tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post7847717983626820227..comments2024-03-18T20:56:27.126-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Byrne on why sex is not a social constructEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89915495114211954332024-01-23T12:42:58.240-08:002024-01-23T12:42:58.240-08:00It is said that there are some people who are &quo...It is said that there are some people who are "intersex". For example, the internet tells us that it is possible for one fraternal twin to absorb their twin of the opposite sex. The person who absorbed their twin would be a chromosomal chimera, and might have both large- and small-gamete producing organs. <br />The internet tells us that because there are some such people who do not fit tidily into binary sex pigeonholes, sex is not binary. <br />With all due respect to the internet, I am not convinced. The existence of ambiguous or intermediate cases does not invalidate classes.<br />There are donkeys, which are donkeys, and horses, which are horses. Mules are both and neither horses and/nor donkeys. However it does not follow from the existence of mules that there are no donkeys or horses. If you ever worked with horses and donkeys, then you would be unable to doubt that they are different species, or that academics who deny the difference are asses. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72484545183235094532019-01-10T23:56:55.091-08:002019-01-10T23:56:55.091-08:00psp,cit,labour laws,hse,shorthand,revit,project ma...psp,cit,labour laws,hse,shorthand,revit,project managementp6,cscp,iosh(MS),http://lambda.edu.pk/lambda.edu.pk/lambda.edu.pk/lambda.edu.pk/lambda.edu.pk/lambda.edu.pk/lambda.edu.pk/lambda.edu.pk/lambda.edu.pk/lambda.edu.pk/LAMBDAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14854463423369022733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48819373416251532802018-12-26T20:34:20.328-08:002018-12-26T20:34:20.328-08:00Tony, "Get used to it"? I think you misu...Tony, "Get used to it"? I think you misunderstand my purpose. My point was NOT to defend those who wish to dictate the pronouns with which others refer to them. My point was that these people are wrong to act as if they are "oppressed" for something which they cannot control. Rather, they CHOOSE to identify with a certain gender, and they can be judged for this. I said, IF gender is purely a construct, then it cannot be an objective part of their identity. [Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as gender‐normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations constitute gender non-conformity (APA, 2012)] So, an individual can act out any role-set they please, but it is up to them. And it is subject to ethical evaluation, regardless of their feelings or predispositions.Archstantonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09525248686094859564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20572413016663843062018-12-21T20:34:52.730-08:002018-12-21T20:34:52.730-08:00To add to Byrne’s objection, we might note that to...<i>To add to Byrne’s objection, we might note that to claim that the declaration “It’s a boy” makes it the case that a baby is a boy is as silly as claiming that a doctor’s declaring his diagnosis by saying “It’s cancer” makes it the case that a patient has cancer.</i><br /><br />Heh. I’m suddenly reminded of the tale told of my first being presented to my mother: three pounds, nearly two months premature, extremely jaundiced, a wooden probe still sticking from my tiny head like My Favorite Martian...<br /><br />DOCTOR: It’s a boy!<br />MOTHER: A boy? I’ve had chickens bigger than that.<br /><br />And then they put me under the heat lamp to finish cooking. It’s good to know that I started being involved in these debates young.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10058171030261812885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62513915899885553742018-12-19T01:53:23.389-08:002018-12-19T01:53:23.389-08:00I think that the Byrne/Feser argument is trying to...I think that the Byrne/Feser argument is trying to get at something here:<br /><br /><> <br /><br />For example, the performative argument seems to boil down to something like this: <br /><br />Articulating a description of an object and then acting as if this description were true creates the relevant object and gives it its properties. In the absence of this description and performance there is no object and no properties.<br /><br /><br />So objects are created in an arbitrary way by pure acts of will; if the doctor produced a human baby and declared it to be a coal bucket, and people 'performed' as such, the baby wouldn't exist but a coal bucket would. <br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10230155110119889632018-12-18T20:46:54.961-08:002018-12-18T20:46:54.961-08:00I agree with the substance ofr Byrne/Feser's a...I agree with the substance ofr Byrne/Feser's argument but the treatment of the performative argument looks incomplete. <br /><br />"Performative arguments are not susceptible to error." Granted. "The doctor's declaration is susceptible of error." Ergo, etc.<br /><br />But logically speaking, it is not proved that the doctor's declaration is indeed susceptible to error - this is merely assumed. So the performative argument is not refuted.<br /><br />I think the burden of proof is on the defender of the performative argument, but this blog post takes on itself to disprove that thesis so it needs to show how the doctor's statement can be erroneous, not simply assume it.<br />Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89273790296011777752018-12-18T08:52:12.619-08:002018-12-18T08:52:12.619-08:00it means that some people will deny that Social Co...it means that some people will deny that Social Construction theories are themselves socially constructed, much like supporters of verificationist theory will deny that the theory must itself be verified.Jonathan Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16544588222060966241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18026752439324292742018-12-17T20:13:21.544-08:002018-12-17T20:13:21.544-08:00Yet, I can recognize a planet or lake when I see o...<i>Yet, I can recognize a planet or lake when I see one, so such categories clearly have some reality.</i> <br /><br />Well, there are some issues even there, of course. How do you specify the difference between a large pond and a small lake? Between a wide spot in the river where part of the flow is very slow, and a narrow lake? How do you know whether Pluto is a "real" planet versus a "dwarf planet" which is now considered a different thing? Can you identify the difference between a sea,a bay, a gulf and fyord? Between a cape, a promontory, and a peninsula? <br /><br />These problems aren't really indications that we can't tell that there are "real" things like lakes and planets. Even with plants and animals, which certainly do have substantial forms, there can be boundary cases where it is difficult to tell whether something is a "this" or a "that". The existence of gray areas around the edges is not proof of the non-existence of real "kinds". <br /><br />I suspect that the answer is that when we "know" that Lake Michigan is a lake what we are doing is applying analogous reasoning, similar to but distinct from when we know that Fido is a dog. The analogy comes from the fact that we apprehend the unity embedded in the instances of "dog" that we have seen in virtue of a number of traits that are common, and we do something similar with lakes: anything that has a certain set of 3 or 4 characteristics "just is" a lake. But in the case of lakes, there is no definitive reason that we should select those 4 traits, and hence there is no definitive answer to things like "is X really a lake" when it has 3 of the 4 and it has been <i>called</i> a lake from time out of mind. Maybe it's just an "exception", like a dog that has lost its 4th leg? No, there is no fundamental integrity to lake-ness that tells us we have to use these specific 4 traits and no others. But this is just a guess, I don't know. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7479163894270771632018-12-16T07:29:14.362-08:002018-12-16T07:29:14.362-08:00There are many natural differences among items in ...There are many natural differences among items in the category "food", but those differences don't dictate the differences among national cuisines.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19612376723661603492018-12-15T20:26:37.491-08:002018-12-15T20:26:37.491-08:00"Nor are they created though the imposition o..."Nor are they created though the imposition of purpose by a human being or other such rational creature, like an artifact."<br /><br />Being created by humans is not what makes something an artifact. Feser says, <br /><br />"the Aristotelian distinction is ultimately concerned with the difference between what has a substantial form or inherent principle of its activity, and that which has only an accidental form. And there are man-made objects that have substantial forms (e.g. new breeds of dog or of corn, water synthesized in a lab), and naturally occurring objects that have only accidental forms (e.g. a random pile of stones that has formed at the bottom of a hill)."Billyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14579200479132033014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63654292623320502512018-12-15T12:31:51.937-08:002018-12-15T12:31:51.937-08:00If gender is a social construct, then what can it ...<i>If gender is a social construct, then what can it mean to BE a certain gender,</i> <br /><br />It would mean that the way you ARE (objectively, such as having this or that organ) fits well with the socially designated category of male gender. <br /><br /><i>or to identify as a certain gender?</i> <br /><br />No, No, No! if SOCIETY designates that the organs you have fit with their category they name "male gender", it doesn't matter what you want to "identify" as. If it is SOCIALLY decided, it is not a PERSONAL choice. One or the other. You can't have gender be a social construct AND have it be up to the individual. <br /><br />Those who want it to be up to the individual <i>use</i> (and abuse) the "social construct" theory to break down the traditional understanding of the sexes, not to properly and logically ground their claims. They don't really think that there should be a social construct either. They would be more honest if they stopped using the words sex and gender altogether, and made a different word for what they want to talk about, because neither a biologically determinate sex nor a socially determined gender are up to personal choice. <br /><br />This, by the way, also tells us the correct answer to the use of pronouns. Language is a social construct, you don't get to <i>impose</i> by personal fiat what words OTHER people will use in social contexts. The social constructs revolving about "him" and "her" are not matters of personal choice. If a person who wants to "identify" as female, the fact that he has a penis and looks like biological males look means that other people will want to refer to him as "he", and they have at least as much right (if not more) to express their perceptions and apprehensions in language that is socially conformative and clear to others, than being required to conform to an anti-social demand to please the feelings of the individual. This is what it means to live in society. Get used to it. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4789807835265642132018-12-15T10:41:46.091-08:002018-12-15T10:41:46.091-08:00@Thursday,
Quote:"Michael Jordan and Kareem...@Thursday,<br /><br /><br />Quote:<i>"Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar were really different players, but they were both very good at achieving the fundamental goals of basketball...<br /><br />So, there are a range of different ways of achieving certain goals, and that creates a variety of different kinds of people devoted to succeeding using those different ways."</i><br /><br />Wouldn't this then also apply to the general ghuman oal of being a good person and fulfilling the ends of one's nature correctly - which can also be called sanctity?<br /><br />If so, then I guess this quote from C. S. Lewis is quite apt: "How monotonously alike all the great tyrants and conquerors have been; how gloriously different are the saints."<br /><br /><br />Quote:<i>"The question is what to call these tendencies. They are not properties, like having a sense of humour is a property that normally flows from being a rational being. But clearly certain psychological tendencies flow from being a human male or a human female, because certain suites of psychological traits are better at achieving the goals of a particular sex. But they aren't proper to being a human male or female either, as a normally functioning human male or female wouldn't necessarily have to have them."</i><br /><br /><br />It seems this analysis would also apply to the variety of personality types that humans can have, especially since having a certain personality isn't predominant either among men or women; both could have the same.JoeDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87566935117162019602018-12-15T03:38:58.039-08:002018-12-15T03:38:58.039-08:00Notice the language used, 'assignment' of ...Notice the language used, 'assignment' of sex, as if it is an entirely arbitrary process. The doctor sees a penis, and declares the child a boy, but he could just as easily declare the child to be a girl. As if, the doctor observing the penis, and declaring the child a girl, would be just as equally accepted. It would be more correct to say that the doctor observes the sex of the child. Only in the case of ambiguous genitalia is there any question about what sex the child is.Rhysnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74089399126966319992018-12-15T01:39:42.771-08:002018-12-15T01:39:42.771-08:00I don't think that's correct. Surely the e...I don't think that's correct. Surely the equivalent of French or Thai cuisine here would be French or Thai (or whatever) ways of being a man or woman. Feser is saying that cuisine is the social expression of food, but it thereby has limits imposed by the very nature of food. Gender is connected to sex, but the division between the sexes is natural, so surely the division between the genders must be. It's the division between different cultures' expression of each genders that is social. This interpretation also matches the analogues numerically, as there are two genders (I'm ignoring the 49 genders or whatever silliness) and two sexes, whereas there are a multitude of both cuisines and social expression of genders.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6212827113936805352018-12-14T18:08:59.884-08:002018-12-14T18:08:59.884-08:00Male and female in the category of gender
I would...<i> Male and female in the category of gender</i><br /><br />I would deny that there is such a thing. If we are talking about gender roles, then we are talking about things perceived as being masculine or feminine according to a given culture. A male who does things considered feminine is still a male, because being a male is not a social construct.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21014218621940316612018-12-14T15:29:19.305-08:002018-12-14T15:29:19.305-08:00I don't follow. Male and female in the catego...I don't follow. Male and female in the category of gender are supposed to be as French cuisine and Thai cuisine in the category of cuisine. But then the question is not what the two cuisines <br />have in common ("features that are true of all cuisines"), and whether that has a basis in nature, but whether the distinction we make between them has a basis in nature. And isn't the distinction between French and Thai cuisine entirely socially constructed?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31219761265543622962018-12-14T14:09:55.097-08:002018-12-14T14:09:55.097-08:00“Social constructivism about anything is---surpris...“Social constructivism about anything is---surprise, surprise, surprise---arbitrarily self-exempting.”<br /><br />What do you mean by that? If I say that the game of chess is socially constructed, how am I being arbitrarily self-exempting?Matjaž Horvathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01299644309277886201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62563077819064654442018-12-14T09:21:02.833-08:002018-12-14T09:21:02.833-08:00If our host is going to be reading Butler for any ...If our host is going to be reading Butler for any his book projects, I'd like to recommend Sarah Salih's introductory book on Butler. Butler deliberately writes bad prose, but Salih is crystal clear. She's an admirer of Butler too, so it's not a hostile caricature either, though it sometimes reads like one. Butler is the cray cray.Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002311410445623799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24612068836396032762018-12-14T09:15:27.622-08:002018-12-14T09:15:27.622-08:00This topic gets into essentialism.
It's prett...This topic gets into essentialism.<br /><br />It's pretty clear how to analyze true substances in terms of formal and final causes. It's also pretty clear to analyze artifacts in terms of formal and final causes.<br /><br />But what about things that are clearly not substances or artifacts, like lakes, clouds, planets? They clearly don't have the unity of a true substance. Nor are they created though the imposition of purpose by a human being or other such rational creature, like an artifact.<br /><br />Yet, I can recognize a planet or lake when I see one, so such categories clearly have some reality. How is that possible? How does one analyze such things in terms of formal and final cause?<br /><br />If you know of any resources on this topic, please post them.Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002311410445623799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80185647240493234912018-12-14T09:03:28.046-08:002018-12-14T09:03:28.046-08:00I hope our host here includes the topic of how we ...I hope our host here includes the topic of how we distinguish between men and women in his book on sexual morality.Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002311410445623799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77431681923373382302018-12-14T09:02:11.584-08:002018-12-14T09:02:11.584-08:00Here is his paper on the subject:
https://muse.jhu...Here is his paper on the subject:<br />https://muse.jhu.edu/article/637688Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002311410445623799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2779689084063636152018-12-14T09:01:02.797-08:002018-12-14T09:01:02.797-08:00The Thomist John Finley has done some really good ...The Thomist John Finley has done some really good work in this area. Here is a really helpful talk he gave, though he uses gender/sex in a non-standard way:<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gO0O7w5VBs<br />Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002311410445623799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83074082465525794572018-12-14T08:58:08.822-08:002018-12-14T08:58:08.822-08:00It seems to me that people want to separate gender...It seems to me that people want to separate gender from sex in order to make real whatever fantasy they have. Gender has become more of a placeholder for whatever the hell you want to 'self-identify' as. Taken to its logical end, gender can come to mean anything. It is simply the fantasy one wants to be. This is when you get people 'self-identifying' as dogs and horses and other things they are not. <br /><br />People can live in their fantasy worlds as much as they want (though this is obviously not good), but we cannot legislate or moralize fantasies into reality.pjswedehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05714502257673078007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65100837254244850912018-12-14T08:56:25.105-08:002018-12-14T08:56:25.105-08:00First of all, there are many different ways to be ...First of all, there are many different ways to be good at being a man or good at being a woman. This is similar to the fact that there are many ways of being a good basketball player, even though the goal of being a basketball player is unquestionably to get the ball in the other team's hoop and prevent them from putting it in yours. Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar were really different players, but they were both very good at achieving the fundamental goals of basketball.<br /><br />(Having a specified goal also sets up the possibility that some people, like myself at basketball, are pretty terrible at achieving that goal.)<br /><br />So, there are a range of different ways of achieving certain goals, and that creates a variety of different kinds of people devoted to succeeding using those different ways. So, men for example, tend to be somewhat different physically and psychologically from each other and pursue the distinct goals of being a man in different ways.<br /><br />What complicates this is that we have two sexes with somewhat different goals, particularly reproductive goals. Now, men and women do tend to be different physically, but also psychologically. However, there is, for example, in psychology a significant overlap. This is especially true on individual psychological traits, but even when you aggregate all the psychological traits there is still an overlap.<br /><br />So, different suites of psychological traits tend to work better at achieving male goals or achieving female goals. But there appear to be a few suites of psychological traits that work for both sexes.<br /><br />(Of course, some of these suites could also be bad for achieving male or female goals.)<br /><br />The question is what to call these tendencies. They are not properties, like having a sense of humour is a property that normally flows from being a rational being. But clearly certain psychological tendencies flow from being a human male or a human female, because certain suites of psychological traits are better at achieving the goals of a particular sex. But they aren't proper to being a human male or female either, as a normally functioning human male or female wouldn't necessarily have to have them.Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002311410445623799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23779101643273994082018-12-14T08:14:39.708-08:002018-12-14T08:14:39.708-08:00For all the assignment argument shows, the indeter...<i>For all the assignment argument shows, the indeterminacy in question in the cases it cites is merely epistemological rather than metaphysical.</i><br /><br />As far as I can tell, there is nothing that metaphysically prevents a human being from being both sexes. So, it isn't necessary to say that an intersex person is really male or female, we just can't tell which.<br /><br />Now, because human beings are by nature a sexually dimorphic species, being a genuinely intersex person will tend to radically impede function. There are no recorded instances of intersex people being able to reproduce in both a male and female manner. And in all cases being an intersex person tends to create problems for reproduction.<br /><br />I'd also note that we can only tell that a person is intersex because we recognize the male and female aspects of their genitals from comparison with normal males and females, and thus we can differentiate these male and female aspects not only from each other, but from, say, completely random growths in the crotch area.<br /><br />In the instance of homosexuals, in most instances they have a neurology that is more typical of the opposite sex in many ways, but they have the genitals, typically the functional genitals, of their own sex. So, it is possible to argue that homosexuals are intersex individuals, in a way, with a neurology that is mismatched with their genitals. Now, this doesn't mean that they are now free to use their genitals for pleasure with people of the same genitals, as, regardless of their mismatch with their neurology, those genitals still have the function they have and it is still immoral for an individual to use those genitals in a way that frustrates the purpose of those genitals. And it is fair I think to argue that, despite a mismatched neurology, the presence of unmixed and usually functional genitals should be determinative in whether a homosexual person is male or female. After all, a lesbian who is raped or artificially inseminated is usually capable of becoming a mother.<br /><br />An interesting phenomenon that deserves some thought is when people have differing sex chomosomes in different parts of their body. So, you yourself might be XX throughout most of your body, but be XY in your arm or finger. You are otherwise a normal heterosexual human female. (This is a real thing, btw. It happens because of some weird circumstances in the womb.) In that case, I think you have to go with function again. Despite have a genetically freaky anomaly in part of your body, on the whole you are oriented towards reproducing in a certain way. Again, unmixed genitals should be determinitive, as such a person is typically just as capable of being a father or mother. This situation does, however, complicate the identification of sex based solely on chromosomes. Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002311410445623799noreply@blogger.com