[Peace-discuss] Nina Paley's panel, "material reality", controlling the debate .... was Re: [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3

Thu Mar 28 13:45:05 UTC 2019

In the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) there’s a theme called “angelology” - the contemplation in all three traditions of beings who’re thought to have the mentality of humans, but without the limitations of physicality. See, for example, psalm 8 in the Hebrew bible (Old Testament):

"O Lord, our Sovereign,
    how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory above the heavens.
     Out of the mouths of babes and infants
you have founded a bulwark because of your foes,
    to silence the enemy and the avenger.
When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
    the moon and the stars that you have established;
what are human beings that you are mindful of them,
    mortals that you care for them?
Yet you have made them a little lower than [the divine beings or angels (Hebrew elohim)]
    and crowned them with glory and honor.
You have given them dominion over the works of your hands;
    you have put all things under their feet,
all sheep and oxen,
    and also the beasts of the field,
the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea,
    whatever passes along the paths of the seas.
O Lord, our Sovereign,
    how majestic is your name in all the earth!"

The later traditions had some trouble with this theme. See for example the Letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament (chapter 2):

“Therefore we must pay greater attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it. For if the message declared through angels was valid, and every transgression or disobedience received a just penalty, how can we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? It was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, while God added his testimony by signs and wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit, distributed according to his will. Now God did not subject the coming world, about which we are speaking, to angels. But someone has testified somewhere,

	‘What are human beings that you are mindful of them, or mortals, that you care for them? You have made them for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned them with glory and honor, subjecting all things under their feet.'

"Now in subjecting all things to them, God left nothing outside their control. As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to them, but we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. It was fitting that God, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many children to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters, saying, 

	'I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters, in the midst of the congregation I will praise you.' And again, 'I will put my trust in him.' And again, 'Here am I and the children whom God has given me.'

"Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death. For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham. Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested.” 

The role of angels is perhaps even stronger in the Quran. Again, a theme is that they are not subject to physical limitations.

It seems that much of this current discussion resembles this traditional one (caricatured in 17th century Protestant apologetics as the ‘angles on the head of a pin’ debate).

The assertion is that one can transcend physical limitation and choose one’s sex, regardless of materiality.

But people don’t seem to be that plastic, and it's not a solution simply to insist that they are (and perhaps to enforce that insistence by law).

Assertion of plastic humanity looks like angelology in contemporary guise, a level of fantasy that approaches idolatry, the greatest sin in the Abrahamic traditions.

Modern philosophy begins with the assertion, "The world is all that is the case” (Wittgenstein). I think we do no one a favor by denying it.

—CGE

> On Mar 28, 2019, at 1:08 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> Nina and her panel used a familiar rhetorical trick: by controlling the question to be asked, one can control the debate.
> 
> The problem with their specific approach -- adopting one aspect of humanity and labeling it as Material Reality, as if there weren't other equally worthy aspects -- is that they use it to devalue the existence of trans people.     
> 
> In the discussion there were listed a number of reasons why someone might undertake a gender transition, and all the reasons brought up were, well, unsavory.  Young people duped into giving up their birth gender before they knew what it would mean for them, men wanting (lesbian?) women as romantic partners, gay men wanting men as romantic partners, male prisoners wanting to be placed in women's prisons, men wanting to compete in women's sports, men feeling burdened by male privilege and wanting to take on the glow of victimhood by becoming part of an oppressed group, women "cutting off their breasts" to gain male privilege (this last from an audience member).     Gender dysphoria was mentioned, but I didn't hear any panelist take it seriously.   
> 
> A recurring theme was predatory behavior by trans people - and by trans activists.
> 
> Also that what it means to be a woman, legally and socially, was being redefined - by men. 
> 
> One of the panelists offered a definition of "intersectionality" which is the neoliberal perversion of that idea -- where the goal is to prove how privileged or un-privileged you yourself are, and place yourself properly in the hierarchy of oppression.   This is *not* the original meaning of the term, and not what we should allow it to be turned into.   The article below gives a better understanding of     it for this context - I've forgotten who posted this recently but thanks to you if you're reading this:
> 
>     https://www.ijfab.org/blog/2018/05/why-trans-exclusionary-feminism-is-bad-for-everyone/
> 
> I don't want to claim that the panel had no legitimate complaints.   And there were some thoughtful things said by some in the audience.  But the above might give a flavor of why some people are very angry at things Nina has been saying.
> 
> Nina noted that one distinction she wants kept clear was that between birth sex and gender presentation.   In her opinion, laws protecting women should apply only to the former, not at all to the latter.     
> 
> Of course if you accept that, you are throwing trans and other alternative gender people under the bus, legally.
> 
> However, one of the audience members struggled for a while and offered a suggestion that I think could help.   The law could, she proposed, provide separate protections based on sex, on sexual preference, and on gender presentation.  It wouldn't be necessary to legally redefine women while still protecting trans and other alternative genders.
> 
>       Stuart
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/27/19 6:32 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote:
>> That’s hardly a unanimous opinion: e.g., <https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/31/science_shows_sex_is_binary_not_a_spectrum_138506.html>
>> .
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 27, 2019, at 6:21 PM, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> that (biological) sex is [binary].
>>>> 
>>> It is not. 
>>> As a biologist, I say biological sex is NOT binary. 
>>> 
>>> Let us take this one topic on
>>> 
>>> -karen medina 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> 
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> 
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss