Can the Chain Still Hold You?

Sorry for the late response, I have been really busy with work.

The variety of gender constructions in our society is the result of a societal objective to perserve a strict dichtomy of sex. Therefore while I would agree that more people are directly assualted with gender constructions, I would add that it is in protection of cultural beliefs about the construction of sex that a wide range of gender constructions are created and implemented. Or in other words, Gender constructions are the means by which constructions of sex are legitimized. Without importance on the later, the former would diminish into obscurity.

To illustrate this I would ask you to think about constructions of age in American society. As of late, there is not nearly as strict a dichotomy between "old" and "young" in American society as there is between "male" and "female." Of course there is still a clearly defined dichotomy (one set by law). But America does not have a multitude of age related norms and customs that would equal the concept of gender for sex. We are not trained to strictly categorize the way old or young people dress. Perhaps 30 years ago there were many hobbies and professions that were normatively bracketed to either old or young (A young person might be ridiculed for drinking prune juice? An old person might be looked down on for being too adamant about video games). However, I feel current American society has become even more accepting of occupational and recreational deviations from these normative age construction. It is generally acceptable for a man in his 40s to like video games, and while a child may be labeled "weird" for drinking prune juice, they are by no means subject to persecution because of it.

For example, the social rules about men using women's restrooms (and vice versa) are gendered, not sex constructed.

Huh? I remember an Italian female senator making a big fuss when a male-to-female transsexual senator (who hadn't undergone SRS yet at that time, IIRC) used the women's toilet in the senate.

Ah sorry I did mix you two up.

you said "sex is more like the construct around the biological bits".

Correct, except the construct is not only built around the biological bits, the construct transforms the biological bits. We actively weed out sexes that are not male or female, and in doing this over time we breed humans to meet our desired dichotomy.

Of course I can; humans aren't particularly special, at least not in relevant ways.

Humans are incredibly special. Humans are the only single species mammal. In that sense given the diversity of human ethnicities, humans are the most specialized-unspecialized species in the world (specialized in the sense that the species allows for the vast degrees of ethnic traits to be completely compatible with any human; unspecialized in the sense that we remain neutral enough to adapt to almost any environment and have not biologically chained ourselves to a particular habitat). Humans are the only species that we know of that creates a shared reality of perception (meaning that if I point at something, you know not to look at my finger but look for what I am pointing too; we are able to see our goals, victories, and aspirations as shared with a larger social entity). Humans are the only creature with a cultural paradox (A cultural paradox is where what is prescribed by their tribe often times is detrimental to their survival, but to go against the tribe is equally if not more detrimental.).

Biological classification is useful for organizational purposes, but the categories created are often times severely lacking. In this case, I think humans are so different from most other mammals that it is not useful to use them as an insight into human nature/ the development of the human species.

[Although I am not proud of this, reflecting on your question "why you're presuming social effects are the primary selection pressure," the conclusion I came to was] Because it is the political position I was indoctrinated into. in undergrad anthropology we covered feminism and the idea of sex as a social construct is pretty much the big idea of third wave feminism. It was such a unique and interesting idea that I accepted it into my own ideology pretty readily. However honestly, the counter-arguement that there there are other genetic factors that are more primary is potentially acceptable.

As to your prior

that deviation from normalcy decreases the chances of fertility for that individual, and possibly more importantly, their children.

I would respond that what is normal depends on the in-group of the individual/community defining normalcy. Since people to some degree define their in-group based on the people, symbols, media, and cultures they interact with, I would argue that the process of labeling what is normal is a social construction.

Sorry if I was too ambiguous with my language. I highlighted the non-functioning genitalia because it is how I remember the distinction; but both ferms and merms have genital structures unique from hermaphrodites in that they are synthesized with quasi male/female structures. The processes of sex, birth, waste defecation, urination, ejaculation and menstruation are all somewhat different.

If you were looking for different variation in the sorts of things that are normally clustered with "sex", then there are a lot more expressions. There are for instance ambiguous genitalia, unusual chromosonal sex, Aphallia, and especially human protandry.

You are right, I am not an expert on all this stuff and I should not have said “five” in such a definitive way. In general, I have developed the bad habit of writing with too much authority. I apologize for that it is a byproduct of my time debating. I shouldn’t have said “five” in such a definitive way. That said, the point I was trying to make is that the concept of sex is socially constructed, which what you are arguing does not change right?

In another comment in this thread there is a link to Daly saying, in an interview:

If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore.

A short look at wikiquotes of Dworkin gives this:

Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.

So assuming these are the best quotes to be found (I did not try too hard), it would be more precise and fair to say that Daly enjoyed the thought that 90% of men would be "decontaminated" by "an evolutionary process"; and Dworkin said that every man (under patriarchy, which means anything) is a "rapist or exploiter".

None of this really makes any of them a sick person, does it?

I mean, if I said that "if life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth; a natural process resulting in drastic reduction of the females" and "under feminism, every women is a rapist or exploiter of another man", those would also be perfectly OK, politically correct, inoffensive, and uncontroversial statements, ready to get me to the textbooks as a defender of equality and everything good. (Just joking, those are not my opinions.)

I don't think the genderqueer BDSM pornographers usually call themselves "radical feminists"; they do call themselves both radicals and feminists, but they don't usually combine the terms. The term "radical feminist" seems to have been largely monopolized by the Andrea Dworkin/ Mary Daly/ Twisty Faster crowd.

Here's an example of very degrading sex that's not rape play either. (The domme gives orders to the sub, and there's one act the sub is reluctant to perform, but throughout the scene the sub expresses consent verbally and physically.) This story is extremely gross porn; there are two characters; the domme is a crossdressing woman; the sub is a woman; seriously I mean the "gross" part, you have been warned: Piggy, by Jen Cross.

I didn't read the story based on your warning and the fact that you gave a ... synopsis ... that seemed sufficient.

I think I see your point; it does seem possible that sex could independently be violent and degrading, for most values of "violent" and "degrading", without utilizing rape play, although that would seem to be the easiest route.

It might be fair to classify all reluctance play as "simulating something close to rape" (e.g. "Stop hitting me"), and even anything involving restraints if you're being very inclusive

That's basically what I was thinking of.

if someone's begging to be hurt and to do something degrading (and there's no roleplay where they're being forced to or anything)

Funny thing, but I seems to have been thinking that "degrading" meant nonconsensual. Which is stupid, now that I think of it. I guess "degrading" is an ambiguous term, come to think.

Yes, it simulates something close to it, but I think the two-step distinction is enough that avoiding the word "rape" and its connotations is very appropriate. The "degrading and violent" taps into certain emotions, but lacks certain key other emotions and characteristics that make rape so bad and hurtful. To name some, the helplessness feeling is most likely not present (since it's consensual, as stated), and the whole existential crisis that is triggered by the emotional cascade and status markers and mental model updates that all happen at the same time during or in the aftermath. The trauma oft associated with "rape" seems to come mostly from those missing elements, so I wouldn't include this in my carving.

Obviously, there is a distinction between rape and BSDM play that simulates rape. Still, the claim that all penetrative sex is either rape or an attempt to capture certain emotional elements of rape seems very close to the statement that all penetrative sex is actual rape.

Meh, not really. How People Rationalize Rape Culture is Feminism 102, and the article was the same old excuses. There was one bit that wasn't drop-dead standard, where he described committing rape as a risk for him to take, rather than the potential victim, but even that is kind of an extension of "consent is hard".

What we need is insight into the actual motivations for rape, and those aren't going to be in articles written for the express purpose of making the author look good. Rudolf Hess's notebooks and his psychiatrist's rarely agree.

And even then, the editor's note should be scathing enough to compensate for the status boost of publishing his article, not a half-hearted refusal to endorse.

I mostly agree with what you are saying, but I'm not sure what the phrase "high status" is intended to add. High status is not the same as "clear thinking" or "rationally weighing the evidence" - and it is dangerous to pretend otherwise.

The website is public and has a rather large audience. Moreover, it talks about misandry (and generally gender from a male perspective) a lot, and therefore has originally tried hard to distance itself from those who call themselves Men's Rights Activists.

If you discuss in a group where there a chance that someone actually supports the crazy view you have to be more careful.

Considering the article in question didn't actually defend his actions, I'm not sure why.

Mein Kampf is a pretty good example. In many countries buying and selling it is banned except under special circumstances, or requires specific notes, or is legal if you don't look like you endorse it. The Bavarian government controls the rights, and usually forbids reprints.

Most people would certainly be very suspicious of someone distributing Mein Kampf unless they did a whole annotated song and dance about how it's an absolutely horrible book but they have a duty to preserve historical evidence, disgusting as it is. "Here's a person whose conclusions I disagree with" implies that the arguments are worthy of consideration, not just evidence about the person's psychology. As opposed to "Here's what goes on in the head of a freaking rapist ew ew".

People didn't stop printing copies of Mein Kampf, did they?

Mein Kampf was aimed at people in Wiemar Germany, so I'm not sure it retains much persuasive power for modern, say, French.