...

Psychological gender is strongly correlated to the biological reality of sex. — karl stone

No, it’s strongly correlated to biology. Whatever biology can do , it will do, meaning that biological mechanisms of inheritance are capable of creating , and so do create, intermediate versions of just about every organismic feature. It creates intermediate versions of psychological gender all the time, which is why there are biological males and females whose parents report them having exhibited strong opposite gender behavior from birth. Your whole life you probably assumed they learned this from watching television or something , but they were born this way , with what I call a pre-wired perceptual-affective style that composes an enormous constellation of perceptual, gestural and vocal features that could not possibly have been simply learned, and of which sexual preference composes only an insignificant element. You may disagree that there are biologically formed intermediate genders, but what if you are wrong? What effect do you think your incomprehension might have on those around you, some of whom you may know?

.

If fear is the mind killer - face your critics rather than insult, dox, threaten and deplatorm them into silence. Defend putting convicted sex offender and rapist "Karen" White in prison with vulnerable women. Because I'd honestly like to hear a defence of that politically correct policy. — karl stone

You must be talking to an imaginary postmodernist behind me. That's the problem, man. It's a one-bit worldview. Only a commie penis-snipping transvestite could question your good common sense. Funny thing is...I keep my mouth shut around my more progressive acquaintances. Because I don't need them to think like me and I don't like to argue with 'religious' people. I guess my own little indulgent polarization of the world, my own self-flattering fairy tale, features irrational tribal types on the one hand and lonely contrarian assholes on the other. But that contrarian asshole is what he is in the name of a universal rationality, and is of course for just that reason the right kind of conformist, just like the rest. Happy ending.

....

mentally disordered — karl stone

So it's a mental disorder? Would you recommend conversion therapy?

The norm is the majority; and in the vast majority of people, sex and gender are related. Studies put naturally occuring transgenderism at as little as 0.1% of the population. Yet for the sake of these vanishingly small, and mentally disordered few, political correctness would dismantle gender norms in society - with the risks and costs suffered almost exclusively by women. — karl stone

I wasn’t talking about transgender. I was taking about gay men and women. There are many of them. I’m sure you know some. Your whole life you probably assumed they learned this from watching television or something, but many of them were born this way , with what I call a pre-wired perceptual-affective style that composes an enormous constellation of perceptual, gestural and vocal features that could not possibly have been simply learned, and of which sexual preference composes only an insignificant element. You may disagree that there are biologically formed intermediate genders, but what if you are wrong? What effect do you think your incomprehension might have on those around you, some of whom you may know?

@karl stone

I'm leaving your posts here because they've received some good replies, but I'm warning you: they are off-topic, evangelical, and plainly transphobic. Any more of those posts will be deleted, and you might also be banned.

...

....

I'll prove it to you: how can the post modernist condemn Nazism? Post modernism is morally relativist - so cannot condemn nazism on moral grounds. I can condemn Nazism - because I know it's factually baseless, and immoral. But post modernism is also epistemically relativist - so facts are no help to you either. On what basis can you condemn nazism? You cannot! — karl stone

Here’s a reply from one of the right’s favorite punching bags, Derrida, the poster child of postmodern ‘relativism’:

“Of course there is a "right track" [une 'bonne voie "] , a better way, and let i t b e said i n passing how surprised I have often been, how amused or discouraged, depending on my humor, by the use or abuse of the following argument: Since the deconstructionist (which is to say, isn't it, the skeptic-relativist-nihilist!) is supposed not to believe in truth, stability, or the unity of meaning, in intention or "meaning-to-say, " how can he demand of us that we read him with pertinence, preciSion, rigor? How can he demand that his own text be interpreted correctly? How can he accuse anyone else of having misunderstood, simplified, deformed it, etc.? In other words, how can he discuss, and discuss the reading of what he writes? The answer is simple enough: this definition of the deconstructionist is false (that's right: false, not true) and feeble; it supposes a bad (that's right: bad, not good) and feeble reading of numerous texts, first of all mine, which therefore must finally be read or reread.

Then perhaps it will be understood that the value of truth (and all those values associated with it) is never contested or destroyed in my writings, but only reinscribed in more powerful, larger, more stratified contexts. And that within interpretive contexts (that is, within relations of force that are always differential-for example, socio-political-institutional-but even beyond these determinations) that are relatively stable, sometimes apparently almost unshakeable, it should be possible to invoke rules of competence, criteria of discussion and of consensus, good faith, lucidity, rigor, criticism, and pedagogy.”

....

Postmodernism isn't a religion you sign up for that specifies 'Thou can't condemn Nazis' or whoever. That's a really perverse way to look at it.

Plus, I don't know anyone that calls themselves a 'Postmodernist' without specifying some kind of field.

And even if there were to be some kind of contradiction between being postmodernist and condemnatory of who or whatever, so much the better. We are large, we contain multitudes.

Anyway, back to the OP please.

karl stone

I'm leaving your posts here because they've received some good replies, but I'm warning you: they are off-topic, evangelical, and plainly transphobic. Any more of those posts will be deleted, and you might also be banned. — Jamal

Thanks Jamal. I would prefer this thread not to get bogged down in yet another culture war rehash. Some interesting replies, you're right, but I would like to read more about how morality is understood through various post-modern thinkers.

Yes, it's a promising OP. Let's keep it on topic.

Yes, I completely understand. However, (a) I'm not going to rip apart the discussion by deleting a bunch of posts that have received replies, and (b) I'm going to bed now and hereby hand over all responsibilities to @Baden. :up:

However, (a) I'm not going to rip apart the discussion by deleting a bunch of posts that have received replies — Jamal

I have no issue with this.

Then perhaps it will be understood that the value of truth (and all those values associated with it) is never contested or destroyed in my writings, but only reinscribed in more powerful, larger, more stratified contexts. And that within interpretive contexts (that is, within relations of force that are always differential-for example, socio-political-institutional-but even beyond these determinations) that are relatively stable, sometimes apparently almost unshakeable, it should be possible to invoke rules of competence, criteria of discussion and of consensus, good faith, lucidity, rigor, criticism, and pedagogy.” — Joshs

This is a key quote, thanks. Is it beyond the scope of this thread to provide a small example of this in action?

...'reniscribe in more powerful, larger more stratified context' potentially could lead to a charge of hijacking meaning or reinterpretation. The idea of 'good faith' and evoking such rules of competence sounds fascinating - any chance of some elucidation?

...

OK, well, you've made the point and laboured it a bit. If that's it, please leave the less political and more philosophically minded posters here to get on with their discussion.

....

Even poverty stricken homeless people philosophise. — Tate

And what good does it do them?

And what good does it do them? — baker

Probably about as much good as it does everyone else.

Post modernism is morally relativist - so cannot condemn nazism on moral grounds. I can condemn Nazism - because I know it's factually baseless, and immoral. But post modernism is also epistemically relativist - so facts are no help to you either. On what basis can you condemn nazism? You cannot! — karl stone

:100:

I'm not sure I understand the nuances of your point about 'thinking this way'. Do you mean being aware of this? And what is the connection to being a weakling?

No one really cuts in front of others in grocery lines here unless they are just rude. Usually this can be settled with some words - social status is almost never an issue here but size might be.

I'm not sure if self-awareness connects to awareness of socially constructed status, unless some holds a specific value system.

But perhaps you also mean that rich people get privileges others don't get. I'm still not sure how this relates to self-awareness being for weaklings. And what exactly a weakling is? Do you mean that only those with no power practice self-refection because they are weak? — Tom Storm

I said earlier: I think being more self-aware makes one a loser, a weakling. Unless, of course, one already has a massive ego.

Do you think a poor, ugly person enjoys being self-aware, benefits from it?

My point is that being "open to not fully knowing" is a precarious position to be in, a liability that those who are still relatively healthy and wealthy can afford, but the rest can't.

So far, the only criticisms I've encountered when it comes to postmodernism is that --they're hard to understand! lol. Then spend more time with it until one understands what the fuck they're talking about.
/.../
Just because a postmodern philosopher questioned the status quo, it doesn't mean that philosopher had made his case. The learners just willy-nilly accepted such theory because it is explained as facts, instead of an analysis. For once, let's go against the prominent philosophers and make our case. — L'éléphant

It is precisely in relation to postmodernism that it is evident that higher education should have stayed reserved for those for whom it was originally intended: the elite. The problems some people have with postmodernism are due to their plebeian mentality. When people (of lower or middle class status) pursue higher education with the intention to climb on the socioeconimic ladder, they do not have the cognitive, emotional, and cultural wherewithal needed to understand phenomena like postmodernism (or art, literature, philosophy) in all their width, depth, and flexibility.

And then there's the question who has the time? — Tom Storm

The elites do. That's why they exist.

This is psychological gender. Many in the lgbtq community argue that psychological gender is inborn , and can differ from one’s biological sex. This inborn gender-related brain wiring would explain extremely feminine acting males and extremely ‘butch’ females. — Joshs

The description of those behaviors is culturally specific, though.

Where I live, there are no "butch females" or "tomboys", but there are "girls that lack feminine charms and graces". No boys are "girly", but some are "weak". (Or at least, this is how it used to be when I was growing up. But more recently, many people here uncritically adopt American psychology, as if it would be universal and the only relevant one.)

It doesn't occur to me to describe any woman in terms of "she's behaving like a man", or any man as "he's behaving like a woman". Even if she "manspaces", spits, never wears skirts or makeup; even if he has a petite physique with a high-pitched voice, fine hands with fine fingernails, etc.

The way the "aberrations from the gender norm" are interpreted is not universal, not a given. I think the culture you're describing is interpreting those aberrations in a way that supports its particular ideological agenda (which is hypersexed and politically hypercorrect).

This is one of those things that a postmodernist approach allows one to see.

You may disagree that there are biologically formed intermediate genders, but what if you are wrong? What effect do you think your incomprehension might have on those around you, some of whom you may know? — Joshs

So others should be considerate, but you shouldn't have to be??

I should note that focusing on increasing our care and consideration implies that we believe we were acting carelessly and inconsiderately, which I consider to be forms of anger-blame. — Joshs

Post-modernist rejection of objective reality, truth, human nature, reason etc; or if you prefer moral and epistemic relativism, is absolutely necessary neo marxian identity politics. How else can one posit the idea, for example, that gender is a social construct; and presume to have the moral righteousness and foresight to deconstruct and remake these evolutionary concepts, without resort to post modernism? — karl stone

If the postmodern ideas would be restricted to country clubs and other special elite venues, there wouldn't be a problem.

Postmodernism is a kind of luxury that most people cannot afford, and so are bound to deride it.

Do you think a poor, ugly person enjoys being self-aware, benefits from it? — baker

The poor, ugly person might be perfectly able to acknowledge both of these apparently unfortunate attributes, happily even, if their self-esteem is founded on their kindness or their intellect or their discipline or walk with god or ...

It's even feasible that one who has arduously attained a relatively sage-like equanimity is grateful for these attributes as goads toward the transcendence of the usual obsession with wealth and beauty. Such 'lower' goods could be viewed in retrospect additional obstacles to overcome. It's harder to transcend a world that'll worship your skin or your big tips.

When mocked about his criminal father, a forger, Diogenes answered : why do you think I became a philosopher?

I'm too handsome and rich of course to speak from experience.

Postmodernism is a kind of luxury that most people cannot afford, and so are bound to deride it. — baker

More like:

[Philosophy] is a kind of luxury that most people cannot afford...