Conversation thread

Individualism

Individualism is a political ideology that emphasizes the moral worth and inherent rights of the individual. It is rooted in the belief that each person has a unique identity and set of interests that should be respected and protected. Individualists argue that individuals should be allowed to make their own choices and decisions, free from government interference or societal pressure. They believe that personal freedom and self-reliance are the keys to prosperity and happiness.

The origins of individualism as a political ideology can be traced back to the Enlightenment period in the 17th and…  Read more 18th centuries. During this time, philosophers such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes began to challenge the traditional notion of the divine right of kings and the collective rights of the community. They argued that individuals have natural rights that are inherent and inalienable, including the right to life, liberty, and property. These ideas laid the groundwork for the development of liberal democracy and the concept of individual rights.

If you could change one societal expectation without repercussions, what would it be and why?

The idea that ones own personal comfort is more important than the physical needs of their community

Ooh yeah, that’s a good one! :)

Personally I’d remove the ideal that different = bad in society.

Both suck

I’m confused are you agreeing or disagreeing with my statement?

Disagreeing. Different is often bad – for example believing the earth is flat, truth is relative, or you can change your gender are horrible stupid things to believe, and I salute any society that laughs hysterically in those sort of peoples' faces.

First two I’m a fan of calling bad, HOWEVER I’d say that at the very least, we hear out people’s differences when we talk to them at first. I was also more referring to personal traits like race, sexuality, gender, cultural ideals, etc. I’ve lived in Germany for 5 years before, and just because their system is different didn’t mean that I didn’t freaking adore the country. In fact, I actually considered their system to be extremely interesting and well thought out.

What makes the third premise different? All three are blatantly illogical and anti-scientific. I thought you were a great admirer of science, and basic biology demonstrates gender is NOT fluid...

I believe it’s time you learned advanced biology: gender identity is neurological, most feel fine with their assigned gender at birth, so there’s nothing to say at all for them. Others might not be, and might identify as some other gender. The basis that “XX = woman” and “XY = man” is one of our most oversimplified and often misunderstood concepts in biology, and, when speaking of gender, is entirely different than one’s physical body.

How is that biology when your sez is based on chromosomes, and every single cell in one's body is built pre-programmed "male" or "female" based on that fact?

Once again: GENDER =/= SEX.

Any evidence or logical reason for that? Or is that just a statement of your belief, without any logic, because your belief is logically bankrupt? And bonus points if you can answer this question: What is a woman?

Because the two are defined differently by the vast majority of the world’s governments, and has common differences with one another. Sex as described as the physical aspect such as genitalia, chromosomes, gametes, or genetic code. Gender is defined as one’s neurological sense of self, or the commonly assigned social roles attributed to someone of that sex. The two gender roles that humanity has used for a while as a method of increasing efficiency of societal growth were meant specifically to match that of one’s biological sex, upholding the social order of the time. Most…  Read more societies had a binary system, however, many didn’t, often creating a third or fourth gender role that would tend to be in the middle. Often said individuals in the middle of the 2 other gender categories of the time were actually honored in some ways. The ideal of gender roles is societally made, gender itself is neurological, and we’ve simply used biological sex as the determining factor for one’s gender as it upheld the social order of the time. For those who felt they were outside that, they were subject to persecution and often felt out of place inside of societies with a gender binary system. So, let’s recap:

That's a Faulty Appeal to Authority fallacy. Your basic argument was

(1) The majority of the world's government define "sex" and "gender" as distinct and different terms.

(2) Therefore "sex" and "gender" are distinct and different terms.

Clearly the logic is absurd. If the government tells me something that defies basic common sense – say it declares the Law of Gravity null and void – should I believe it? Should I live my life expecting gravity never to work again? Not unless I want to end up dead. Relying on the government to define terms, dictate the laws of common sense, and be the final determinator of truth is a dangerous road that lead to the Holocaust in the '30s and '40s. Let's never head down that path EVER again.

The governments make those decisions off of the information of biologists and scientific panels, along with the advice of sociologists. I am highlighting those governments not as a source of unquestionable authority, but as a statistic of how widely that ideal has been implemented to show it’s approval by said scientists and sociologists.

Then why was the only piece of evidence you offered that "sex and gender" are the same thing that "the two are definition [that way] by the vast majority of the world's governments?" And then you don't offer any evidence beyond that in this comment? Do you seriously have nothing rational or scientific to contribute to this discussion, and are merely spouting emotion-based opinions? If so, please quit this discussion, I'm only interested in logical debate, not emotional rants and fallacy-loaded word salads. If you have anything more to contribute to the topic of if sex and gender are identical, however, I'm all ears.

It’s a little hard to add a scientific explanation to a socially based discussion, the same way you find it hard to explain why your opinions on certain issues in society are able to be explained by anything other than arbitrary religious belief.

I am stating one’s religious beliefs could change as the head of that Christian sect (if there is one for that sect) decides church policy under the name of god’s own decisions, as such, making it subject to possible change. Are certain values likely to change? No, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t happen at the word of just a few men. The only scientific evidence that you claim for gender and sex being the same is also circular in and of itself: gender is that because one’s body is that. It’s circular and nonsensical, because the gender roles are nonsensical and manmade.

I never made any circular arguments when I said gender and sex are the same thing, to the contrary, you have made the circular reasonings with endless Question Begging fallacies in this argument alone. You want the science? If you were born with testicles, you're male, if you weren't, you're female.