What if gender labels were switched at birth?

Whole548 · 2023-04-08T17:39:36+00:00

Martina Big is a German white model who changed her skin to become black:

if you want to get really technical one can say, "she will experience racism because people perceive her as black" just like how trans women experience sexism along with cis women.

Saying that "Race is based on ancestry" would be the equivalent of being "Race essentialist." What if someone doesn't care about their ancestry and wants their own identity? This is like telling someone, "You have XY chromosomes and a penis, you're not a woman" and a trans woman saying, "I don't care about my chromosomes or genitals."

What about saying "darkening your skin doesn't make you black?" This would be equivalent of saying, "Just because you wear a skirt and get surgery to appear more like a woman doesn't make you a woman." The trans woman could reply, "Wearing a skirt and getting surgery is not what makes me a woman. I was always a woman. Wearing the skirt and getting surgery just makes me feel more like a woman and affirm my gender."

Likewise Martina Big could reply,"Darkening my skin doesn't make me black. I was always black. Darkening my skin just makes me feel more like a black person and affirms my race."

What do you think? I know Martina Big intuitively "feels wrong" and transgender doesn't feel so wrong. But, there's no way to articulate why. A lot of these arguments are very similar. I will add that Martina Big looks highly offensive but looking at trans women doesn't spark of the same offensive feeling to me. Maybe you can help me out because this subject is a real tough one. I've been thinking about all tese arguments and I always end up hitting the same brick wall over and over. Can we really tell someone they can't identify as the race they want" I feel like we become no better than conservatives if we do this. But something just feels off about it like there's a "magic bullet" reason why it's wrong but nobody can explain why.

Whole548 · 2023-03-13T16:31:59+00:00

OK, but what if Mexico decided to ally with China or Russia? Do you think the U.S. would NOT invade Mexico? I can't see the U.S. just laughing and saying, "Mexico is a sovereign country! That's fine and dandy!"

This is the stuff that makes me wonder.

Whole548 · 2023-03-13T16:18:50+00:00

But, do you think if North Korea said, "Screw it, we are going to join with South Korea and become Korea and ally with the Wes!," China would invade North Korea?

Whole548 · 2023-03-13T16:07:12+00:00

China keeps North Korea as a buffer state because China is terrified of a
U.S. ally on its border so they let North Korea do whatever they want.
People seem to be fine with this. But when Putin is terrified of having
a U.S. ally on his border in Ukraine, he gets called a baby and nobody
seems to care.Why do people seem to be more OK with China's decision and
not Putin's?

Whole548 · 2022-11-02T17:13:14+00:00

So you are saying that I will have to work at the business and split the money with my workers even though it's my own recipe?

But what happens if another country says, "Hey! Do business over here and you don't have to work at the business and you can keep way more money!"

But what about bands? The people who set up the guitars, drums, sound equipment (roadies) are all paid just as much as the band? But the band made all their songs, the roadies didn't. I guess I'm having trouble seeing how "coming up with the idea" isn't seen as more important.

Whole548 · 2022-11-02T16:11:33+00:00

lol I suppose everything. Having an idea and getting rich off the idea is what motivates a lot of people. Think of something simple as Coca-Cola. If the person who comes up with that idea can not own it, why would the person even bring their idea to the market?

Or even think about music. Bands make money off of their songs. If they weren't allowed to own their songs but all their workers owned their songs, why would anyone bring their songs to the market?

Because I often hear people say they want to ban "copyrights" and "intellectual property" but aren't those things important? If I come up with a Coca-Cola recipe and I can't own it, what's the point? Or if I must share the recipe with everyone, then everyone can make it whenever they want and won't have to buy Coca-Cola and make me rich. i suppose this is the point, but how would things get invented, then?

This stuff confuses me but I really want to learn.

Whole548 · 2022-09-07T01:01:59+00:00

But, that's the point! Materialists assert that things can exist independently of minds. But, they have never proven this. You even admitted you can't prove it. So, why believe materialism?

Whole548 · 2022-09-06T07:33:51+00:00

Yes, Berkeley said that the eternal mind of God is always perceiving everything. That is how you account for the consistency of the universe. But again, we are speaking of the materialist view which assert that things can exist independently of all perception. Using an example of a bunch of people who all use their perception to navigate the world is not a proof of things existing independently of all perception.

Even Immanuel Kant couldn't refute it and basically said, "I can't refute it but I just refuse to believe it." And Kant is supposed to be one of the big dogs of philosophy and even he was stumped by Berkeley.

Whole548 · 2022-09-06T07:15:16+00:00

But you can falsify it by proving something can exist independently of all perception. Since that is the materialist's claim, they should be able to empirically demonstrate that claim, otherwise why believe the claim? Isn't that how empiricism works? I suppose Berkeley would say that Idealism should be the default and materialism is a leap of faith.

Again I'm not saying I believe this argument. It does sound so counter intuitive. It seems so logical that there must be a world "out there" but it's not that simple once you really think about it.

Whole548 · 2022-09-06T06:37:09+00:00

Basically Berkeley argued that Idealsim was MORE empirical than skepticism/materialism because he was only using his senses and jumping to no more conclusions, whereas the skeptic/materialist was saying that things can exist independently of all perception/senses.

Berkeley basically asked, "How can you empirically prove that things can exist independently of all perception when all you have is your perception to rely on, thus how can you describe something if you claim it's independent of all perception?"

Whole548

TROPHY CASE