How the Law (doesn't really), define "gender identity"

[icehorse]

A moral absolutist differs from a moral relativist
primarily by the absolutist's belief that their morals
are inerrant facts rather than opinion. How does
the absolutist know this? Scripture. Obviousness.
Are these assumptions better than the relativist's?

false dilemma

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A moral absolutist differs from a moral relativist
primarily by the absolutist's belief that their morals
are inerrant facts rather than opinion. How does
the absolutist know this? Scripture. Obviousness.
Are these assumptions better than the relativist's?

Well, you have never come across an Ayn Rand Objectvist I guess.
Theism is not the only version of that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

false dilemma

Yeah, you don't want science and logic. No, sir.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You do not know what I accept or don't, so do no put words in my mouth, thanks.

Okay, sorry. So what how do you know that your version is not a form of moral relativism, but rather objective in effect?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, you have never come across an Ayn Rand Objectvist I guess.

I've read some of her books, & noticed that her
premises had a reasonable basis, but weren't
"true". They were just her preference.

 

[Revoltingest]

false dilemma

No dilemma at all.
None of the below applies to the proffered alternative moral perspectives.
Not all are undesirable. Nothing perplexing. Not hypothetical.
Ref...

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Excerpted...

1. a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives.
2. any difficult or perplexing situation or problem.
   Synonyms: difficulty, question
3. Logic. a form of syllogism in which the major premise is formed of two or more hypothetical propositions and the minor premise is a disjunctive proposition, as “If A, then B; if C then D. Either A or C. Therefore, either B or D.”

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've read some of her books, & noticed that her
premises had a reasonable basis, but weren't
"true". They were just her preference.

Yeah, but not according to her.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, but not according to her.

Exactly!

 

[icehorse]

Okay, sorry. So what how do you know that your version is not a form of moral relativism, but rather objective in effect?

I believe we should strive to create a universal morality that's as objective as possible, while admitting that such a morality would probably never be perfect or unique.

There are lots of things we pursue, knowing full well that we cannot achieve perfect answers.

I believe in a form of utilitarianism that I call "the aggregate well being of conscious creatures". I believe we'd be on safe ground if we started with axioms like "health is BETTER than disease".

Again, I'm happy to debate relativism in a separate thread.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I believe we should strive to create a universal morality that's as objective as possible, while admitting that such a morality would probably never be perfect or unique.

There are lots of things we pursue, knowing full well that we cannot achieve perfect answers.

I believe in a form of utilitarianism that I call "the aggregate well being of conscious creatures". I believe we'd be on safe ground if we started with axioms like "health is BETTER than disease".

Again, I'm happy to debate relativism in a separate thread.

What if that is in effect what could make you a bad man?
Because how you do it as stated is to vauge and could in fact make you bad. I mean it.

We can go through it and I can show you the 2 versions and how one is bad in a certain sense and the other could also be bad in another sense.

 

[icehorse]

What if that is in effect what could make you a bad man?
Because how you do it as stated is to vauge and could in fact make you bad. I mean it.

We can go through it and I can show you the 2 versions and how one is bad in a certain sense and the other could also be bad in another sense.

again, i'd be happy to discuss / debate ideas like this in a separate thead

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

again, i'd be happy to discuss / debate ideas like this in a separate thead

Then make one about what harm is and how we can know it and tag me.

 

[We Never Know]

I believe we should strive to create a universal morality that's as objective as possible, while admitting that such a morality would probably never be perfect or unique.

There are lots of things we pursue, knowing full well that we cannot achieve perfect answers.

I believe in a form of utilitarianism that I call "the aggregate well being of conscious creatures". I believe we'd be on safe ground if we started with axioms like "health is BETTER than disease".

Again, I'm happy to debate relativism in a separate thread.

"I believe we should strive to create a universal morality that's as objective as possible"

Who sets the standards of what is or isn't good/bad, right/wrong?

 

[icehorse]

"I believe we should strive to create a universal morality that's as objective as possible"

Who sets the standards of what is or isn't good/bad, right/wrong?

Again, I'd be happy to dive into this in another thread.

But here's a short answer: I think that we could start with a few axioms like "healthy is good, disease is bad", and work from there.

 

[Kfox]

Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.​

For more information concerning gender please see the source page for the above:

Gender and health

Gender and health

www.who.int

When you say roles associated with being a man or woman, are you talking about sexist roles like women should not be police officers, or soldiers before children and should not be working outside the house upon having children, or men should not be stay-at-home-dads? Or something else. If sexist stereotypes, I thought we were supposed to be getting away from those things; are you advocating for their return?

If you meant something else, please give examples of things only men are supposed to do that women should not, and visa versa.

 

[Kfox]

Bevause a sub-culture is not a majority, yet they have social constructs.

But the point I was making was in reference to culture, not a sub-culture that might exist within a culture.

 

[Kfox]

They kind of do, though. When I was growing up, to refer to something as "gay" was to suggest it was in some way generally negative. Of course, we don't do that any more and it's strongly frowned on, but it's an example of how language is part of sociological phenomenon that can be influenced contextually to imply and develop new meanings.

That’s different. The fact that homosexuality is no longer considered negative by mainstream society has nothing to do with a change in the definition of the term homosexuality; it has to do with society becoming more accepting with people who are attracted to same sex.

So you think that when people refer to "minority groups" or "ethnic minorities" in America, you think they're including straight white men in that category? You literally think the phrase "minority" is being used in a literal, pre-scriptive sense?

When people speak of “ethnic minorities” they are excluding ALL white people; not just white men.

Yes, ask them. Not people who aren't making that claim. So why are you expecting people who are NOT making that claim to defend it?

If I recall correctly, it was not me who brought up the idea of 72 different genders, someone else brought it up before you decided to get involved in this conversation, and I was just responding to what he posted

Practically everything. It's association with sex, its forms of expression, the way we identify it, the ways in which we personally relate to and understand it, the range of values various cultures assign to it, the relation of those values to who is expected to belong in which particular category, the biodimorphic qualities associated between sex and gender, the association and acceptability of masculinity/femininity within certain contexts and roles, the way we associate and express gender physically, verbally, through our work, through our values, through our perspectives. It's a aspect of human sociology that probably has the greatest and widest range of impacts on our day to day life and, more broadly, on our culture. It's ubiquitous, and equally complex.

Where would you like to start?

Let’s start with a trait that will make a biological male anything other than a man

 

[Kfox]

That's not how these things work. I've already explained that social constructs are not democracies: they aren't DETERMINED by committee. They're just FORMED and DEVELOPED in societies, but how each individual relates to and understands the construct themselves can still be (and is almost always inevitably) coloured by their own personal experiences and understanding.

Why do people not understand sociology any more? It really isn't that difficult to understand.

Can you give an example of a social construct (other than gender) where there is little agreement?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But the point I was making was in reference to culture, not a sub-culture that might exist within a culture.

But a subsulture is not possible if culture is determined at the level of culture.

 

[Kfox]

But a subsulture is not possible if culture is determined at the level of culture.

That's like saying a semi circle is not possible if circle is determined at the level of a complete circle. Is it your view that gender is a sub culture?