What is woman?

[Oeaohoo]

15 minutes ago, BenG said:

Humanity is a social construct. 

lol, I wont be baited anymore! We're done!

Yes, wouldn’t want to get caught in the hook of Truth and Reality!

If anything is a social construct, it’s social constructivism.

[BenG]

14 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Yes, wouldn’t want to get caught in the hook of Truth and Reality!

If anything is a social construct, it’s social constructivism.

I think you can do better!

Come up with something better and maybe I'll bite.

[puporing]

LOL... it's either this or the dating section. 

Edited June 11, 2022 by puporing

[Bobby_2021]

9 hours ago, BenG said:

A social construct. It’s not a mystery, just a matter of accepting what’s obvious. 

What is a donkey?

Isn't it also a social construct?

So when a 4 year old child asks you what is a donkey, will you say it's a social construct, or will you show the picture of a donkey? 

[Gidiot]

What the essence of something is will always be debatable 

[BenG]

38 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

What is a donkey?

Isn't it also a social construct?

So when a 4 year old child asks you what is a donkey, will you say it's a social construct, or will you show the picture of a donkey? 

I would show them a donkey because how we define donkeys (unlike gender) isn't something that needs reform.

[Bobby_2021]

47 minutes ago, BenG said:

I would show them a donkey because how we define donkeys (unlike gender) isn't something that needs reform.

How will you answer if she asks what is a woman?

Would you tell her that a woman is a social construct that collectively decided by culture wars over generations...

Or will you show the picture of a woman? 

Just curious. ?

Edited June 11, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[BenG]

2 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

How will you answer if she asks what is a woman?

Would you tell her that a woman is a social construct that collectively decided over culture war over generations...

Or will you show the picture of a woman? 

Just curious. ?

I'm not an expert on the best ways to teach kids about all the nuances of social constructs, but inclusivity and non-judgement is a good place to start.

The wrong approach is to fearmonger with shit talk about poisoning the minds of the youth in an effort to avoid a discussion that needs to be had.

[Oeaohoo]

3 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

How will you answer if she asks what is a woman?

Would you tell her that a woman is a social construct that collectively decided by culture wars over generations...

Or will you show the picture of a woman? 

Just think of the jokes these kids will tell each other:

Q: “Why did the woman cross the road?”

A: “What’s a woman?”

 

[Bobby_2021]

43 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Just think of the jokes these kids will tell each other:

Q: “Why did the woman cross the road?”

A: “What’s a woman?”

 

Lmao ?

I will answer insufficient information or ambiguous information. 

[IAmReallyImportant]

On 10/06/2022 at 6:10 PM, Oeaohoo said:

@Danioover9000 What do you think? @IAmReallyImportant gave an answer above, emphasising the genetic aspect of womanliness. The only problem I have with this is that the study of genetics only emerged quite recently and ironically coincided with the rise of feminist ideology! However, the physical and hormonal differences that create the feminine character that everybody recognises as a “woman” are determined by genetics so I think this still holds true.

I would say that a woman is a manifestation of the feminine polarity of existence. This includes: abundance, receptivity, passivity, power (Shakti) and potency (in the literal sense of “potential to be”), conformity (in the literal sense of “complying to form”, as form is a key attribute of the masculine polarity), materiality (from mater, the mother), seduction and illusion (Maya), and so on. The physical differences are all simply the material expressions of these metaphysical traits.

This is why I insist that postmodernism is a radical negation, inversion and even perversion of Truth. It denies that there are archetypes and forms which are eternally true and which everything material is only a manifestation of. It is a unilateral denial of transcendence in the name of immanence. It denies what the Corpus Hermeticum called the “Things That Are”, and so is also a denial of Being in the name of mere becoming.

Ingenious explanation.

Metaphysics can be known without having learned it anywhere. It is as one intuitively recognizes metaphysical connections.

Therefore it is also obvious that women are simply women in the sense of the natural body. Genetics is just an example to illustrate this.

Potency is of men, fertility would describe women more.

For me, it doesn't matter what feminists are committed to or what they do or have done and when. If that has to do with them, then that is probably the only thing that makes sense that has ever been uttered in their environment.

Edited June 11, 2022 by IAmReallyImportant

[IAmReallyImportant]

I think you just explain the same thing in a different, more complicated way.

[IAmReallyImportant]

You could say everything is made up of concepts and that's why it means nothing. But this reality has definite features that can be pointed to through natural language. If you try to see reality differently than it actually is, you lose the ability to survive. And ultimately, because of that, society and the world itself could not stay alive and reality could not exist as it is. That's what happens to crazy people. They cannot survive socially and if there wouldn't be social security, they would probably die early in most cases. 

If the people who care about crazy are crazy themselves, then it is as good as not caring about crazy. Because, they cannot care for themselves. Although that is also often the case. And thus bad to deadly for the society.

The definition of crazy is not being aligned with consensus reality, which is made up by society. Now, society has evolved over many years. You can compare it with a near equilibrium-state, which has been reached in terms of social behaviour. And how we are structured as a society is similar to what you see in reality (animal kingdoms, hierarchies etc.) itself. If confused people try to change the system while not knowing what they are doing (which has been proven), then the system will get out of balance and ultimately collapse.

Of course, people still kill each other etc. . And other things. But this is not dominantly present. Not allowing false truths to evolve has nothing to do with hate or similar. It has to do with reality and thus keeping our society in balance.

Edited June 11, 2022 by IAmReallyImportant

[Oeaohoo]

On 11/06/2022 at 7:03 PM, IAmReallyImportant said:

Potency is of men, fertility would describe women more.

I understand why you would say this but this is actually not the case. The masculine principle is impotent without the feminine. Masculinity is assertion, direction and will; if there is nothing for it to direct or assert itself upon, however, it is impotent. The feminine principle provides the potency of existence and the masculine principle actualises it. That is why the alchemists metaphorically referred to the male seed as the “Living Eve”. This is also why women without an animating male principle in their life will often just sort of marinate in themselves in a sort of directionless abundance of energy. It is potency without actuality. It is also why men without a grounding feminine principle will have all sorts of big ideas but they will all amount to nothing.

I agree though that this is perhaps not the best word to convey this meaning. The concept of Power conceived as the religious terms Shakti, Sekhmet (she-who-is-powerful) and Shekinah (Divine Glory) captures this idea better.

On 11/06/2022 at 7:27 PM, IAmReallyImportant said:

You could say everything is made up of concepts and that's why it means nothing. But this reality has definite features that can be pointed to through natural language. If you try to see reality differently than it actually is, you lose the ability to survive. And ultimately, because of that, society and the world itself could not stay alive and reality could not exist as it is. That's what happens to crazy people. They cannot survive socially and if there wouldn't be social security, they would probably die early in most cases. 

Yes, social constructivism and postmodern culture is a sort of organised insanity. Maybe that’s why they are always accusing people of “gaslighting” them! To be more charitable, you could say it is the misapplication of advanced truths by people who have not been adequately prepared to receive them. After all, there is a sense in which all identities and all of reality is constructed: it is not a social sense, however, but a metaphysical one!

Your point about social security made me wonder: maybe that is why “Stage Green” postmodernism is in love with the welfare state and socialised healthcare. They need these things to prop up their ideology which is alienated from reality. This society is becoming like one big crazy collective who needs their social security to survive!

On 11/06/2022 at 7:27 PM, IAmReallyImportant said:

The definition of crazy is not being aligned with consensus reality, which is made up by society.

Well, of course that’s how any given society defines insanity! But what if the society or the consensus is itself insane? As is the case today. That definition of insanity seems to be subtly nihilistic in the sense that it denies that there is really a truth to the situation. A sound definition of sanity must involve being in relative conformity to the truth and not just to society.

On 11/06/2022 at 7:27 PM, IAmReallyImportant said:

Not allowing false truths to evolve has nothing to do with hate or similar. It has to do with reality and thus keeping our society in balance.

Absolutely! If anything, it has to do with love.

[SgtPepper]

A woman is an adult human female

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman

It might be a construct, but it is a good one because it grounded in physical reality.

Edited June 16, 2022 by SgtPepper

[Bobby_2021]

A woman = (  Male or Female or Intersex ) person identifying as a female. 

Gender is entirely based on identification while sex is entirely based on biology

Biology & Gender are both social constructs. 

I think this is the best most accurate definition. Most people usually miss one thing or the other when defining it. 

[Oeaohoo]

4 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Biology & Gender are both social constructs.

Why is biology a social construct?

Biology means bio-logos, the human discriminative faculty applied to the biological realm. The realm of bios itself, therefore, must be outside of and separate from (relatively speaking) the human discriminative faculty.

Notice also that the idea of a “social construct” implies a profane conception of society and the humans within it: what if God ordained society and the human discriminative faculty? “In the beginning was the Logos”!

[Bobby_2021]

4 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

Why is biology a social construct?

Look at it deeply.

Basically a social construct means that something people pull out of their ass after observing reality.

4 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

the human discriminative faculty applied to the biological realm

Exactly. When multiple humans come together to use their "discriminative faculty" we call it a social circle. Basically a bunch of people get together to label, discuss and make theories about stuff they see in reality.

"Male" & "Female" are labels that people made up. The process of digestion is a theory a bunch of people made up. Yes, it's closely connected to how reality works. But it's not reality. It's a map. Made by scientists.

Gravity is also a social construct.

This dosen't mean that you can fly to the moon. You, the moon all are constructs made up. Even the relationship between those concepts.

Ponder on this. 

[Oeaohoo]

@Bobby_2021 At the most fundamental level, reality is composed of an infinite variety of forms (Logos) and an infinitely formless substance which receives these forms.

Humans have the capacity to align their intellect with this Divine Intellect (Logos) - the metaphysical storehouse of the forms and ideas from which everything is manifested - and human sciences are (at least supposed to be) a reflection of this. That is the real meaning of Adam naming the animals in Genesis, for example.

Of course biology is not reality itself, that doesn’t mean it is just “pulled out of their ass”. The modern science of biology, like all other sciences of our day, seeks to map out reality ever more tightly without ever pursuing it directly, which was the approach of the sacred sciences of antiquity. I can agree that modern biology is mostly socially constructed because, in the world where “God is dead”, science is rooted in a denial of the metaphysical dimension. I can even more or less agree that biology can only exist through the mediation of a society, though a single person could engage in biology so it doesn’t necessarily require a social circle.

I think this emphasis on social constructivism is something to do with the dominance of Hindu and Buddhist ideas in New-Age circles (particularly the latter, as Buddhism with its emphasis on no-self and the void lends itself very well to a nominalist philosophy), Stage Green anti-logocentrism and postmodern deconstruction. It is possibly even related to the feminisation of modern society as the formless substance is feminine while the form-giving essence is masculine. It is also related to the preference for Love over Truth in spiritual circles and the general preference in modern society for sentimentality and passion over logic and reason.

[Danioover9000]

In a 1st world democracy, it is mostly in their rights to pursue a transition in some states, and identify as a trans person in some places, but others it is tricky, especially if we throw in age of consent, and the major differences of the upbringing narrative of heterosexuality, traditional gender roles and it's function in society, compared to other forms of sexual narratives and other gender roles that's behind their mental representation systems.

   However, to me that's all superficial appearance, because there's a deeper truth that's related to their sexuality in their life experience, and their state of consciousness. Transexuality, as it means to me, is parts and the whole of the definition: we have trans, sex, and uality in this word. Trans is a prefix word to other words like transcendence, transcendental, transformation, transposition, transparency, transpersonal, transvers, translation and all the common meanings of these words denotes a going beyond, or going meta, away and above the following implied meanings of the root and suffixes of those words. Then we have sex, as in the act of procreation and reproduction in biological male and female bodies, exchange of biological fluids and genetic material for the formation of offspring who will inherit the mother and father's genes, which is deeply attached and tied to our survival as an ego, from the person level to group level. We finally have this strange word, uality, which is phonetically and literally open to interpretation, could be duality, or reality, or unity. So, to me, transsexuality is a state of being that is more freer from the attachments of sexuality normally common and enforced by the EGO, individual to collective, from mainstream culture.

   As a way of life, it's challenging, given the prolific heterosexual narrative of a culture seen in mainstream information ecology like in tv shows, movies, social media, news, social gatherings and events, life experiences in a city or village. Not to mention that if we factor in stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality traits, ego development, other states of consciousness and being, and other life experiences, we end up with a trans perskn that doesn't fit into a simple box, but is a ckmplex entity onto itself. How can society standards and government adjust to trans person and integrate them into society, while managing varying degrees of backlash from different groups with different perspectives?