Gender Change VS Gender Deconstruction

[Leo Gura]

Gender is just an aspect of self-identity/ego.

And all identity is relative & imaginary.

You could identify with being a unicorn and no one could stop you as long as you believed in it hard enough.

After all, that's exactly what you're doing right now when you identify as a human.

"Human" is a totally imaginary identity.

[Fran11]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Gender is just an aspect of self-identity/ego.

Of course. This post is about understanding the fact that it is social construct born out of old survival needs like phsycial labor. 

These survival needs have changed and that's why the line is blurring and in the future it will completely dissapear. 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Fran11

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

it is social construct born out of old survival needs like phsycial labor. 

These survival needs have changed and that's why the line is blurring and in the future it will completely dissapear. 

Ah... but it's not so simple.

So long as you are in that physical body, you will have a strong identification with your sex. Sex is a deep physiological aspect of what you are as a human on the relative plane. And this cannot be changed willy-nilly. The hormones running your brain and body play a HUGE role in shaping your raw experience of life, not to mention your thoughts and emotions.

So it's not as easy as having robots do all our physical labor for us.

If you want to completely decouple gender and sex, you'll have to become like a brain in a vat hooked up to some VR game. Or via genetic engineering. But assuming your genes stay that same, you'll have attachments to masculine and feminine qualities.

[Fran11]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Ah... but it's not so simple.

So long as you are in that physical body, you will have a strong identification with your sex. Sex is a deep physiological aspect of what you are as a human on the relative plane. And this cannot be changed willy-nilly. The hormones running your brain and body play a HUGE role in shaping your raw experience of life, not to mention your thoughts and emotions.

Humans are evolving towards equilibrating masculine and femenine enerigies regardless of bodily sex. Just compare now to primitive and physical labor times. The tendency is there.

There are many man (even not-trans) that lean more towards the femenine than the masculine and viscecersa for women.

In the future people need not percieve this as a "mis-match" beetween body and mind because of old stereotypes and survival needs.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Fran11

[Leo Gura]

@Fran11 Some small degree of that is happening, but mostly people still fall into pretty strong gender binary roles, and I don't see that changing. Maybe 5-10% will skew in quirky directions, but most will be happy being more masculine and more feminine.

At least in our lifetimes.

[Fran11]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Fran11 Some small degree of that is happening, but mostly people still fall into pretty strong gender binary roles, and I don't see that changing. Maybe 5-10% will skew in quirky directions, but most will happy being more masculine and more feminine.

A part of those binary roles are cultural constructs, many are because of tradition and are carried on just because of the status quo. Many of this things are superficial. If you are mindful about actual femenine and masculine energies in people you see a lot of people are near equlibrium or even the opposite pole without being quirky.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Fran11

[Leo Gura]

Lots of stuff is a social construct but that doesn't mean it is readily changed.

Good luck getting guys to wear high heels.

Language is one of the most socially constructed things there is. And yet, it's hard to get people to change their vocabulary.

[Fran11]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Lots of stuff is a social construct but that doesn't mean it is readily changed.

Good luck getting guys to wear high heels.

LOL yeah 

At least 100 years.

[Yog]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Good luck getting guys to wear high heels.

Weird stuff can happen fairly quickly haha.

@Fran11 

Ive read your point and I get what you are saying, I agree to it to a high degree too.

Still it cant help but bug me.

This deconstructionist approach of things tends to be applied very carelessly, or blindly way too often, I am not blaming you, just thinking loudly, its something that I've seen just too many times. Its a tool used very often in the cultural left, lets say. And I have no issue with it, I do it myself too and I do see the social construction layer of things too, it surely can need attention. The good think is that it can be applied to deconstruct things unfair and dysfunctional to a certain degree liberating people from both society and themselves in the process...and by certain degree I mean exactly that, it will rarely get to the core nature of things. I find it sad that it is marketed and ofc used around as a all-purpose to-the-core tool.

Where I've seen it fall short is in appreciating of how deep these constructs go, beyond social constructions and going into the deep unconscious territory of biology and archetypes.

So in this spirit it seems wise to me to look beyond the social construction layer, as it actually is not a cause of things, its an effect of things most of the time and deconstructing social constructions is in fact deconstructing effects for the most part. Can be useful yes, it can liberate people yes, can lead to societal change yes, but can also hurt people and leave them open to negative archetypal possession. Its a common phenomenon with the culture oriented stage green.

In the end Its a weird and very channeling game of working with a hammer and glue at the same time, knowing where to precisely hit, take the bad stuff out out and glue it back together, while being humble to the core at the same time.... Cheers!

Edited August 31, 2020 by Yog
Addz

[Leo Gura]

Much in our world is socially constructed, but don't forget, that doesn't mean we can or should change it willy-nilly. Social constructions have a certain utilitarian function, which is why they were constructed in the first place. Most social constructions have also survived a long evolutionary process of trail and error and optimization, which means it's unlikely that you will just invent something better from your single small mind.

The logic goes a bit like this: We can all agree that the walls of your house were constructed, but that doesn't mean it is wise to demolish them, as the roof will collapse on your head.

To re-architect a complex thing requires deep intelligence and solid system's thinking. Re-architecting something as time-tested as gender roles is not as easy or harmless as some utopian stage Green folks would like to believe. You can do it, but what will be the down-range consequences?

[Fadl]

A man who cuts out his penis to replace it with a fake vagina because he thinks he is a woman has a serious mental illness.

I blame society.

[Fran11]

1 hour ago, Yog said:

@Fran11
Where I've seen it fall short is in appreciating of how deep these constructs go, beyond social constructions and going into the deep unconscious territory of biology and archetypes.
 

Yes, I did not touch much upon that. It's true these constructs don't developed just because. 

Like I said I think the main reason is that in the past survival was a lot more bodily-dependent and men and women were very polarized in the femenine-masculine spectrum. Technology played a major role in changing this. 

About archetypes, I'm not deconstructing them. That's one example in which one should not appy decontruction lightly like you pointed. But I think if you pay atenttion beyond the superficial gender stuff, actually many man and women already energetically embody archetypes that society may say don't "match" their bodily identity.

There are byological factors like brain chemistry one cannot or should try to deconstruct as well of course.

Always good to read toughtful replies 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Fran11

[Fran11]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Social constructions have a certain utilitarian function, which is why they were constructed in the first place. 

Yes I acknowledge this. But I think in the case of strict gender roles its utility is greatly outdated. There's not much reason why a man should be hyper-masculine for the survival requierements of a decent country in XXI century. Actually modern conditions require a more balanced energetical equilibrium.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Re-architecting something as time-tested as gender roles is not as easy or harmless as some utopian stage Green folks would like to believe. You can do it, but what will be the down-range consequences?

I'm not proposing that we "do it" or saying that I want it. I just see the tendency is that the line is blurring more and more and in a future it will dissapear just because of evolution. Probaly not in our lifetimes though.

I could be wrong about this, I know it can seem like I'm a stage green hippie wanting to deconstruct things for the sake of it  but I'm not attached to this perspective, I'm just throwing it out there to share ideas with you guys.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Fran11

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Fran11 said:

But I think in the case of strict gender roles its utility is greatly outdated. There's not much reason why a man should be hyper-masculine for the survival requierements of a decent country in XXI century.

Except there is.

Most women are still highly attracted to masculine guys. So, for example, if a guy wants to get laid by hot girls, then working on his masculinity is important. Otherwise he might end up an angsty, suicidal Incel who shoots up a school.

And there are many other such cases.

Like I said, these are very complex survival functions so your mind is not likely to just invent a better alternative.

Yes, gender roles are outdated. And, no, gender roles are not outdated, they are still valuable for most guys and girls. Both things are true at once.

[Fran11]

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Most women are still highly attracted to masculine guys. So, for example, if a guy wants to get laid by hot girls, then working on his masculinity is important.

Both poles are important for both sexes now, that's why I say modern societies call for equilibrium. I'm not saying we should swing to the other side and neglect the prior.

But this is a problem that might have increased with the blurring of these roles though. So it's a good point. 

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, gender roles are outdated. And, no, gender roles are not outdated, they are still valuable for most guys and girls. Both things are true at once.

Yes I agree. But notice you say "still" and I was considering a long time horizon, a couple generations at least.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Fran11

[Leo Gura]

47 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

Yes I agree. But notice you say "still" and I was considering a long time horizon, a couple generations at least.

Of course it's all a matter of perspective.

There's not some objective solution to such issues. It's all perspectival, relative, and contingent on one's survival agenda.

[Gidiot]

@Leo Gura basically agree but what about the importance of valuing a non-binary persons experience as equally valid, that’s what I was talking about in my posts, masculine males and feminine females are great but they aren’t in need of advocacy.

sex is certainly a thing and we exist in “human bodies” that have usually more masculine energies or feminine, but I also think it’s possible to be neutral or have an equilibrium like Fran says, I don’t know if most stage green folks want to burn en down, well certainly some do, but I think my stage green opinion would certainly be to add more to it not subtract. Become more inclusive, rethink what it means to be a man or woman and add some nuance to it.

 

a big part of my life purpose is about improving society and government, so I think realizing that societal constructs are effective because they have been around so long has merit.  
 

I truly don’t think you can improve upon something until you understand what makes it work and what hurts it. What are the pros and cons etc. this was a good point I needed to read, better to improve on the design than rethink it although both can be wrong/right in the relative sense.

 

my survival agenda is a bit abstract.... I am thinking if I have to live this persons life and as many lives as god I want them to be as fair as possible

Edited September 2, 2020 by Gidiot

[Fran11]

52 minutes ago, Gidiot said:

a big part of my life purpose is about improving society and government, so I think realizing that societal constructs are effective because they have been around so long has merit.  
 

I truly don’t think you can improve upon something until you understand what makes it work and what hurts it. What are the pros and cons etc. this was a good point I needed to read, better to improve on the design than rethink it although both can be wrong/right in the relative sense.

Hey, thanks for replying 

Maybe I wasn't clear enough about that point. I don't propose we end genders. My intention was to point out that they are becoming progressively irrelevant because of natural social, human and spiritual evolution. Not because anyone is forcing it or should force it.

In this moment they are still relevant, of course. I was making a prediction by saying they will probably be trascended in a couple generations, but I could be wrong of course, which is why it's good to read you guys. 

I knew this post would make me look like a crazy radical liberal, but please give me the benefit of the doubt 

 

Edited September 2, 2020 by Fran11