WELCOME
Hello! Welcome to the forum! Here I (and maybe others..) will post writings on things like philosophy and politics and such.
Below this box you will see the latest article Ive updloaded, and on the right window you can see the previous ones by date. I will probably change this system in the future but for now it is what it is.
An essay by Luna S.
The best philosophical framework for contemporary biological essentialism or gender realism is a metaphysical view on gender, which defines gender as an ontological category assigned by a higher power or nature, that is manifested in the form of biological sex. In this essay I will thoroughly deconstruct this metaphysical framework by reducing its ontology to the its logical conclusions.
Before I begin the deconstruction, I will present the opposing argument, which establishes a metaphysical framework through the following ontologies:
The deconstruction of this argument will involve using the nature of ontological claims and reduce the argument to its logical conclusions, until the metaphysical system collapses under its own weight.
An ontological claim must be:
If any of these criteria are broken, the argument stops being ontological and becomes arbitrarily dogmatic. I will keep the rules of non-arbitrariness and consistency in mind when applying the metaphysical claim to relevant DSD (Disorders of Sex Development) examples to break its ontology.
If biological sex is the physical manifestation of ontologically assigned gender, it needs to be clearly categorized.
The following biological markers are applicable:
The first relevant DSD is the Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, or CAIS from now on. CAIS is characterized by the following:
Women with CAIS have internal male sex characteristics and external female sex characteristics, female-typical neurochemistry, brain structure, and mostly female-typical gender identity and sexuality (androphilia).
(See The influence of sex hormones and sex chromosomes on the sexual differentiation of human brain structure: analysis of regional gray matter in women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome; Brain responses to sexual images in 46XY women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome are female-typical; Gender role, gender identity and sexual orientation in CAIS (“XY-women”) compared with subfertile and infertile 46XX women)
If we are to assume that chromosomal sex or internal reproductive anatomy are absolute manifestations of ontological gender, we would have to say that women with CAIS are actually men, and that their lived experience and gender identity are illogical and in contradiction to their ontological sex. This would give women with CAIS a moral imperative to medically and socially transition to male, despite the severe psychological distress this will undoubtably cause.
(Forcing an individual to live as the gender contrary to their internal perception leads to dysphoria and suicidality, see The David Reimer experiment, J. Money; Feminine boy experiment, I. Lovaas).
This conclusion is in contradiction to both to the theistic category of omnibenevolence and the secular moral imperative to avoid unnecessary suffering, with both theistic and secular moral systems recognizing women with CAIS as female. Making chromosomal sex and internal reproductive anatomy invalid as physical manifestations of ontological gender.
To elaborate, putting women with CAIS under such an imperative would go against the dogma and practice of all contemporary religious (Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, major Protestant denominations) and medical organizations precisely because it would be cruel. Both the Catholic and Orthodox Church recognize and treat 46,XY CAIS individuals as women, more precisely, they are subject to pastoral care, or pastoral exception. The explanation for this is that we live in a post-fall reality, where severe illnesses and physical deformities are inevitable, and that we have a moral duty to care for the ill and minimize their suffering. This begs the question of why transgender individuals aren’t treated the same way.
A woman with CAIS—if forced to transition—would experience identical lifelong suffering to a trans woman forced to live as a man, that being severe gender dysphoria and persistent suicidality caused by the following:
Yet the hypothetical distress of these two 46,XY individuals is treated differently, one is given a community, validation and care, while the other is rejected, denied communion and persecuted, even called demonic.
The second relevant DSD example is the Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, or PAIS from now on.
PAIS is characterized by the following:
Individuals with PAIS grow up into men or women, based on completely arbitrary factors such as assignment at birth followed by relevant corrective procedures in adolescence and puberty. If we are to take developmental phenotype, secondary sex characteristics, external reproductive anatomy and neurochemistry/brain structure as absolute physical manifestations of an ontological category, we would have to accept the fact that a supposedly ontologically assigned gender is decided by the free will of a child’s parents and the whims of a surgeon. This would make the ontology completely arbitrary, breaking the rule of non-arbitrariness. If we are to ignore these significant outliers we would break the rule of consistency.
Just these two examples collapse the ontological base of traditional gender metaphysics, but more relevant examples exist, multiple other DSDs collapse the ontology in nearly identical ways, such as 45,X0 Turner Syndrome, or any intersex disorder that results in congenital adrenal hyperplasia.
(See Ambiguous genitalia and intersex, D. Firmberger; Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome with persistent müllerian remnants. A case report, F. Bermejo-Costa, J. Lloreda-Garcia; Surgery for intersex, S. Creighton)
Now that traditional gender metaphysics have been thoroughly deconstructed, I will present a new, consistent metaphysical framework of gender identity, based on empirical evidence, the lived experience of both cisgender, transgender and gender non-conforming individuals.
The framework consists of the following ontologies:
This is the only metaphysical framework for gender that is internally consistent and non-arbitrary and correctly applicable in all possible cases, including trans people.
(See Brain Sex in Transgender Women Is Shifted towards Gender Identity, F. Kurth; Evaluation and Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender Incongruent Adults, N. M Nota; Transporting the Burden of Justification: The Unethicality of Transgender Conversion Practices, F. Ashley; DSM-5-TR)
The scientific papers cited include their full titles, and the name of at least one of the authors, not all authors of any given paper are mentioned by name.
This paper is structured around the deconstruction itself, I am currently working on a paper about the framework I’ve constructed myself, when that is done you can read it if you wish for elaboration.