(2/2) Any system with prominent power relations will reinforce certain behaviors in the sense of biological selection. If deviants are killed or treated worse than "normal" people, their traits are put at evolutionary disadvantage. The result is that a society that normalizes certain traits is artificially selecting for those traits. There would rarely be an example where it's so black and white. Consider transgender people though. They're generally raised as one gender but at a certain point adopt behavior of the other gender. Frequently they report preferences or drives toward this behavior prior to transition. What reason would this occur (and why would it happen in a portion of the population characteristic of a mutation) if this behavior is the product of socialization? Cisgender people don't spontaneously adopt the behavior of the other gender. A cisgender female and a trans-male are both socialized into being female, but only the trans-male will begin acting male in spite of socialization. This is an obvious question to ask when presented with the socialization hypothesis, and there is a growing body of research into biological differences between trans an cis people. We seem to just be going in circles here.
You can't solve that issue by pretending biological traits aren't relevant I just explained why I disagree with this. Restating it doesn't change the point. Biology and our social understanding of it are in a mutually self-reinforcing relationship. You say the common notion of gender has little to do with the biology, but I say (said) that it shapes it. Society enacts selective pressures. The violence of normativity is the violence of selection pressure. They are one and the same. Thus, to normatively define gender we impose gender on our biology. Since you agree with the other side of the "cycle" I guess this is what I should be emphasizing. The two are linked together. My actual beef with the gender-abolition (aside from this disagreement over the facts) is that in arguing for the dissolution of gender as a social construct they are by definition arguing for erasing the "identity" of people who have gender. I have no problem with the species becoming less dimorphic, but these issues are bound up in real world problems that people have to deal with, and I do have a problem with sacrificing real people for the sake of some abstract that's supposed to help them.
Adrian Hill
It's that demonstrating something to be false isn't by itself sufficient but it requires a process of development: not only of falsification but of validation and revalidation of a theory, in addition to being tethered to its social bases and limitations (as in the case of the LHC experiments). Falsifiability isn't enough to account for development alone.
Because it was his criterion for science. If we're discussing ideas politically, we should at least talk about where ideas in the conversation originated politically.
The model must resemble the reality assuming it's a model of reality as it exists rather than as it exists ideally.
The object wasn't to demonstrate that science is imperfect (simply stating it to be "imperfect" would be somewhat misleading, I think, as one needs a rule or standard prior that one adopted to judge it) but that its development is not wholly a function of falsifiability. It was to show falsifiability to be a deficient model of scientific development. That isn't to say falsifiability is irrelevant to science. It just doesn't by itself result in scientific development. That seeming imperfection when judging science by the falsifiability criterion must also be accounted for in a true model of scientific development, otherwise we simply have an ideal model, one we wish and strive for but not one that models science as it actually exists.
We could point to historical examples of how gender has been understood scientifically (for example, the simple separation of "man" and "woman" as "XY" and "XX" which does today take into account deviations from these typical cases and a partial separation of sex chromosomes from subjective identity), but that also requires acknowledging that the separation between gender and sex is of relatively recent provenance. The separation of the two as sexes was regarded simultaneously as a separation of inherent identity, and deviation from a masculine and feminine identity for each would be explained as deficiency in being a man or woman.
Wyatt Smith
Then why do you seem to think I'm saying biology is irrelevant? Because that isn't at all what I said. Again:
Lincoln Thompson
What does that mean? Why would gender identification exist if gender is gone? Be more specific.
Also I've never seen anti-gender as a position on leftypol before, but I believe in it. I believe that the genders are different, you know hormones and stuff, but society values/roles/culture can brainwash people to behave in almost any way, including an abolishment of gender if you want.
