Michael Pierce | Male and Female as Categories (1/2) @MichaelPiercePhilosophy | Uploaded April 2019 | Updated October 2024, 6 hours ago.
I WROTE A BOOK:
Purchase the print paperback: amazon.com/dp/B089278TWR/ref=cm_sw_r_apa_i_l9.XEb3FR3K3B
Purchase the ebook pdf: subjectobjectmichaelpierce.blogspot.com/p/buy-my-book.html?m=1
__________________
After a ton of deliberation, I've finally come up with this TLDR: I regard sex (exclusively in terms of reproduction, not in terms of brains or anything else) as infinitely more important than gender (which is literally anything accidental to reproduction). This is based on my religious convictions, which I talk about a bit in the second video.
Some other thoughts:
1. You cannot define a binary with a bell curve of data.
2. "Man” and “Woman,” represent a binary.
3. The psychological differences in men and women manifest as bell curves.
4. Therefore: if “Man” and “Woman” form a binary then you cannot define them in terms of their psychological differences.
So, let's not mix up the biology of sexual reproduction with other interesting correlations that we find in the majority of the bearers of that biology. But if we root "man" and "woman" in sexual biology, then a "feminine" man and a "masculine" man will still be equally men -- and this would mean nothing other than the basic role played in reproduction, stripped of all social or sentimental trappings.
There are a couple of things you can base a definition of "man" and "woman" in. You could base it in social expectations, but those are always changing and are usually self-contradictory anyway. You could base it in neuropsychology, but neuropsychology manifests in bell curves and spectrums, with outliers above and below, so you would always be left with a third category of miscellaneous neuters. You could base it in chromosomes, except that there is, again, a small class of people with extra chromosomes and other chromosomal mutations. Or, you could base it in the reproductive function, because that's what carries the most significance for humanity. Your sperm doesn't care if you act socially feminine, or even have a "feminine brain;" it will still join with an ovum and begin to form a human body. And it doesn't matter to me if my grandmother was the more metaphysically or psychologically or whatever-lly masculine element in their family, because I'm still here as her literal biological grandchild.
No one has yet been born who could, effectively, impregnate a woman while being pregnant themselves. Such an individual would truly form a third category.
I WROTE A BOOK:
Purchase the print paperback: amazon.com/dp/B089278TWR/ref=cm_sw_r_apa_i_l9.XEb3FR3K3B
Purchase the ebook pdf: subjectobjectmichaelpierce.blogspot.com/p/buy-my-book.html?m=1
__________________
After a ton of deliberation, I've finally come up with this TLDR: I regard sex (exclusively in terms of reproduction, not in terms of brains or anything else) as infinitely more important than gender (which is literally anything accidental to reproduction). This is based on my religious convictions, which I talk about a bit in the second video.
Some other thoughts:
1. You cannot define a binary with a bell curve of data.
2. "Man” and “Woman,” represent a binary.
3. The psychological differences in men and women manifest as bell curves.
4. Therefore: if “Man” and “Woman” form a binary then you cannot define them in terms of their psychological differences.
So, let's not mix up the biology of sexual reproduction with other interesting correlations that we find in the majority of the bearers of that biology. But if we root "man" and "woman" in sexual biology, then a "feminine" man and a "masculine" man will still be equally men -- and this would mean nothing other than the basic role played in reproduction, stripped of all social or sentimental trappings.
There are a couple of things you can base a definition of "man" and "woman" in. You could base it in social expectations, but those are always changing and are usually self-contradictory anyway. You could base it in neuropsychology, but neuropsychology manifests in bell curves and spectrums, with outliers above and below, so you would always be left with a third category of miscellaneous neuters. You could base it in chromosomes, except that there is, again, a small class of people with extra chromosomes and other chromosomal mutations. Or, you could base it in the reproductive function, because that's what carries the most significance for humanity. Your sperm doesn't care if you act socially feminine, or even have a "feminine brain;" it will still join with an ovum and begin to form a human body. And it doesn't matter to me if my grandmother was the more metaphysically or psychologically or whatever-lly masculine element in their family, because I'm still here as her literal biological grandchild.
No one has yet been born who could, effectively, impregnate a woman while being pregnant themselves. Such an individual would truly form a third category.
