It seems to me that she was experimenting with something here that we would continue to see in mounting waves. Thecla - Wikipedia

I think you're right to reach for predictive models when it comes to this sort of thing. I notice when I try to make predictions my biases are at their strongest, though. It's hard enough to decide what to do in the present! Let alone what others will be doing in the future. Still, it's important.

So... a debate?

But anyway, if I understood correctly, and to summarize, you do think that genders are a social construct, yes? and you're not here to debate about it with others, you're here simply to share your thinking. Not to question yourself or your theory of life, but to simply expose yours, so that others can see it, is that correct?

My definition of debate is seprarate from my definition of share, converse, workshop, whatever. Debates are zero-sum arguments and a kind of sport. No, I'm not here for that. I'm actually super down to workshop my thinking. I don't appreciate being outright invalidated or dismissed, but none the less. My background in esoteric channelling starts with the RA material and it really set me down a path. The path leads here. I can see that the Cassiopaean transcripts have had a profound impact on many of you and my goal is to learn and grow. I also see that there aren't many observations and methodologies the ones I employ being brought to the table and in the spirit of collective growth I'm putting it forward. I can see that it generates some friction and I can acknowledge that. Especially on the internet, it can get kind of intense when people are coming from different standpoints. I don't appreciate the way you're typing at me, though. I think you engineered those questions to deliver an accusation more than to solicit my explanation.