Is gender a social construct?

[pinkfreud]

Regarding the use of “natural” -
Does the nature fallacy challenge the idea of the flow state?
That was in my head when I was applying the term, but I meant for it to read as something that one might hear and misinterpret.
So consider “my gender is natural” as a way to express “I am fully in my skin, I am fully in my environment, and I am excelling at a task or otherwise thriving, so it comes naturally.”

Such expressions, in certain contexts, are not clear communication. But if that is all a person is trying to say, does that fall into the nature fallacy?
I can often maintain a sense of a feeling of peace or being attuned to each movement, sound, etc around me, and sometimes can act in a way with my surroundings as to harmonize or “dance” with it. I would not shy away from explaining this as a “natural” state, meaning one in which I am not feeling a need to force anything into being. It is creative, yet not my creation, yet not a creation apart from me.

If I didn’t want to take all that time to say so, or even if I do, still nature fallacy?

 

[siftingmaterials]

Regarding the use of “natural” -
Does the nature fallacy challenge the idea of the flow state?
That was in my head when I was applying the term, but I meant for it to read as something that one might hear and misinterpret.
So consider “my gender is natural” as a way to express “I am fully in my skin, I am fully in my environment, and I am excelling at a task or otherwise thriving, so it comes naturally.”

Such expressions, in certain contexts, are not clear communication. But if that is all a person is trying to say, does that fall into the nature fallacy? Or is it just figurative language?

The naturalistic fallacy has to do with associating the natural with the good, or the good with the natural. So if you think two genders or one or five is good because it's natural, you have sidestepped the heavy lifting of reason in order to validate a moral intuition.

That said, we're all just as likely to do some research and reflection as we are to accidentally default on fallacies of reason. A lapse in reason is a lapse in reason, so they're hard to zero in on when they occur.

That said, a flow state is another useful concept when we're talking about gender, yes, I agree! Research into these psychological states (in the case of flow state research in a western context it begins with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Jeanne Nakamura and in the case of cognitive bias foundational work was done by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman) is fascinating.

One characteristic of a flow state is a distinct loss of our sense of time. This is critical, I think, because it's in time that we suffer. We all experience this. It doesn't just partain to gender, but I have noticed that when someone feels affirmed in their gender or their religion or artistic pursuit, or their moral crusade, or their service to others (of course), flow states come more easily.

So I would say that everyone of all genders experiences the kind of gender-related suffering you're talking about. And if flow states are easier to achieve when we are feeling "in our element" then I would think that there may be a collective unconscious project to oppose the institutional, industrial identity machine that we have in our culture. Either by way of accident or good or malicious intention, our society tries to tell us who and what we are by establishing, well, constructs, that we are invited to compare ourselves against.

Perhaps we are attempting to gravitate toward lived experiences that anticipate and mitigate the onset of suffering in our lifetimes, a kind of liberation.

 

[pinkfreud]

Good luck to you. Please update if you see any manifestations of synthesis. I’m sure I’m not understanding your point of view yet, but I appreciate your willingness to try to educate me in these terms and principles.
I’m sure we will see each other around

 

[Alejo]

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.

No, it was a question that attempted to summarize your position so that it's clear to others reading you, in the interest of impeccability.

So, would you say that the answer to my questions are yes and yes then?

 

[siftingmaterials]

No, it was a question that attempted to summarize your position so that it's clear to others reading you, in the interest of impeccability.

So, would you say that the answer to my questions are yes and yes then?

You are asking me to repeat myself. I'm thinking you haven't read my previous posts very closely.

you do think that genders are a social construct, yes?

Yes, I think gender is a social construct. Here's my post where I spell out my thinking. Then I have a series of posts that go into it a little further.

and you're not here to debate about it with others,

No, I'm not. Debate is a competitive make-work project, or like a spectator sport. Debate is zero-sum. See how I'm repeating myself? I'm not here for zero-sum conflict. I'm here for generative exchanges, space to share my thinking and the opportunity to hold space for others.

you're here simply to share your thinking.

No, not simply. Please refer to the bottom of this post.

Not to question yourself or your theory of life

Yes, to question myself. I'm a deeply skeptical person. But no, I don't have a "theory of life."

but to simply expose yours so that others can see it, is that correct?

No.

Time to find out if you asked in bad faith.

 

[Alejo]

Time to find out if you asked in bad faith.

Nope.

You are asking me to repeat myself. I'm thinking you haven't read my previous posts very closely.

No, I did, the trouble is that you tend to over extend yourself in very verbose answers that seem more designed to attract than to convey information, hence my attempt at impeccability.

Yes, I think gender is a social construct. Here's my post where I spell out my thinking. Then I have a series of posts that go into it a little further.

Thanks, and have you ever considered that you may be wrong? or have you already concluded that you aren't.

No, I'm not. Debate is a competitive make-work project, or like a spectator sport. Debate is zero-sum. See how I'm repeating myself? I'm not here for zero-sum conflict. I'm here for generative exchanges, space to share my thinking and the opportunity to hold space for others.

But you'd probably have to admit that your writing style is certainly designed to display, admittedly, your thinking for the awe of the spectators, would you agree? Because another way to define debate would perhaps be... "I am here to expose my thinking and I am not interested in questioning myself". Wouldn't you say? at which point it is purely semantics, debate, generative exchanges, conversation whatever it may be called.

Yes, to question myself. I'm a deeply skeptical person. But no, I don't have a "theory of life."

I mean this fully respectfully, but you could've fooled me

 

[siftingmaterials]

A

Nope.


No, I did, the trouble is that you tend to over extend yourself in very verbose answers that seem more designed to attract than to convey information, hence my attempt at impeccability.


Thanks, and have you ever considered that you may be wrong? or have you already concluded that you aren't.


But you'd probably have to admit that your writing style is certainly designed to display, admittedly, your thinking for the awe of the spectators, would you agree? Because another way to define debate would perhaps be... "I am here to expose my thinking and I am not interested in questioning myself". Wouldn't you say? at which point it is purely semantics, debate, generative exchanges, conversation whatever it may be called.


I mean this fully respectfully, but you could've fooled me

Yes I can tell that your judgments are strong enough that my answers wouldn't change your mind. That's why I'm accusing you of asking questions in bad faith. I leave you to it.

 

[Glenn]

siftingmaterials, you have entered into a discussion, started more than 3 years ago with more than 500 posts. And for some reason you want to start at a zero point, trying to make points that ignore all the points made before. I would go back and reread the thread from the beginning, and see what the consensus is, and take it from there. There is a lot that can be taken out of this subject, if one is willing to approach it with an open mind.

 

[siftingmaterials]

siftingmaterials, you have entered into a discussion, started more than 3 years ago with more than 500 posts. And for some reason you want to start at a zero point, trying to make points that ignore all the points made before. I would go back and reread the thread from the beginning, and see what the consensus is, and take it from there. There is a lot that can be taken out of this subject, if one is willing to approach it with an open mind.

I find this so fascinating. I read over 1,000 posts in the Darwin's Black Box thread and I would agree that it reflects consensus. Similarly, there isn't much diversity of thought in this thread. Mostly, what I see are people confirming each other's intuitions. Sometimes it's useful to start at Step Zero in cases where people believe they've arrived. If you believe in the efficacy of your research, I don't know why that would bother you. What's the risk?

 

[siftingmaterials]

Diversity of thought and a willful skepticism keeps Us honest.

 

[Glenn]

I find this so fascinating. I read over 1,000 posts in the Darwin's Black Box thread and I would agree that it reflects consensus. Similarly, there isn't much diversity of thought in this thread. Mostly, what I see are people confirming each other's intuitions. Sometimes it's useful to start at Step Zero in cases where people believe they've arrived. If you believe in the efficacy of your research, I don't know why that would bother you. What's the risk?

If that is the case, then I think you are in the wrong bar. Your cup is full.

 

[siftingmaterials]

Institutional gatekeeping and strict adherence to an orthodoxy of thought should be questioned. It's the kind of disorienting power centralization that leads to the same problems that cause the need for free thought and an open, transparent methodology in the first place.

 

[Joe]

I don't appreciate the way you're typing at me, though

First time I've heard that it's possible to "type at" someone else. It's all about the "feels" I suppose.

Anyway, so much typing, and still, whether or not you think gender is a social construct is unclear. That's some prodigious dissimulation.

 

[Joe]

I’m sure I’m not understanding your point of view yet

I'm pretty sure siftingmaterials is pretty sure about that too.

 

[Joe]

Institutional gatekeeping and strict adherence to an orthodoxy of thought should be questioned

Is that your life's mission?