I hope you don’t mind me jumping into this discussion; I find it fascinating.
Brains are plastic. They are reprogrammable. They are computers. There are differences between the brains of people socialized as men and the brains of people socialized as women. They are a result of gender socialization...
Would the below statement be an accurate rephrasing of your views ?
“Any differences in behaviors between men and women are due entirely to their upbringing. Their biological makeup has no measurable effect on such behaviors.”
I think this is a reasonable claim—but how would you determine whether it’s true or not, without performing exactly the kind of biological research that you oppose ? Actually, I may be jumping ahead of myself. Assuming that you agree with my phrasing, do you think that it matters how likely it is to be true ?
Do you see the problem in the above scenario?
I do not (unless, of course, you deliberately designed the sentence to be an effective basilisk, in which case I’d say you are behaving unethically). What am I missing ?
“Treating everyone equally regardless of gender” implies that gender still exists, which to me implies that patriarchy still exists.
I understand what you’re saying, but, technically speaking, the mere existence of gender does not imply patriarchy. It could imply matriarchy, instead. That’s a minor nitpick, though.
I do not (unless, of course, you deliberately designed the sentence to be an effective basilisk, in which case I’d say you are behaving unethically). What am I missing ?
ISTM that the issue is similar to that of the old injunction against yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater or the more recent one of yelling “BOMB!” while pointing at an abandoned bag in an airport. Sure, the words themselves do not inherently carry panic, mayhem, children trampled to death by mobs, etc. - just like no word inherently carries PTSD attacks in them—but it is still much preferable ceteris paribus not to have a behavior A when there are known expected negative consequences.
Think: “I know making dead baby jokes while that person is still traumatized by having their five (baby) children tortured to death in front of them will cause them incredibly grief, horror and pain, but it’s not my fault they’re like that and the words themselves don’t cause the pain, so it’s fine I can do whatever I want!”
As for your other questions, I’m also eager to see a response.
I see what you’re saying, and I agree, but I don’t think the scenarios are identical.
In both of your scenarios, the speakers know with an extremely high degree of certainty that their words will have a negative effect. That’s why I singled out “deliberately creating an effective basilisk” as an unethical activity.
In eridu’s scenario, however, this is not the case (unless I misunderstood him). His scenario is more like the following:
“I am going to talk about my trip to the zoo where I saw some rare monkeys. I understand that there must exist some people in the world who have been savaged by vicious monkeys, and might react negatively to my tale, but I’m going to narrate it anyway”.
If we are going to implement a hard rule saying, “don’t utter any sentence that could trigger anyone, under any circumstances”, then communication would become untenable.
In addition, from a strictly nitpicky philosophical point of view, I’d argue that sentences by themselves are not “triggering” or “oppressive”; they are just bit strings. It’s the interaction of a sentence with a particular human’s mind that could be potentially triggering. If no one in the world had ever been savaged by monkeys, my tale of monkeys at the zoo could not trigger anyone, which would imply that it is not inherently triggering.
“Any differences in behaviors between men and women are due entirely to their upbringing. Their biological makeup has no measurable effect on such behaviors.”
I agree with that for the most part.
how would you determine whether it’s true or not, without performing exactly the kind of biological research that you oppose?
I don’t think that would do it. If by “destroying patriarchy” you mean “destroying the systemic oppression of women by men”, then achieving this goal alone would not bring you closer to knowing whether gender has biological underpinnings. After patriarchy is destroyed, men and women would still exist, they just wouldn’t oppress each other (*) .
On the other hand, if your goal is to destroy gender altogether (which would, as a consequence, bring about the destruction of the patriarchy), then it would be very valuable for you to discover whether gender has biological underpinnings or not. If it does, then your goal is unachievable (at least, through purely social methods, transhumanism aside), and you’d end up wasting a lot of effort.
Prove to me that you’ve tried harder.
See my reply to DaFranker, below.
(*) Or perhaps the women would oppress the men, since the goal of “destroying patriarchy” doesn’t specify any specific outcome.
I don’t think that would do it. If by “destroying patriarchy” you mean “destroying the systemic oppression of women by men”, then achieving this goal alone would not bring you closer to knowing whether gender has biological underpinnings. After patriarchy is destroyed, men and women would still exist, they just wouldn’t oppress each other.
Well, if as a consequence of the mechanisms that perpetuate oppression being abolished, people no longer have gender identities, then you could be pretty sure after the fact that that hypothesis was right after all.
However, it seems to me that the approach of finding out whether gender identities are innate or learned by destroying patriarchy is question-begging, because the means by which the people advocating it intend to destroy the patriarchy presuppose that gender identities are learned.
Well, if as a consequence of the mechanisms that perpetuate oppression being abolished, people no longer have gender identities, then you could be pretty sure after the fact that that hypothesis was right after all.
Indeed.
However, it seems to me that the approach of finding out whether gender identities are innate or learned by destroying patriarchy is question-begging, because the means by which the people advocating it intend to destroy the patriarchy presuppose that gender identities are learned.
This is hardly unusual in the space of traditional rationality, and even in nontraditional rationality.
I hope you don’t mind me jumping into this discussion; I find it fascinating.
Would the below statement be an accurate rephrasing of your views ?
“Any differences in behaviors between men and women are due entirely to their upbringing. Their biological makeup has no measurable effect on such behaviors.”
I think this is a reasonable claim—but how would you determine whether it’s true or not, without performing exactly the kind of biological research that you oppose ? Actually, I may be jumping ahead of myself. Assuming that you agree with my phrasing, do you think that it matters how likely it is to be true ?
I do not (unless, of course, you deliberately designed the sentence to be an effective basilisk, in which case I’d say you are behaving unethically). What am I missing ?
I understand what you’re saying, but, technically speaking, the mere existence of gender does not imply patriarchy. It could imply matriarchy, instead. That’s a minor nitpick, though.
(Edit: formatting)
ISTM that the issue is similar to that of the old injunction against yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater or the more recent one of yelling “BOMB!” while pointing at an abandoned bag in an airport. Sure, the words themselves do not inherently carry panic, mayhem, children trampled to death by mobs, etc. - just like no word inherently carries PTSD attacks in them—but it is still much preferable ceteris paribus not to have a behavior A when there are known expected negative consequences.
Think: “I know making dead baby jokes while that person is still traumatized by having their five (baby) children tortured to death in front of them will cause them incredibly grief, horror and pain, but it’s not my fault they’re like that and the words themselves don’t cause the pain, so it’s fine I can do whatever I want!”
As for your other questions, I’m also eager to see a response.
I see what you’re saying, and I agree, but I don’t think the scenarios are identical.
In both of your scenarios, the speakers know with an extremely high degree of certainty that their words will have a negative effect. That’s why I singled out “deliberately creating an effective basilisk” as an unethical activity.
In eridu’s scenario, however, this is not the case (unless I misunderstood him). His scenario is more like the following:
“I am going to talk about my trip to the zoo where I saw some rare monkeys. I understand that there must exist some people in the world who have been savaged by vicious monkeys, and might react negatively to my tale, but I’m going to narrate it anyway”.
If we are going to implement a hard rule saying, “don’t utter any sentence that could trigger anyone, under any circumstances”, then communication would become untenable.
In addition, from a strictly nitpicky philosophical point of view, I’d argue that sentences by themselves are not “triggering” or “oppressive”; they are just bit strings. It’s the interaction of a sentence with a particular human’s mind that could be potentially triggering. If no one in the world had ever been savaged by monkeys, my tale of monkeys at the zoo could not trigger anyone, which would imply that it is not inherently triggering.
I agree with that for the most part.
Destroying patriarchy.
Prove to me that you’ve tried harder.
I don’t think that would do it. If by “destroying patriarchy” you mean “destroying the systemic oppression of women by men”, then achieving this goal alone would not bring you closer to knowing whether gender has biological underpinnings. After patriarchy is destroyed, men and women would still exist, they just wouldn’t oppress each other (*) .
On the other hand, if your goal is to destroy gender altogether (which would, as a consequence, bring about the destruction of the patriarchy), then it would be very valuable for you to discover whether gender has biological underpinnings or not. If it does, then your goal is unachievable (at least, through purely social methods, transhumanism aside), and you’d end up wasting a lot of effort.
See my reply to DaFranker, below.
(*) Or perhaps the women would oppress the men, since the goal of “destroying patriarchy” doesn’t specify any specific outcome.
Well, if as a consequence of the mechanisms that perpetuate oppression being abolished, people no longer have gender identities, then you could be pretty sure after the fact that that hypothesis was right after all.
However, it seems to me that the approach of finding out whether gender identities are innate or learned by destroying patriarchy is question-begging, because the means by which the people advocating it intend to destroy the patriarchy presuppose that gender identities are learned.
Indeed.
This is hardly unusual in the space of traditional rationality, and even in nontraditional rationality.