Is that a defining feature of contemporary progressives vis-a-vis conservatives though?

So all that exists are words because you've defined "word" to mean anything that exists. How does that help you to think about anything in a different or less confused way?

I used to follow this sort of reasoning, but I've adjusted my position from "It's completely performative" to "A significant amount is performative."

My main issue with Butler's reasoning is that it, like a lot of philosophy, makes matters difficult for itself by being too ambitious. Much like the rationalists and empiricists argued that everything came from reason and experience respectively, arguing that every single matter of gender is performative puts an incredible burden on her case. Even a single compelling counter-example undermines the main claim. I want to emphasize, however, that this is an issue I find is broadly present in a lot of philosophy. Maybe it's just because people want to make bold and exciting claims. Or maybe you need to do that to get published. I'm not sure of the more practical considerations at play for these philosophers.

Anyway, as anyone who's not very dedicated to feminist ideology would see, my position here is very unambitious. I'm saying, essentially, that there are probably at least some aspects of gender/sex that aren't performative - learned from society, or so on.

What I would argue is pretty simple - because of some simple differences in men and women biologically, the greatest of which is childbirth, there has been a natural division of labour that's been present in nature since before we were even humans, and, over millennia that difference in division of labour has even caused us to evolve to have some biological differences (like how men tend to track motion better but women distinguish colour better. Differences in fat content and muscle mass, and so on).

I think that what likely happened is that these differences generally worked their way into our cultures and became exaggerated and stereotyped over time. I think the fundamental differences are more of a matter of convenience of division of labour that became exaggerated over time - and this is why you'll also see in certain society that gender roles can be quite different. There are some differences, but they're more subtle than most people who believe in them make them out to be. Societies are typically what exaggerate them.

Now if you want to get into semantics you could say that this practical division of labour is performative, but I would just say that I prefer to use the word practical because I think it's more indicative of what's really going on. Yes, people do perform to societal expectations, but people also make choices that are practical, and while that's less dramatic and interesting, I think it's at least part of the truth of the matter.

Overall I'm still quite amenable to the position that a significant amount of gendered behaviour is performative; I just think that saying that all of it is is getting overly ambitious.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I literally have no idea what this means

Like TRAs had absolutely no clue that their philosophy plus Hidden Predators inevitably leads the The Handmaid's Tale?

I dunno man that's hard to believe

[removed]

[deleted]

>nuh uh. It's racism to talk about race.

Butler's point about intersectionality is that everybody with that skin color knows.

Who knows? Could be more could be less

>I propose that even two people with the same skin color would be treated differently even if they were exact twins

How much different would that exact twin be treated if she had a different skin color?

True, but I propose that:

If you had exactly as much money and exactly as much fame as Beyonce and you had the exact same skin color as Beyonce, and looked exactly like beyonce.

In fact even if you were a carbon copy of beyonce in all measurable aspects except that you aren't beyonce, you still wouldn't be treated exactly the same.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

And yet the article keeps using the word "truth". That epistemology can't give us all the answers. Answers to what? Whether God exists?

You mention the benefits of myth to the human psyche. If they do have benefits, why? And does that have any impact on whether they are true?

The way Jung is being presented, along with Jordan Peterson, it seems to me, to mostly being an attempt at a meaningful justification for religious belief, and it's truth, while trying to avoid structural criticism of their arguments.

Which is somewhat ironic to me, it coming from the likes of Peterson, and the rest of the "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd.

We can have great and meaningful conversations about our emotions, what they represent and how they impact us. Just because the concepts and narratives we use to communicate these things are fiction, does not mean the emotional impact is fiction. Ideas that we need some kind of justification for their foundation takes away, in my mind, the value of those conversations. Shakespeares soliloquy in Hamlet does not have to have been said by a real person for its meaning to have impact. The idea that there is a need for truth beyond that the story exists at all in this context, is baffling to me. Similarly the impacts of the Bible do not hinge on its truth.

In short: Myths and stories exists. Myths and stories have impact on humans. Does that provide any justification for the myths and stories being true?

>there are behaviors (being heterosexual) and physical traits that naturally occur in the most naturally occurring genders/sexes.

The idea that there are naturally occurring genders/sexes (and so masculine/feminine hormones) is exactly what's being questioned in Butler's work.

>I also find it odd that the word gender has been usurped to be defined as how one identifies

It should be noted that this isn't how Butler understands gender, but is a more socially mainstream conception (one which has been noted in philosophy as admitting itself to circularity, and so not being a good definition of gender). Butler rather claims that gender is produced in a repetitive structure of acts which consolidate a certain type of understanding of bodies into a classification, which is then treated as merely reflecting a prior nature.

>But those are the performativities Butler spoke of.

Butler's theory of performativity doesn't have to do with gender roles in particular, but the way in which gender as a concept in a system of human classification is constructed. This includes layperson understandings as well as scientific discourses, legal discourses, political positions, medical discourses, etc.

>I know my argument is semantic, but I feel like there are better words to describe what we’re talking about. Butler chose to be They/Them because of her assertions that being called girl/boy is usurping the individual from generating their own identity

I don't think your argument is semantic, you seem to be bringing in points that are more substantial than how we should speak about things. Also, Butler says that they go by she/her and they/them, but prefer the latter because they never felt "at home" in the she/her. Butler is consistent with their theory of performativity on this count, as the theory doesn't claim that one should, or even can, generate their own identity. Rather the claim being made is that we are all determined to some extent by our culture and society, but not therein fully determined, and there is a relative space of freedom for self-creation, be it only partial.

[removed]

>repugnant conclusion

I dont think this is as big an issue as some people exaggerated, I mean once you have a good benchmark of what is decent living, you will not lower it dramatically just to accommodate more people, that's ridiculous, people just dont live like this. Humans prefer quality way more over quantity, this is why the birthrate is dropping despite increasing quality of life.

Its a bizarre philosophical thought experiment that assumes people will behave like calculative AI. lol

The claims only work if the ideas separating the actual biology and social constructs are defined.

The fact we know that testosterone and estrogen do very specific things shows that there are behaviors (being heterosexual) and physical traits that naturally occur in the most naturally occurring genders/sexes. It’s precisely why transgender people take hormone replacement drugs. They want to fully embody what the feminine/masculine hormones do to the body.

I also find it odd that the word gender has been usurped to be defined as how one identifies instead of acknowledging that gender comes from the same root as generate/genitals/progeny. It’s all about the role one would take in procreation should they be so inclined. Gender ROLES, however, are most definitely societally constructed and can change. Women can hold the door open for men and men can be stay at home dads. I’m all aboard the gender-role busting train for the most part. My son likes pink and blue. By daughter plays in the mud while wearing her Elsa dress.

But those are the performativities Butler spoke of.

I know my argument is semantic, but I feel like there are better words to describe what we’re talking about. Butler chose to be They/Them because of her assertions that being called girl/boy is usurping the individual from generating their own identity. But it’s okay to accept that until one can decipher whatever it is they’re feeling, being labeled as boy/girl — because that’s the most naturally occurring thing to happen in our species — isn’t harmful. As long as we’re supportive of people and respectful and kind, that should be what matters, I suppose.

Social contract theory argues that at one point, we lived without morality. If so, then we were never born in a moral system to begin with. I argue that arguments against Rousseau social contract creates a strong case that all morality was created by us and not independent of us. Morality is a logical conclusion to ensure our survival as a species. Or the survival of the us vs them. The reason for the similarities is because of our senses. Even though unique to each individual. It is confined within a range. It would be like arguing that the ten digit system we use was given to us from an external force. Instead, it was based on us being able to count to ten with our hands.

The issue then becomes what we do with this logical information. So we run into Hume's is ought problem. This leads to different uses of these logical conclusions.

My theory on why we came together is based on our similarities of loss and the indifference of the world. What I mean by this is the death of family members. This makes us want change in whatever form that may be.

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

If you had exactly as much money and exactly as much fame as Beyonce but you weren't the same skin color as Beyonce, would people treat you exactly the same as Beyonce?

I propose they wouldn't.