Psychedelics and Paraphilia

[Shakti]

Tell me how it wont?

You're trying to pigeon hole me into a biological explanation (of which there are many legitimate arguments btw) but I'm not gonna let you, as I (safely) assume you've been conditioned to treat them like the devil.

Let me ask you this instead. How is it we see consistent patterns of dimorphism (biological, social, psychological, etc.) cross-culturally if sex does not influence gender in more ways than reproductive roles?

 

[Shakti]

Another question: If we assume that gender is entirely a social construction, how would it be possible that the evolutionary force of sexual selection wouldn't ingrain our socially advantageous gender traits into our biology?

 

[solistus]

Shakti: how are you defining gender? Nobody is claiming that human biology is not organized around two physical sexes (although Butler would certainly poke some conceptual holes in the way you accept a certain way of thinking about physical sex as objective just because the sex characteristics themselves are objective), but how does knowing that my physical sex is male or female help me know how I, as an individual, should relate to my gender and sexual identity?

The problem is, you're arguing the merits of theoretical models about sexuality, whereas the OP is trying to explore and understand his personal identity. Do you expect him to resolve these issues by considering the prevalence of dimorphism? The number of conceptual gaps between looking at macro trends on a societal scale like that and understanding personal identity are virtually limitless. For starters, ANY feminist theorist with a basic understanding of the main issues at hand would tear apart your assumptions about dimorphism on things like a social and psychological scale. At best, that would demonstrate that patriarchal norms are cross-cultural, not that rigid sexual identity based on 'objective understanding' is the best or even a particularly healthy way to understand one's own identity.\

You are vastly oversimplifying feminist theory to attack straw 'man' arguments. Plenty of feminist theorists have answered these very basic conceptual concerns of yours in many different, mutually exclusive ways. Virtually all of them would have pretty compelling arguments to counter your concerns. If you really want to investigate these issues further, then you too should read Gender Trouble. I don't agree with Butler on a lot of things but it sounds like you haven't actually been exposed to any coherent gender theory arguments and are just responding to shallow pop culture understandings like 'social constructivism means denying science.'

edit: I have no idea what your last comment is even trying to say. Gender is about identity. The very phrase 'gender traits' implies a ridiculously reductionist and simplistic understanding of the concept. How could one's identity become biologically ingrained in the form of specific physical traits? Natural selection operated on sexual characteristics - you know, the physiological differences in male and female bodies. How we as subjects of language understand our own identity is something evolutionary theory can't really speak to in a useful or coherent way.

 

[Shakti]

Gender as a social construction is the consensual definition. I'm not trying to change definitions. I'm merely pointing out that this creates a false dichotomy.

I'm not trying to make any sort of point regarding any individual's sex or gender. I'm merely commenting on the collective scale. So my points are off topic, but who cares.

And, yeah you're right a million and one feminists would attempt to rip apart my argument. I don't care. I'm not trying to enforce patriarchy. I'm not trying to make a deterministic argument about biological sex creating gender. However, sex and gender from a systemic standpoint are in a state of reciprocal determinism. That is my point.

 

[solistus]

Fair enough, but I still think it's totally conceptually invalid to look at gender from a systemic standpoint in the way you are attempting. It sounds like you are talking about gender ROLES as static social constructs. Yes, those have existed and continue to exist, which is why things like 'social dimorphism' perpetuate. You're also correct that patriarchy is cross-cultural; this is something feminist theorists not only accept but use as a central premise in how they conceptualise the origin of patriarchy. Personally, I think it's a manifestation of death drive like a good dogmatic Lacanian, and is therefore just as universal as language itself, but that's neither here nor there.

The point is, the gender *roles* you are talking about, which have shaped society in many ways and which are obviously intrinsically related to sex and sexuality, are not what we are talking about when we talk about gender as distinct from sex. Gender is a personal identity. A gender role is a static notion of what sort of identity people 'should' have based on their physical sex. Feminists say that's bad, and we need alternative ways of thinking about gender. They're CERTAINLY not saying society hasn't shown evidence of gender divisions along sexual lines throughout history; that's kind of their entire premise, in fact

P.S. - if you're not talking about individual identity you may not want to start the discussion by responding to someone who asks how his personal gender identity is predetermined by his sex with "how is it not?" If you ask that question, some well-read feminists may show up and answer it extensively

 

[Malice-]

Tell me how it wont?

You're trying to pigeon hole me into a biological explanation (of which there are many legitimate arguments btw) but I'm not gonna let you, as I (safely) assume you've been conditioned to treat them like the devil.

Let me ask you this instead. How is it we see consistent patterns of dimorphism (biological, social, psychological, etc.) cross-culturally if sex does not influence gender in more ways than reproductive roles?

How can make you the assumption as to what their sex is when you have yet to see for yourself? The short answer: gender doesn't mean anything; I can't really come to any conclusion as to what ones sex is based on their gender.

If we assume that gender is entirely a social construction, how would it be possible that the evolutionary force of sexual selection wouldn't ingrain our socially advantageous gender traits into our biology?

You're making the positive implication that certain gender traits are advantageous. I really hope you're ready to substantiate that claim.

 

[Shakti]

SUBJECT AND OBJECT ARE ONE!!!!

hehe. Dont forget that. Radical subject is radical object.

It is invalid to attempt to make judgments of any one individual's gender based on the collective, systemic scale. It is not however, invalid to draw conclusions of the systemic collective scale of sex and gender based on analysis of the collective scale systemically.

Self-contradiction is the point of feminist criticism?

 

[Malice-]

Wow... we're really going off-topic.

I'll think I'll stop here. Heh.

 

[Shakti]

You're making the positive implication that certain gender traits are advantageous. I really hope you're ready to substantiate that claim.

From a sexual selection standpoint there are advantageous gender traits. You don't think certain personality traits intimately involved with an individual's gender can affect how often they get laid?

As for assuming one's sex or gender, I haven't.

 

[solistus]

SUBJECT AND OBJECT ARE ONE!!!!

hehe. Dont forget that. Radical subject is radical object.

It is invalid to attempt to make judgments of any one individual's gender based on the collective, systemic scale. It is not however, invalid to draw conclusions of the systemic collective scale of sex and gender based on analysis of the collective scale systemically.

Self-contradiction is the point of feminist criticism?

Disagree. Radical subject is displaced onto the object; there's a difference. Lacanian theory for the motherfuckin' win

You misinterpreted my arguments. The point is that there are internal contradictions within the wrong, incorrect, patriarchal world view of constructing static gender roles and trying to force everyone to fit into one. So, we should reject those incorrect notions. This is what I was getting at when I said you had a very reductionist notion of gender. You're confusing the object of feminist criticism with the alternative options feminism advocates, because they both involve the term 'gender.'

 

[Shakti]

Fair enough, but I still think it's totally conceptually invalid to look at gender from a systemic standpoint in the way you are attempting. It sounds like you are talking about gender ROLES as static social constructs. Yes, those have existed and continue to exist, which is why things like 'social dimorphism' perpetuate.

Actually, I'm attempting to examine the currents of gender fluidity. You are talking to a western biologically male individual, who's adopted an eastern divine feminine archetype for their internet persona, btw

 

[solistus]

Malice-: he means advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint, not as a judgment of moral worth or appropriateness. If I understand the argument, basically it's that traits which encourage frequent and fruitful heterosexual mating would be biologically preferred. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, and I suspect again we're back at his misinterpretation of the concept of gender identity versus constructed gender roles.

 

[solistus]

Actually, I'm attempting to examine the currents of gender fluidity. You are talking to a western biologically male individual, who's adopted an eastern divine feminine archetype for their internet persona, btw

How exactly are you examining gender fluidity? I thought you were not talking about gender identity at all a few seconds ago, but merely analyzing some off-topic systemic trends from a biological perspective. Now it IS about personal identity and how that relates to sex? Please restate your position, I've thoroughly lost track

edit: actually, feel free not to, I need to get some sleep... it's 3AM and I'm debating Butler, lulz feels like undergrad all over. Anyway, it's been fun exchanging ideas, hope I didn't ruffle any feathers, if this stuff interests you check out Judith Butler. Gnight all

 

[Malice-]

From a sexual selection standpoint there are advantageous gender traits. You don't think certain personality traits intimately involved with an individual's gender can affect how often they get laid?

What makes you think that other genders other than the invisible one used in your argument don't have the same or even other advantageous traits from an evolutionary standpoint?

With that said, I'm done.

 

[Shakti]

Disagree. Radical subject is displaced onto the object; there's a difference. Lacanian theory for the motherfuckin' win

Turiyatita, Non-dual realization FTW ;P

Subject and object are one. Trying to divorce them is intellectually lazy.

You misinterpreted my arguments. The point is that there are internal contradictions within the wrong, incorrect, patriarchal world view of constructing static gender roles and trying to force everyone to fit into one. So, we should reject those incorrect notions. This is what I was getting at when I said you had a very reductionist notion of gender. You're confusing the object of feminist criticism with the alternative options feminism advocates, because they both involve the term 'gender.'

No, you presumed i held a position i did not, and applied your canned ready-made arguments.

 

[Shakti]

What makes you think that other genders other than the invisible one used in your argument don't have the same or even other advantageous traits from an evolutionary standpoint?

With that said, I'm done.

Why do you presume I presume that when I do not? I'm pointing out how gender influences biology. Not applying one mold to all.

Good night and good talking with ya

 

[Malice-]

Good night and good talking with ya

You too.

 

[solistus]

Damn you for replying before I logged off

Subject and object are distinct. Trying to pretend they aren't is intellectually lazy. See? I can assert my ontology as obviously true, too! At any rate, the relationship between subject and object is complex. I'm a lack theorist - neither subject nor object is complete. At any rate, having any meaningful debate on this would obviously require us to first discuss tons of underlying assumptions and the very meaning of the terms 'subject' and 'object' in the abstract to begin with, and that seems even less productive than all this has been.

No, you presumed i held a position i did not, and applied your canned ready-made arguments.

I was responding to your "so feminism means contradictions?" quip by explaining my point. How are my arguments canned and ready-made when they're responses to specific things you've said and how they relate to specific things I've said, both in this thread and both tonight?

You're starting to put me into attack mode with your dismissive tone, so I'm gonna bow out now. Calling me intellectually lazy and my arguments canned and ready-made without actually explaining an objection to any of them is either sarcastic humor that I don't get or just uncalled for hostility. Whatever, peace.

 

[Shakti]

Sorry if I've been rude. I do love pushing buttons when I'm drunk.

That discussion regarding teasing apart subject and object I would love to have at some point.

Good night