The Idea That Gender Is a Spectrum is a New Gender Prison.

[anticlimatic]

What an unnecessary waste of thought.

 

[Coriolis]

Starting for a good reason doesn't make something a good idea, though.

So if someone is telling you you can't do something or aren't allowed something because you belong to a certain group, you see a problem with telling them: it's wrong to exclude me just because I belong to X group?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

So if someone is telling you you can't do something or aren't allowed something because you belong to a certain group, you see a problem with telling them: it's wrong to exclude me just because I belong to X group?

Because the language here is so vague, I have to say it depends on the group. Group could be anything. group could be Nazis.

I'm assuming you meant things like race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Group membership this either not a choice, not intrinsically harmful, or neither. In which case, no, I see absolutely wrong with telling someone they can't exclude me for belonging to that group.

But what on earth would give you the idea I had a problem with that? What part of what I said implied that?

 

[Mole]

How can we get out of our gender prison? How can we get out of our narcissistic sexual prison? We can get out of our prison by widening our horizon, we can start to see that sexuality is not about us, it is about defeating parasites.

And of course it is a continuing battle between the parasites and their hosts, but mixing our genome with sex give us the edge over the parasites.

I am quite sure this is too much to contemplate by the narcissists, because it is not about them personally.

 

[Coriolis]

Because the language here is so vague, I have to say it depends on the group. Group could be anything. group could be Nazis.

I'm assuming you meant things like race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Group membership this either not a choice, not intrinsically harmful, or neither. In which case, no, I see absolutely wrong with telling someone they can't exclude me for belonging to that group.

But what on earth would give you the idea I had a problem with that? What part of what I said implied that?

Well, the examples I have been using are women, blacks, gays, Jews, Muslims. I suppose you can change religion, but if your ethnicity matches one of those, it tends to be held against you anyway.

Starting for a good reason doesn't make something a good idea, though..

The "something" this seems to refer to is needing "to assert that they should have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else". Yes, it started for a good reason, and still seems to be a reasonable objection when one is excluded based on group membership, with groups as specifed above, and before.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Well, the examples I have been using are women, blacks, gays, Jews, Muslims. I suppose you can change religion, but if your ethnicity matches one of those, it tends to be held against you anyway.

The "something" this seems to refer to is needing "to assert that they should have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else". Yes, it started for a good reason, and still seems to be a reasonable objection when one is excluded based on group membership, with groups as specifed above, and before.

But that's not why the something was, at all. The something pertained to the particular logic, rhetoric, and methods employed by what we might call "identity politics" to achieve that moral goal.

Did you read the essay I posted the link to? I know I said I didn't want to obligate anyone to read it, but I suspect there wouldn't be a lot of point in carrying on any discussion of my views on identity politics without you reading that first.

 

[Coriolis]

But that's not why the something was, at all. The something pertained to the particular logic, rhetoric, and methods employed by what we might call "identity politics" to achieve that moral goal.

Did you read the essay I posted the link to? I know I said I didn't want to obligate anyone to read it, but I suspect there wouldn't be a lot of point in carrying on any discussion of my views on identity politics without you reading that first.

Your comment came right on the heels of (was posted in direct response to) my explanation of why it is necessary to assert the equal rights of one or another demographic group. I had no reason to associate it directly with the article. I have not read it yet, and made no reference to it in my comments.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Your comment came right on the heels of (was posted in direct response to) my explanation of why it is necessary to assert the equal rights of one or another demographic group. I had no reason to associate it directly with the article. I have not read it yet, and made no reference to it in my comments.

That's because I wasn't assuming understanding my remark depended on you reading the article. You seemed to defend identity politics only be referring to the point and logic of its origin. Hence, that's why I said an idea starting for a good reason doesn't mean it's a good idea. Because pointing out the fact of its origin does not really explain whether or not the logic, rhetoric, or methods are actually any good at satisfying its primary motivation. That is what I was assuming would be clear in the first place, and perhaps I was being too presumptuous.

I mentioned the article in the previous post for separate reasons. Namely, I saw where this was going, and it just occurred to me that would probably be a lot easier and more productive to have you read the article than to try and debate this without that. I was not assuming you had already read it or thinking that you should have.

 

[Coriolis]

That's because I wasn't assuming understanding my remark depended on you reading the article. You seemed to defend identity politics only be referring to the point and logic of its origin. Hence, that's why I said an idea starting for a good reason doesn't mean it's a good idea. Because pointing out the fact of its origin does not really explain whether or not the logic, rhetoric, or methods are actually any good at satisfying its primary motivation. That is what I was assuming would be clear in the first place, and perhaps I was being too presumptuous.

I defended what you and others call "identity politics" on its most fundamental level by referring to its straightforward utility and common sense. If someone tells you you cannot do something because of your sex, race, ethnicity, etc., the obvious response is to point out (i.e. insist) that members of that group do indeed get to do that, because they have the same rights as anyone else. Oftentimes, as we have seen, much work goes into making that so.

 

[Tellenbach]

Ummm, so if gender is a spectrum or a continuum in one ape species, does this also mean that fruit flies have a near infinite number of genders? And if that's the case, should people who sex fruit flies get a raise?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I defended what you and others call "identity politics" on its most fundamental level by referring to its straightforward utility and common sense. If someone tells you you cannot do something because of your sex, race, ethnicity, etc., the obvious response is to point out (i.e. insist) that members of that group do indeed get to do that, because they have the same rights as anyone else. Oftentimes, as we have seen, much work goes into making that so.

One could make that defense with a purely anti-categorical position, which would practically be the opposite of what most people consider identity politics. You could actually pull some color-blind bullshit to make that defense. That's why it doesn't strike me as being particularly intrinsically related to identity politics.

Unless you want to argue that the person denying rights of people based on race or sex is, in some sense, practicing identity politics.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Ummm, so if gender is a spectrum or a continuum in one ape species, does this also mean that fruit flies have a near infinite number of genders? And if that's the case, should people who sex fruit flies get a raise?

Did you read the OP article? It's not arguing gender is a spectrum.

 

[Mole]

As we move from the literate individual to electronic tribes in the global village, it is inevitable our politics will be based on the tribe we belong to. And the new tribalism is called identity politics by those who do not like or understand the new tribalism.

 

[entropie]

As we move from the literate individual to electronic tribes in the global village, it is inevitable our politics will be based on the tribe we belong to. And the new tribalism is called identity politics by those who do not like or understand the new tribalism.

still not believing the 3 girl story

 

[Coriolis]

One could make that defense with a purely anti-categorical position, which would practically be the opposite of what most people consider identity politics. You could actually pull some color-blind bullshit to make that defense. That's why it doesn't strike me as being particularly intrinsically related to identity politics.

Unless you want to argue that the person denying rights of people based on race or sex is, in some sense, practicing identity politics.

That was my original point - that the "identity" aspect of it starts when that is used as a basis for exclusionary behavior. IME "identity politics" is just another buzzword. Better to spell out what we actually mean.

Ummm, so if gender is a spectrum or a continuum in one ape species, does this also mean that fruit flies have a near infinite number of genders? And if that's the case, should people who sex fruit flies get a raise?

We cannot always extrapolate from one species to the next. One would need to study fruit flies to determine how gender works for them.