Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

In the November 1966 issue of The Objectivist, Ayn Rand wrote:

Quote

The nominalists of modern philosophy...claim that the alternative of true or false is not applicable to definitions, only to "factual" propositions. Since words, they claim, represent arbitrary human (social) conventions, and concepts have no objective referents in reality, a definition can be neither true nor false. The assault on reason has never reached a deeper level or a lower depth than this. [bold added]

It might be said that fifty years ago nominalists self-identified as "non-binary definitionists." True and false pertained to propositions, but not definitions. A proposition suggests mere possibility, but a definition suggests actual certainty. And certainty implies knowledge of reality. If the goal is to enslave people's minds, then you certainly don't want to encourage them to pursue knowledge of reality.

Fast forward fifty years to today, and the nominalists' appetite for slavery has turned to the social-political realm. Now they self-identify as "non-binary genderists." Male and female pertain to propositions, but not definitions; the mind, which possibly reflects reality, but not the body, which certainly reflects reality. If the goal is to enslave people's bodies, then you certainly don't want to encourage them to pursue knowledge of reality.

Slavery is about controlling people's minds and bodies. Nominalism is a philosophy of slavery. A nominalist wants to be a master, a ruler of humans. And so he places himself above normal humans, both mentally and physically. Mentally he is a "non-binary" word-maker, whose speech must not be questioned. And physically he is a "non-binary" entity, whose very identity must not be questioned. When he says he is this or that, then he is this or that. And if he orders you to call him she or they, then your duty is to call him she or they. For he is the master, and you are the slave. He is a member of the "non-binary" royal family. And you are part of the lowly, unenlightened "binary" or "cisgender" class.

If Rand were alive, she might say that nominalism has managed to reach an even deeper depth than anyone ever imagined possible. Verbal and sexual aberrants are being crowned as intellectual and moral superiors. And we, the normal ones, are the tolerated clown jesters of the circus kingdom.

Drag queens and miladyboys.

Bow down to your new rulers!

fgud_by_bosseslovecake-dbhiyr9.png.84fa8be9dc6d70dbd9220feec4a0a207.png

 

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2018 the great state of California will officially recognize a fundamentally distinct class of human being called "nonbinary." It will honor the members of this class with birth certificates that recognize them as a unique "gender" that's different from male and female. Their children will of course also be honored with "nonbinary" status at birth, if it so pleases them.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Fast forward fifty years to today, and the nominalists' appetite for slavery has turned to the social-political realm. Now they self-identify as "non-binary genderists."

You have not demonstrated any necessary connection between these two things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

In 2018 the great state of California will officially recognize a fundamentally distinct class of human being called "nonbinary." It will honor the members of this class with birth certificates that recognize them as a unique "gender" that's different from male and female. Their children will of course also be honored with "nonbinary" status at birth, if it so pleases them.

And this constitutes slavery... how again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Verbal and sexual aberrants are being crowned as intellectual and moral superiors. And we, the normal ones, are the tolerated clown jesters of the circus kingdom.

Drag queens and miladyboys.

World-famous drag queen Rupaul has repeatedly described his profession as that of a court jester, "never taking the world too seriously." So, I guess he's at least as intellectual as you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2046 said:

You have not demonstrated any necessary connection between these two things. 

Which two things, nominalism and slavery, or nominalism and "non-binary genderism"?

Looks like Ian Hacking tried to link nominalism with social constructionism in his book The Social Construction of What? But I haven't read it and only looked at snippets via Google Books.

Screenshot_20171208-185616.thumb.png.c44054b4925c007e363ffded5e8168cd.png

Do you accept that gender theory is a child of social constructionism?

The slavery connection will be a tough sell. I'll work on it. Mostly it's happening at the mental level in academia right now. But there are signs of it starting at the physical level too, also in academia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JASKN said:

World-famous drag queen Rupaul has repeatedly described his profession as that of a court jester, "never taking the world too seriously." So, I guess he's at least as intellectual as you.

RuPaul is considered a transphobic "cis drag queen." The royal family hates him. So, yeah, he too is a brother jester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, JASKN said:
5 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Verbal and sexual aberrants are being crowned as intellectual and moral superiors. And we, the normal ones, are the tolerated clown jesters of the circus kingdom.

Drag queens and miladyboys.

World-famous drag queen Rupaul has repeatedly described his profession as that of a court jester, "never taking the world too seriously." So, I guess he's at least as intellectual as you.

World famous Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus closed their doors on May 21, 2017 citing weakening attendance and high operating costs.Court jesters and circus clowns have served as entertainment, their distractions were usually not much more than a public spectacle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Swig, I don't think you even identified nominalism.

Is there something about the Rand quote or the first couple paragraphs with which you disagree? I'm mostly relying on Rand and Wikipedia for my understanding of the subject, but if you want to point me elsewhere, that would be great. I think nominalism is essentially the rejection of universals, and the idea that words have no basis in objective reality, they are merely names for categories of particular concretes. This is expressed in "non-binary" gender theory by applying the rejection of universals to concepts of "male" and "female." There is no "male" or "female" concrete thing in reality, therefore they don't really exist and are socially constructed concepts. Hence: "non-binary" which is just a six-dollar word for "not male or female."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 2046 said:

And this constitutes slavery... how again?

The first step toward full-blown physical bondage, is mental bondage. And the first step in mental bondage, is accepting that someone else is inherently, mystically superior to you in some way.

"Non-binary" people claim to have knowledge unavailable to "binary" thinkers. They know of a third "gender." Their "gender." And their "gender" class possesses this special knowledge via feelings. They simply feel (or somehow know) it in their souls. They divine it from somewhere. They can't tell you where. It just comes to them. It's been there since childhood. They don't know why. But it's a fact.

If you don't feel this fact, this revealed truth, then you are spiritually inferior and should defer to their experience, their feelings, their knowledge, their belief system. You should rewrite your biology books, alter your language, and update your legal system, all in accordance with the feelings and demands of the superior class of "non-binary" diviners of essential truth.

That is mental slavery. It is you surrendering your mind to someone else's feelings. It's only a matter of time before you surrender your body too.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

This is expressed in "non-binary" gender theory by applying the rejection of universals to concepts of "male" and "female." There is no "male" or "female" concrete thing in reality, therefore they don't really exist and are socially constructed concepts. 

You must be mistaking Rand's theory of universals for realism, for objectivism does not post that universals exist as a concrete thing in entities.

Furthermore, concepts involving societies, that is, groups of men acting in given patterns, such as "culture," "status," "role" are not any less a part of reality. That seems a quite implausible assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Looks like Ian Hacking tried to link nominalism with social constructionism in his book The Social Construction of What? But I haven't read it and only looked at snippets via Google Books.

I may suggest broadening your studies before positing assertions about what trans people must necessarily think.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2046 said:

You must be mistaking Rand's theory of universals for realism, for objectivism does not post that universals exist as a concrete thing in entities.

I never talked about Rand's theory of universals, because this topic isn't about that. And I don't plan to make it about that. Been there, done that on another thread long ago.

2 hours ago, 2046 said:

I may suggest broadening your studies before positing assertions about what trans people must necessarily think.

I never talked about what trans people must think, because this subject is about nominalists and "non-binary" people. Are you saying that all trans people are nominalists or identify as "non-binary"?

This is an interesting set of initial objections. Only one actual question, and even that one came with attitude. I don't care if you think I'm being an idiot, but are there more actual questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

A proposition suggests mere possibility, but a definition suggests actual certainty.

A definition isn't really more or less certain than a proposition. Dunno where you got the idea that a nominalist is only okay with propositions because propositions are only possibilities. The idea for them is that there are no universal referents, so no definition is true but we could make true propositions with those arbitrary definitions.

20 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

the mind, which possibly reflects reality, but not the body, which certainly reflects reality.

This might apply to materialism as in Marx, but not nominalism.

20 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Slavery is about controlling people's minds and bodies. Nominalism is a philosophy of slavery.

Nominalism is a philosophy that there are no universals. That's all it is. To a nominalist, you'd have no rules or limits to the concepts you form. It doesn't follow that they want to force you to think things. Sure it's anti-reason, but the effects you talk about aren't nominalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

"Non-binary" people claim to have knowledge unavailable to "binary" thinkers. They know of a third "gender." Their "gender." And their "gender" class possesses this special knowledge via feelings. They simply feel (or somehow know) it in their souls. They divine it from somewhere. They can't tell you where. It just comes to them. It's been there since childhood. They don't know why. But it's a fact.

I completely agree with this. They usually provide two (mutually contradictory) justifications for why nobody can contradict them:

1)  From evolutionary psychology: the idea that this "feeling" (actually: identification) of who they are is obtained through genes or some means other than perception. Such inheritance can be random, is not derived from reality and may eventually be discovered to be in conflict with physical reality. They may claim that they are physically a man but their brain comes with the identification that they are a woman. Since the identification is obtained through means other than perception and "cannot be helped", they claim that these identifications (of themselves as male or female) are as valid as a person whose genetic consciousness is "cis" (people who get a transmitted consciousness which identifies their biological sex correctly but don't have a choice in their identification either, since that part of the consciousness [which identifies their own biological sex] is transmitted genetically and is not derived from perception).

2) The idea that gender has nothing to do with biological sex and is a social convention. Under this paradigm, gender is a man-made concept. Hence, it is arbitrary. Hence, they're all equally valid. The concepts are considered to be derived from reality but in a loose sense: through social agreement. What is considered is "normal" or correct is also part of this agreement and has no basis in reality and must be fought.

The latter argument can also be applied to all concepts: all concepts are man-made (true) and hence, arbitrary (false) but are given meaning and made "real" by society (false).

Both justifications cut off consciousness (identification) from reality (one says identifications are hereditary; other says they are arbitrary.) and they contradict each other. There are still more (less important) arguments.

 

Definitions: sex and gender are two different concepts but your sex determines your gender. Some heuristic definitions can be given:

 

sex: biological sex of all animals

gender: biological sex of humans

 

male sex: male & animal

female sex: female & animal

male gender = male & human

female gender = female & human

 

man = male & human & 18+

boy = male & human & 18-

woman = female & human & 18+

girl = female & human & 18-

 

For example, a cow is female but not a woman. A bull is male but not a man. This is the only distinction between sex and gender. Humans can be referred to by their sex as well as gender. Your biological sex and the fact that you are human (and hence your gender) are determined by your physiology and is not an arbitrary choice open to debate.

Note: saying something like "that female offered me candy" is a bit dehumanizing so the latter is more preferred [gender contains the implication that you are human]. But both are correct. This doesn't mean that gender has any additional special non-physiological attributes. Gender is preferred over sex (when referring to people) for the same reason that "those gay men are playing in the field" is preferred over "those gays are playing in the field". The only thing gender adds to sex (and "gay men" adds to "gays") is personhood (the fact that you are human). The addition (of personhood) makes sure that you are not reduced to your biological sex or sexual orientation while somebody else is referring to your biological sex or sexual orientation. It is a respectful way of addressing people (but it is not a title or indication of social status as some "constructionists" would want you to believe). There is no mystical undefinable element. Gender is a respectful way of referring to a person's biological sex by including the fact that they are human. The same thing happens with "gay men" or "gay person" as opposed to just "gays". Both sex and gender refer to biological sex but for different classes of species. Sometimes the word "man" refers to all humans emphasizing the personhood and getting rid of the biological sex. This is more evidence that what the words man/woman add to the table is the concept of being human, not some BS social convention.

Also, English isn't my first language, but this is how I understand these words (male, female, man, boy, woman, girl). It seems extremely simple to me. But pretty much all native speakers seem to have some problems with this. I don't understand what their objections are to this (I have heard some say that since gender roles are made-up and different throughout the world [eg: marumakkathayam in Kerala], the concept of gender is false. That's faulty logic. Gender and gender roles are two separate concepts. The validity of gender roles has no implications for the validity of the concept of gender). To summarize: gender is a different concept from sex (which is broader) but if you are human, your sex determines your gender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, human_murda said:

I completely agree with this. They usually provide two (mutually contradictory) justifications for why nobody can contradict them:

1)  From evolutionary psychology: the idea that this "feeling" (actually: identification) of who they are is obtained through genes or some means other than perception. 

2) The idea that gender has nothing to do with biological sex and is a social convention. Under this paradigm, gender is a man-made concept. Hence, it is arbitrary. Hence, they're all equally valid. 

1. The concept of gender dysphoria is a scientifically documented and researched phenomenon. It is not a concept to be investigated by armchair reasoning. Whether genetics might or might not influence it, whether pre or post natal hormone levels might influence it, whether environmental factors might influence it, whether brain structure might influence it or whether it might be formed entriely on a cognitive basis, or some mix of things, is a scientific question. Nobody, that is literally nobody in the scientific community says, "this is a feeling formed by genes and some other means than perception." This is just lazy straw manning. It is like Galileo's accusers refusing to look through his telescope because they have already proved a priori what they believe.

2. Man made concepts are arbitrary? That is quite a curious assertion, but I doubt this is plausible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 2046 said:

Nobody, that is literally nobody in the scientific community says, "this is a feeling formed by genes and some other means than perception." This is just lazy straw manning.

I am obviously attacking that idea as a strawman. I'm not saying that's the only idea they have. I'm saying that if somebody has that idea, it's wrong. I'm attacking the idea as compared against reality. I was very careful to avoid associating ideas with people because I knew somebody would accuse me of "strawmanning". This was why I avoided mentioning the term "social constructionists", but I forgot to leave out the term "evo psych". I am very sorry if I offended any scientists. I won't make that mistake again. I'm deeply sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, human_murda said:

I'm saying that if somebody has that idea, it's wrong. I'm attacking the idea as compared against reality. I

No one has that idea, though. Plus the feeling in question is not an emotion.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

No one has that idea, though.

Nobody in the entire world has ever said that male/female identifying brains are inherited? Sure...

20 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Plus the feeling in question is not an emotion.

Didn't say it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maleness corresponds with masculinity, and femaleness corresponds with femininity, but what sex corresponds with "non-binary"? There is no basis in physical existence for "non-binary." It is the sexless feeling, the sexless psychological condition, the sexless mentality, the sexless whatever you want to call it.

Gender dysphoria is not the identification of a third "gender." It's a confusion between the two existing ones. If you are not hopelessly locked into a subjectivist-nominalist perspective, then you probably won't mistake your confusion for reality. You'll become a feminine man or masculine woman, or a mixed feminine-masculine man or woman, and you can be comfortable being intimate with whomever you find attractive. The problem arises when you label your confusion "non-binary." This turns your focus away from reality and toward fantasy. You then begin accepting ideas that have no basis in reality, which is the great subjectivist-nominalist endeavor.

Coincidentally, I found out yesterday that even my nine-year old nephew has been indoctrinated. He started talking about Caitlin Jenner and some form where he could check off "Other" as his "gender." I asked him which "gender" he was, and he said "Other." Then I found out from my brother that there is a woman at the elementary school who's petitioning for transgender bathrooms.

You know, if you expose enough young minds to Ancient Alien propaganda, I'm sure elementary schools would churn out a lot of little Aliens too. It doesn't mean they are actually the descendents of Ancient Aliens.

I'm working on an essay about the connection between slavery and nominalism. But I'm out of time today. I'll try to post it later this week.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

Maleness corresponds with masculinity , and femaleness corresponds with femininity

Is wearing a dress, high heels and lipstick a masculine or feminine trait?

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

Gender dysphoria is not the identification of a third "gender." It's a confusion between the two existing ones.

No it isn't. Please do some research first, non-binary isn't even dysphoria anyway.

3 hours ago, human_murda said:

Nobody in the entire world has ever said that male/female identifying brains are inherited?

This part: " the idea that this "feeling" (actually: identification) of who they are is obtained through genes or some means other than perception. "

Is feeling pain obtained through perception? No, because it is perception. But anyway no one says genes cause feelings. It's one factor, that's all you'll hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Is feeling pain obtained through perception? No, because it is perception. But anyway no one says genes cause feelings. It's one factor, that's all you'll hear.

I'm not talking about feelings. I'm talking about identifications (percepts, concepts, etc). Suppose a person of female gender allegedly has a "male brain". Suppose she has never encountered genitalia till the age of 5. At 5, she says she feels like she is male or identifies as male. The question would be: how can she "feel like" a male or identify as male if she has never acquired the concept of male/female through perception/conception mechanism. Where does her identification (state of consciousness) come from. Assume she has never learned about male/female in real life (her parents hid that information, perhaps to let her choose). However, because of her "male brain", she identifies herself as male. What is the mechanism/source of her identification? How can she identify something she never encountered in real life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×