Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Please do some research first, non-binary isn't even dysphoria anyway.

According to whom? The DSM-5? Only a few years ago the DSM-5 had something called Gender Identity Disorder, but then they changed it to Gender Dysphoria to appease the opposition. Don't you think it's odd that this mental condition is only a diagnosable problem if the subject has "distress" over it? When did that become the standard for mental illness? And now, according to Denmark, not even dysphoria is a diagnosable mental problem. Maybe we should let the transgenders and non-binaries diagnose us instead, since we clearly don't know what is what anymore.

 

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


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

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?

There is no such thing as a "male brain" or "female brain," the amount of people pontificating on neuroscience and psychology without the most basic understanding of facts, making one unsupported assertion after another, strikes me as plainly anti-science.

Your supposition about a five year old unaware about genitals is just odd, children are continuously influenced by cultural assumptions about gender, this is exactly the point, so the ability to "encounter genitalia" isn't relevant or helpful. 

Share this post


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

There is no such thing as a "male brain" or "female brain," the amount of people pontificating on neuroscience and psychology without the most basic understanding of facts, making one unsupported assertion after another, strikes me as plainly anti-science.

I was talking in terms of hypotheticals. Nobody is claiming anything about neuroscience. The only unsupported assertions are yours, about what people do or don't know. Instead of your twitch responses, try thinking for five seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

According to whom? The DSM-5? Only a few years ago the DSM-5 had something called Gender Identity Disorder, but then they changed it to Gender Dysphoria to appease the opposition. Don't you think it's odd that this mental condition is only a diagnosable problem if the subject has "distress" over it? When did that become the standard for mental illness? And now, according to Denmark, not even dysphoria is a diagnosable mental problem. Maybe we should let the transgenders and non-binaries diagnose us instead, since we clearly don't know what is what anymore.

Since always. It's not "the standard" but without distress, there is no issue. Same with depression. Diagnosing it requires that the person feels bad in some way. None of this is nominalism anyway. Your beef is with psychological diagnoses. You are making statements that or false or are big misunderstandings. You are critiquing the science without knowing the science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly scientists! Doing all their research and examining actual people and brains and stuff. Don't they know Mr Swig has it all figured out? Just tell someone that was born with, say, congenital adrenal hyperplasia* to stop being a nominalist, you silly goose! There, confusion ended, duh!

*cogenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) a condition where the genetic condition results in the fetus being exposed to unusually high testosterone levels, which, in girls results with them being born with male genital virilisation. 

Share this post


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

How can she identify something she never encountered in real life?

You should be talking about feeling. Talking about conceptual identification isn't what anyone else is after. Any sort of awareness as a type of thing isn't conceptual. The "bad feeling" is neither an emotion nor a concept. It's not thinking one has a brain the opposite of the body. It's feeling that something is wrong, and later identified as stemming from something related to one's sex.

The male brain and female brain idea is only used by people who hypothesize that there are major differences, or as a sort of metaphor to describe sets of traits and not meant to describe a gender per se.

Share this post


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

Just tell someone that was born with, say, congenital adrenal hyperplasia* to stop being a nominalist, you silly goose! There, confusion ended, duh!

Are you implying a connection between CAH and gender dysphoria?

Share this post


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

When did [distress] become the standard for mental illness?

Since always. It's not "the standard" but without distress, there is no issue.

You say distress has "always" been the standard, but "it's not 'the standard'". What's the difference between the standard and "the standard"?

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Your beef is with psychological diagnoses. You are making statements that or false or are big misunderstandings. You are critiquing the science without knowing the science.

What else do you think you know about me?

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 It's an important part of diagnosis that the person feels distressed. "The" standard was a loaded term, so I made it cleaner to say distress is necessary.

If you know the science, then please show your knowledge. If you know the philosophy, then show that too. Credentials, anecdotes from classes, citations of the thing in question, things like that. None of what you posted suggests you know the science. What you said on nominalism isn't even consistent with the Rand quote (see my first post).

Share this post


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

It's not thinking one has a brain the opposite of the body.

Never said it was. I don't give much importance to the idea of "male brain" vs. "female brain".

 

7 hours ago, Eiuol said:

It's feeling that something is wrong

And where do they get this intuition from? Do they "just know" something's wrong? Also, where did you get this information that transgenders feel this way? Are there testimonials you can look at?

Also, what exactly is it that is wrong? The feeling of wrongness has to be with reference to something. Or are you saying that they "feel" about nothing in particular? If it's about nothing, how could they possibly identify it (or "intuit" it)? If it's about something, then why are you saying that it's only later identified to be stemming from something gender-related? What is the "something" in "something is wrong"? Is it nothing in particular?

Also, is this feeling rational? If not, why should anybody else care about it?

Share this post


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

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?

It happens that I have a five year old daughter. She also identifies as female, and strongly so, insofar as I can tell such a thing.

Do you think that what's on her mind, in her identification, is her genitalia?

We were playing the other day with a stuffed animal and a hairband that had a bow on it. When she put the hairband over the animal's head, it was a girl; when she dropped it down over the animal's neck so that the bow made a bow tie, it was a boy. A few days before that, she was looking at these utterly abstract cartoon faces (drawn on crayons, it happens), informing me that some were boys and others were girls. The girls had eyelashes drawn on; otherwise all of the faces were utterly identical. When I pointed out that I -- a man -- also have eyelashes, she informed me that they are not so long as a girl's. (A claim which I can neither confirm nor dispute, as such, but it seems unlikely to me that she's in a position to make the claim either; yet I enjoyed her rationalization as evidence of "thinking on her feet.")

She's aware of the existence of genitalia, of course, and she's been told of how boys and girls are different in that way, but she identified herself as a girl before having any understanding of this (probably due to being called a girl since birth), and I am convinced that this particular biological difference is not on her mind at all when she thinks in terms of gender. She watches (and loves) the cartoon PJ Masks. As is typical of her, her favorite hero is the girl, Owlette, and her favorite villain is the girl, Luna Girl. I expect that it's never crossed her mind to wonder about the plumbing of these cartoon characters. In my opinion, she is responding to the fact of similarity (in that she knows she is a girl, and she knows that they are girls, too), and all of the other things that we associate with gender (higher pitched voices, hair styles, associated colors, etc).

Of the things that she associates with gender, and identifies herself with, I would guess that about .05 percent of it has to do with genitalia -- and that is me being generous. In truth, I doubt it enters her mind at all. What if, given all of the same information, she strongly identified herself (at this point) with boys, or even as a boy? I don't know. I'm glad I don't have to figure that out to a practical degree, and I don't envy the people who do.

Share this post


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

It happens that I have a five year old daughter. She also identifies as female, and strongly so, insofar as I can tell such a thing.

Do you think that what's on her mind, in her identification, is her genitalia?

We were playing the other day with a stuffed animal and a hairband that had a bow on it. When she put the hairband over the animal's head, it was a girl; when she dropped it down over the animal's neck so that the bow made a bow tie, it was a boy. A few days before that, she was looking at these utterly abstract cartoon faces (drawn on crayons, it happens), informing me that some were boys and others were girls. The girls had eyelashes drawn on; otherwise all of the faces were utterly identical. When I pointed out that I -- a man -- also have eyelashes, she informed me that they are not so long as a girl's. (A claim which I can neither confirm nor dispute, as such, but it seems unlikely to me that she's in a position to make the claim either; yet I enjoyed her rationalization as evidence of "thinking on her feet.")

She's aware of the existence of genitalia, of course, and she's been told of how boys and girls are different in that way, but she identified herself as a girl before having any understanding of this (probably due to being called a girl since birth), and I am convinced that this particular biological difference is not on her mind at all when she thinks in terms of gender. She watches (and loves) the cartoon PJ Masks. As is typical of her, her favorite hero is the girl, Owlette, and her favorite villain is the girl, Luna Girl. I expect that it's never crossed her mind to wonder about the plumbing of these cartoon characters. In my opinion, she is responding to the fact of similarity (in that she knows she is a girl, and she knows that they are girls, too), and all of the other things that we associate with gender (higher pitched voices, hair styles, associated colors, etc).

Of the things that she associates with gender, and identifies herself with, I would guess that about .05 percent of it has to do with genitalia -- and that is me being generous. In truth, I doubt it enters her mind at all. What if, given all of the same information, she strongly identified herself (at this point) with boys, or even as a boy? I don't know. I'm glad I don't have to figure that out to a practical degree, and I don't envy the people who do.

This is just the way children learn. The child first learned about gender roles, then learned to identify herself based on these roles and then learned about gender. This is an inverted way of learning things. This is just the chronological order in which a child learns the concept gender. That does not mean that gender does not refer to the biological sex of a human being. That is the essential that implies all secondary sexual characteristics (of humans) and gave rise to the concept of gender roles (valid or not). Just because a child first learns of the (possibly invalid) concept of gender roles, then learns to self-identify against that standard and then ultimately learns the concept gender doesn't change the meaning of the word gender. This is pretty much the way you learn all concepts.

 

For example: a child may first learn about the appearance of certain races or may have learned to associate certain behaviours with certain races before he learned about lineage and ancestry. That does not mean that lineage and ancestry are not what the term 'race' refers to. Appearances and behaviours were the way children learned to identify races initially. This is the way a child chronologically learns these things. The child will eventually learn that lineage and ancestry are the basis of the concept of race. This does not invalidate the concept of race. This is how children learn things. They learn using appearances and other people's opinions. How you came across a concept should be irrelevant to you (people's opinions on how to identify an entity doesn't change that entity).

 

In another example, a child may learn to identify people of different sexual orientations by observing their mannerisms and speech. He may not know about sexual attraction. Eventually, he may learn about the concept of sexual attraction. This does not invalidate the concept of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation does exist. How you came across a concept should be irrelevant to you (unless you think meanings are determined by social consensus).

 

Stereotypes and misconceptions exist about pretty much every entity on the planet, from Quantum Fields to race and gender. You may come across these stereotypes and misconceptions (and learn to identify things in real life based on stereotypes and misconceptions) before you actually learn how to identify the concepts correctly. Unless the thing itself doesn't actually exist (which it does in the case of gender, race, etc), your goal should be to correctly identify them.

 

Stereotypes, gender roles and misconceptions serve as faulty definitions used to identify a concept. Gender roles serve as a faulty (and very detailed) definition to identify gender. Don't confuse the two (gender does not refer to gender roles. Gender roles are not "associated" with gender). Stereotypes and gender roles are faulty definitions (and many people strongly conform to these faulty definitions in order to have an "identity") used to identify a legitimate concept. They don't and cannot invalidate concepts (of race, gender, etc). If anything, get rid of these faulty definitions (and attempts to create your own "identity" around them). These faulty definitions are destroying the legitimate concept of gender, race, etc. What's more, even more faulty definitions and "identities" are popping up. If gender roles are incorrect ways to identify your gender, these new definitions are incorrect ways of identifying nothing.

 

For example: if somebody says that "you are not a boy if you can't play tennis", they are effectively using a characteristic to identify somebody as a boy. The concept boy does not refer to and is not "associated with" the "ability to play tennis". The latter is used to define and identify a boy (in a faulty way, of course).

 

Again, as I said before, sex refers to the biological sex of animals. Gender refers to the biological sex of humans. But are valid concepts and definitions. Don't lose these concepts over faulty definitions.

 

(As a note: I would say that your child has a strong sense of gender roles but her concept of gender is very indirect)

Edited by human_murda
Examples

Share this post


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

Also, where did you get this information that transgenders feel this way? Are there testimonials you can look at?

Because dysphoria is part of it...

8 hours ago, human_murda said:

Also, is this feeling rational? If not, why should anybody else care about it?

The word rational doesn't apply here. I'm not talking about emotions. A feeling -here- is like touch, or pain. There is no "rational" pain. It's something, but it's not conceptual or -about- anything.

Share this post


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

This is just the way children learn.

Indeed. It seems likely to me that the way children learn about gender, and learn about/identify themselves, will prove relevant to the topic of gender identity.

Moreover, you had asked about a five year old girl who had "never encountered genitalia," and wondered how she can yet identify herself as male; I believe that the experiences I've related speak to this. My own five year old can identify herself more strongly with an anthropomorphized crayon on the basis of crudely drawn cartoon eyelashes. Yet I don't believe it is because she infers that the crayon has a vagina.

I believe that these sorts of identifications can take place without knowledge of (or reference to) genitalia. In fact, of the identifications that children routinely make (certainly up to age five) with respect to gender, I suspect that genitalia generally play a very small role, if any.

3 hours ago, human_murda said:

The child first learned about gender roles, then learned to identify herself based on these roles and then learned about gender. This is an inverted way of learning things. This is just the chronological order in which a child learns the concept gender. That does not mean that gender does not refer to the biological sex of a human being.

It depends upon the person who is using the term "gender," does it not? The argument (or at least one of the arguments) typically made by those who argue that gender dysphoria is valid, etc., is that "gender" and "biological sex" are two separate things. So when they refer to gender, usually they are not referring to the biological sex of a human being.

And then, given what you've said about children, and given my own experiences as a father, I would say that when children refer to "boy" and "girl" they are also not generally referring to biological sex. Except in rare cases, I doubt that five year olds have any real understanding of biological sex -- and a penis or vagina, to them, is as relevant a characteristic as carrying a purse, or wearing make-up, or etc., only less obvious, less visible, and thus perhaps even less important.

Whether or not that conforms to how you view "gender," or how you believe one ought to view gender (i.e. whether you think it is right to have a concept apart from "biological sex"), I'd again say that knowing how people learn these concepts, and use the language, and so forth, is relevant to our understanding of these issues.

3 hours ago, human_murda said:

That is the essential that implies all secondary sexual characteristics (of humans) and gave rise to the concept of gender roles (valid or not). Just because a child first learns of the (possibly invalid) concept of gender roles, then learns to self-identify against that standard and then ultimately learns the concept gender doesn't change the meaning of the word gender. This is pretty much the way you learn all concepts.

But speaking personally, I find it interesting to wonder about those children who might (if we accept the sort of narrative I've sometimes heard) identify themselves according to those gender roles in a way that does not conform to our expectations -- for instance, a boy who "sees himself" more in the crayons with the eyelashes, or a girl who identifies with the crayons that lack them.

3 hours ago, human_murda said:

For example: if somebody says that "you are not a boy if you can't play tennis", they are effectively using a characteristic to identify somebody as a boy. The concept boy does not refer to and is not "associated with" the "ability to play tennis". The latter is used to define and identify a boy (in a faulty way, of course).

Again, as I said before, sex refers to the biological sex of animals. Gender refers to the biological sex of humans.

So, out of curiosity, into what category would you put a statement like, "a rational woman cannot want to be President"? Is that strictly a reference to "the biological sex of humans," in your opinion, or something "associated"?

3 hours ago, human_murda said:

(As a note: I would say that your child has a strong sense of gender roles but her concept of gender is very indirect)

Perhaps. But isn't interesting, if she has a strong sense of "gender roles"? This is in a household, I'll stipulate, that does not put any particular emphasis on gender, apart from simple biological identification, and is careful not to stereotype (we have purchased our daughter dolls and trucks in equal measure, so to speak). So where does all of this come from? What are the effects of such identification, if any? And could this sort of experience be helpful (as I believe it can) in our understanding of such phenomena as "gender dysphoria"?

Share this post


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

So, out of curiosity, into what category would you put a statement like, "a rational woman cannot want to be President"? Is that strictly a reference to "the biological sex of humans," in your opinion, or something "associated"?

Neither. Such statements are normative. Gender and sex identify metaphysical characteristics but ideas like "a rational woman cannot want to be President" are different.

For example, it is incorrect to say that "human beings are selfish". It would be correct to say that "humans should be selfish". In a similar way, it is incorrect to say that "girls play with dolls". It would be correct to say that "girls should play with dolls".

I'm not sure what word I would use to denote such normative characteristics. Perhaps, "feminine" and "masculine" would be good terms. In popular usage, "feminine" may denote some characteristic that is "becoming of a woman" (woman qua woman). It is normative. For reference, Cambridge Dictionary defines "feminine" as "having characteristics that are traditionally thought to be typical of or suitable for a woman". The "suitable for a woman" part is normative. Of course, other dictionaries define things differently, stressing qualities traditionally associated with women, but that definition may be derivative (derived from the traditional standards of society).

These 2 words come the closest. I think this is also the way AR used the words 'feminine' and 'masculine'. In this sense, these two words do not identify characteristics that humans universally possess. They refer to virtues (in the same way that "selfishness" refers to a virtue everyone need not possess). They refer to characteristics that one must possess. Femininity and masculinity are treated as virtues in popular usage (validating their usage as normative concepts. By comparison, gender isn't treated as a virtue. It is a metaphysical concept). However, the dictionary definitions aren't very good.

 

So new definitions: male = male animal; female = female animal; man = male human; woman = female human (of a certain age); feminine = characteristics that are becoming of a woman; masculine = characteristics that are becoming of a man.

Male/female are sexes. Man/woman are genders. Feminine/masculine are virtues. Sometimes, the term "manliness" is also used to denote the corresponding virtue. Virtues aren't arbitrary.

(Again, disclaimer: English isn't my first language. I don't even know what a subjunctive is. I can only talk about the simple, obvious meanings of these terms)

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


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

Neither. Such statements are normative. Gender and sex identify metaphysical characteristics but ideas like "a rational woman cannot want to be President" are different.

Earlier, we were discussing "gender roles" and their relationship to our conceptual understanding of gender.

15 minutes ago, human_murda said:

For example, it is incorrect to say that "human beings are selfish". It would be correct to say that "humans should be selfish". In a similar way, it is incorrect to say that "girls like playing with dolls". It would be correct to say that "girls should enjoy playing with dolls".

I would say that "playing with dolls" does not have to do with biological sex. So far as I understand it, the vagina of a five year old girl does not somehow compel her to play with a doll, let alone drive the car to Toys 'R' Us and put it on the Visa. Insofar as you insist that gender and sex are synonymous (albeit that "gender" refers to humans), then "playing with dolls" would not have to do with gender, either.

Rather, it seems to be related to what you'd earlier described as "gender roles." We do not, after all, recognize a girl by respect to one's preference for playing with dolls (though my five year old just might). For howsoever you might mean it to refer to syntax alone, if you do, I do not think it would be correct to say that "girls should enjoy playing with dolls."

"A rational woman cannot want to be President" is likewise bunk. (And it would be too much of a digression for this thread, perhaps, but I'm not certain I agree that "a rational woman cannot want to be President" is the same sort of claim as "a woman ought not be President" or "...ought not want to be President.")

15 minutes ago, human_murda said:

I'm not sure what word I would use to denote such normative characteristics. Perhaps, "feminine" and "masculine" would be good terms. In popular usage, "feminine" may denote some characteristic that is "becoming of a woman" (woman qua woman). It is normative. For reference, Cambridge Dictionary defines "feminine" as "having characteristics that are traditionally thought to be typical of or suitable for a woman". The "suitable for a woman" part is normative. Of course, other dictionaries define things differently, stressing qualities traditionally associated with women, but that definition may be derivative (derived from the traditional standards of society).

These 2 words come the closest. I think this is also the way AR used the words 'feminine' and 'masculine'. In this sense, these two words do not identify characteristics that humans universally possess. They refer to virtues. They refer to characteristics that one must possess. Femininity and masculinity are treated as virtues in popular usage (validating their usage as normative concepts. By comparison, gender isn't treated as a virtue. It is a metaphysical concept).

Despite everything, I am trying my best to retain the context of this discussion in mind as I reply.

We were discussing gender at one point, partly as a means of discussing such phenomena as "gender dysphoria," and you'd raised the question of a hypothetical five year old girl, and her understanding of gender, so I thought it might be helpful to discuss an actual five year old girl, and eventually we wound up here.

So now, we're discussing the supposed "virtue" of acting in ways which are deemed "suitable for a woman." Well, if we'd like to know the root of things like "gender dysphoria," I expect it may have to do with assigning moral value to activities such as playing with dolls, along with (mis)identifying gender along those lines, as well (i.e. according to "gender role"), as is typical of children (and thus all humans, if at least initially) -- just as they are also forming a concept of self.

The young boy who has an inclination to play with dolls, but is told that it is "for girls" and that it is wrong for him to do such, due to his gender (and perhaps even to want to do such), has some hard internal choices to make, and probably is woefully under-equipped to make them (or even recognize himself as "choosing" anything at all). Perhaps he could come to identify himself, at least on some level, "as a girl" (whether or not he would ever vocalize it, or even allow himself to recognize it explicitly).

And what then? How deeply "baked" are these sorts of ideas about the self? Fairly deep, I'd wager.

Share this post


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

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

It matters why a person is wearing the dress, high heels, and lipstick. But generally I'd say such attire is clearly feminine. Even men who wear these items generally do so to present themselves as if they were female.

I think most women do it to look beautiful and attractive. This comes from being the egg-maker, and the desire to seduce a sperm-maker. But not just any sperm-maker. She wants one who thinks she's good-looking, who thinks her look is attractive, because it reflects her values in life.

On Saturday I went to a fancy corporate Christmas party with my girlfriend. All the women wore dresses, makeup, heels, and jewelry. Such parties are essentially seduction rituals with dining and dancing. The dress shows off the female form and suggests open access to the private area. Heels, jewelry, and makeup also play a part in the seduction, helping the female stand out from the crowd as an individual with a particular set of values to offer, such as height, creativity, and health. In her look alone a man can glimpse her beauty, care, and intelligence. And if he is looking for both a lover and a mother of his children, these might be very important values to him.

A man dressing up like a woman is something different. If he doesn't first alter his body and personality, he will look and act very weirdly in a dress, heels, and lipstick. Because these things are primarily for beauty and seduction, not ruggedness and aggression. Also, he is not an egg-maker, so his desire is something other than attracting a sperm-maker. Maybe he wants to look and feel more feminine than he already does. Or maybe he thinks that by looking and feeling feminine, he will actually turn into a woman.

Share this post


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

Man/woman are genders.

I see you struggling with your definitions, but I don't think it's because of any problems with the English language. It's because you've bought into the idea of "gender" as a valid concept which differentiates humans in some way.

A man is a male adult. A boy is a male child. "Man" and "boy" differentiate human males by stage of development.

"Gender" is an anti-concept. Use it at your own peril.

Share this post


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

I think most women do it to look beautiful and attractive. This comes from being the egg-maker, and the desire to seduce a sperm-maker.

Really? So why do women who use contraceptives wear them? Or women who can't have children at all?

Quote

She wants one who thinks she's good-looking, who thinks her look is attractive, because it reflects her values in life.

Seriously? That's what women want? Someone who thinks they're good looking?

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


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

I think most women do it to look beautiful and attractive. This comes from being the egg-maker, and the desire to seduce a sperm-maker. But not just any sperm-maker. She wants one who thinks she's good-looking, who thinks her look is attractive, because it reflects her values in life.

We shouldn't do philosophy by telling stories. You need to substantiate this.

Share this post


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

So if a biological male wears [a dress, high heels, and lipstick], they are being feminine?

They are trying to look feminine. Whether they act feminine is another matter.

3 hours ago, Nicky said:

So why do women who use contraceptives wear them? Or women who can't have children at all?

You'd have to ask them. But I assume most are trying to look attractive for a date or lover, even if they don't want or can't have children. They still might want to find or keep a lover, because he's a great value in other respects besides his sperm. Maybe he's a good provider for their children. Or maybe he gives her money to go shopping.

I'm not sure what your position is here, but let me make it plain that I'm not saying all women are like this. There are many factors involved in personality, most importantly the individual's upbringing and personal choices in life. But which sex you are has a major influence in those choices, which is why I believe we see very common differences between the sexes and how they dress and act.

40 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

You need to substantiate this.

What do I need to substantiate? That most women get dolled-up to look beautiful? That they do it to attract a male? That women want a man who thinks they're pretty? Something else? What do you disagree with?

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.

×