• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Faux-Males and Females.

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Meditating on the metaphysics of gender can lead to some interesting antinomies and or contradiction in the orthodox party-line. According to accepted physics, the universe began in darkness such that light came later. Likewise, in general biological orthodoxy, living organism were initially female, with males coming along later. In the standard metaphysics of religion and mythology, females are generally related to darkness, and males to light.

Notwithstanding the science and mythology, the Masoretic orthodoxy of Genesis chapter two has the male coming before the female even though, with natural science, it has darkness coming before light? The Masoretic orthodoxy reverses, or inverts, what we know to be true according to biology (females are antecedent to males) even though it agrees with science that darkness comes before light?

Additionally perplexing is the fact that in the science of biology, males aren't even binary oppositional entities that come along to court females. On the contrary, males are, in truth (so far as biology is concerned) merely faux-males and not males through and through (males able to exist before, or parallel to/with females). This suggest that in the same sense males are in fact merely faux-males, since they're just deformed or reformed females, so too, light must be faux-light, and not light through and through, since it too comes from darkness and is not, so far as scientific orthodoxy is concerned, a true binary opposition to darkness, since light would then have to exist before, or parallel with darkness in all cases.



John
 
Last edited:

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Meditating on the metaphysics of gender can lead to some interesting antinomies and or contradiction in the orthodox party-line. According to accepted physics, the universe began in darkness such that light came later. Likewise, in general biological orthodoxy, living organism were initially female, with males coming along later. And yet in the standard metaphysics of religion and mythology, females are generally related to darkness, and males to light. Contrary to this science, the Masoretic orthodoxy of Genesis chapter two has the male coming before the female even though, with natural science, it has darkness coming before light. The Masoretic orthodoxy reverses, or inverts, what we know to be true according to biology (females are antecedent to males) even though it agrees with science that darkness comes before light?

Additionally perplexing is the fact that in the science of biology, males aren't even binary oppositional entities that come along to court females. On the contrary, males are, in truth (so far as biology is concerned) merely faux-males and not males through and through (males able to exist before, or parallel to/with females). This suggest that in the same sense males are in fact merely faux-males, since they're just deformed or reformed females, so too, light must be faux-light, and not light through and through, since it too comes from darkness and is not, so far as scientific orthodoxy is concerned, a true binary opposition to darkness, since light would then have to exist before, or parallel with darkness in all cases.




John

I don't believe your concept of faux-male makes sense. Males are males and function as evolved. A faux-male would appear to be male but would not have the same characteristics.

I think you have gotten way off track with your male-female hypothesis.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
I don't believe your concept of faux-male makes sense. Males are males and function as evolved. A faux-male would appear to be male but would not have the same characteristics.

I think you have gotten way off track with your male-female hypothesis.

Thanks for responding and allowing me to try and clarify my position.

I'm speaking in terms of metaphysical orthodoxy such that if we start with "being," as a binary opposition to "non-being," then we don't say that "being" is half of "non-being," or that "non-being" evolved into "being" according to the laws of physics or biology, or something like that. On the contrary, we think of "being" and "non-being" as what the long-headed thinkers refer to as "wholly other" (from one another) and not just a brother from another mother. :D

In religious mythology and metaphysics, male and female are supposed to be true binary oppositions like "being" and "non-being." But they're not. And that's significant as a foundation and basis for correcting flawed metaphysical assumptions.



John
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Thanks for responding and allowing me to try and clarify my position.

I'm speaking in terms of metaphysical orthodoxy such that if we start with "being," as a binary opposition to "non-being," then we don't say that "being" is half of "non-being," or that "non-being" evolved into "being" according to the laws of physics or biology, or something like that. On the contrary, we think of "being" and "non-being" as what the long-headed thinkers refer to as "wholly other" (from one another) and not just a brother from another mother. :D

In religious mythology and metaphysics, male and female are supposed to be true binary oppositions like "being" and "non-being." But they're not. And that's significant as a foundation and basis for correcting flawed metaphysical assumptions.



John
I never have a clue what you are trying to say, but what you call general biological orthodoxy is incorrect. Early life was neither male nor female.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Thanks for responding and allowing me to try and clarify my position.

I'm speaking in terms of metaphysical orthodoxy such that if we start with "being," as a binary opposition to "non-being," then we don't say that "being" is half of "non-being," or that "non-being" evolved into "being" according to the laws of physics or biology, or something like that. On the contrary, we think of "being" and "non-being" as what the long-headed thinkers refer to as "wholly other" (from one another) and not just a brother from another mother. :D

In religious mythology and metaphysics, male and female are supposed to be true binary oppositions like "being" and "non-being." But they're not. And that's significant as a foundation and basis for correcting flawed metaphysical assumptions.



John
Thanks for clarifying. This made more sense to me. To my mind, it is a more poetic or literary way of describing the differences between male and female and less of a scientific or clinical way of describing it.

As you allude, the male form is a biological modification or adaptation of the female form. Nipples on a male are simply vestigial forms of the female version, for example.

I personally do not see a metaphysical importance to this difference as human beings have simply inherited this model of sexual reproduction from antecedent species.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
I never have a clue what you are trying to say, but what you call general biological orthodoxy is incorrect. Early life was neither male nor female.

According to biology, the Y chromosome, the phallus, and the male, are all secondary. We see this in fetal development. Ontogeny recapitulates ontology: the ovum begins female. And without the new and novel Y chromosome it stays that way.

On the bottom side of the phallus is a natural suture called the penile-raphe. It's where the labial flesh of the female body sutures together (if the Y chromosome is present) transforming the default female body into a male body.



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Thanks for clarifying. This made more sense to me. To my mind, it is a more poetic or literary way of describing the differences between male and female and less of a scientific or clinical way of describing it.

As you allude, the male form is a biological modification or adaptation of the female form. Nipples on a male are simply vestigial forms of the female version, for example.

Right. The male is a faux-male: a masculinized female. Not only are the nipples carry-over from the default female form, but the penile-raphe on the underside of the so-called male-organ, like nipples, is proof positive that the male body is just a redesign of the female body.

I realize this seems like nitpicking semantics. And it is. Unless a person is interested in mythology, philosophy, metaphysics, and theology (and hopefully in a reverse of that order).



John
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
According to biology, the Y chromosome, the phallus, and the male, are all secondary. We see this in fetal development. Ontogeny recapitulates ontology: the ovum begins female. And without the Y chromosome it stays that way.

On the bottom side of the phallus is a natural suture called the penile-raphe. It's where the labial flesh of the female body sutures together (if the Y chromosome is present) transforming the default female body into a male body.



John
According to science, the first living organisms were prokaryotic microorganisms that had no gender. Those are the living organisms your reference. You need to revise your understanding.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Right. The male is a faux-male: a masculinized female. Not only are the nipples carry-over from the default female form, but the penile-raphe on the underside of the so-called male-organ, like nipples, is proof positive that the male body is just a redesign of the female body.

I realize this seems like nitpicking semantics. And it is. Unless a person is interested in mythology, philosophy, metaphysics, and theology (and hopefully in a reverse of that order).



John
What is it with this fixation on genitals?
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Right. The male is a faux-male: a masculinized female. Not only are the nipples carry-over from the default female form, but the penile-raphe on the underside of the so-called male-organ, like nipples, is proof positive that the male body is just a redesign of the female body.

I realize this seems like nitpicking semantics. And it is. Unless a person is interested in mythology, philosophy, metaphysics, and theology (and hopefully in a reverse of that order).



John
Then shouldn't you phrase it as male is faux-female? I'm not sure you are reading what I am writing.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Likewise, in general biological orthodoxy, living organism were initially female, with males coming along later.
The first living organisms were asexual prokaryotes (that probably also lacked mitochondria). And still to this day most life is asexual, lacking both males and females.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Meditating on the metaphysics of gender can lead to some interesting antinomies and or contradiction in the orthodox party-line. According to accepted physics, the universe began in darkness such that light came later. Likewise, in general biological orthodoxy, living organism were initially female, with males coming along later. In the standard metaphysics of religion and mythology, females are generally related to darkness, and males to light.

Notwithstanding the science and mythology, the Masoretic orthodoxy of Genesis chapter two has the male coming before the female even though, with natural science, it has darkness coming before light? The Masoretic orthodoxy reverses, or inverts, what we know to be true according to biology (females are antecedent to males) even though it agrees with science that darkness comes before light?

Additionally perplexing is the fact that in the science of biology, males aren't even binary oppositional entities that come along to court females. On the contrary, males are, in truth (so far as biology is concerned) merely faux-males and not males through and through (males able to exist before, or parallel to/with females). This suggest that in the same sense males are in fact merely faux-males, since they're just deformed or reformed females, so too, light must be faux-light, and not light through and through, since it too comes from darkness and is not, so far as scientific orthodoxy is concerned, a true binary opposition to darkness, since light would then have to exist before, or parallel with darkness in all cases.



John
The universe was dark not because light (photons) were not there, but because it was that they were absorbed immediately.

so, I am not sure how that fits your analogies.

By the way, God came first, too, didn’t He, and Satan later. Should we infer God is darkness and Satan light. The name “Lucifer” might confirm that.

ciao

- viole
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
According to science, the first living organisms were prokaryotic microorganisms that had no gender. Those are the living organisms your reference. You need to revise your understanding.

Logically speaking, until you have two genders, you don't really have gender at all. In that sense, before there were males, there was no gender and thus no females.

But in a general sense, being female entails having your body be able to produce, and if need be suckle, another body. The English word "female" is etymologically related to the concept of "suckling" young.

Before there were males, and bi-gendered sex, it was beholden on organisms to reproduce by their lonesome. Only women are that lonesome. Only women bleed as Alice might bleat. :D



John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
What is it with this fixation on genitals?

Why do you suppose even aboriginal peoples often cover them up? What is it about genitals, and the male genitalia specifically, that requires it be covered up? Why does Dante station male genitalia as the pillar, the doorposts, to hell? Why does Medieval art picture Adam's genitalia as the serpent in the garden? Why do Jews place blood on that doorpost, and ritually bleed that serpent, as though it were like getting a Passover death itself; a get out of jail free card?

Why do some of the same kinds of persons who question my fixation on genitalia (and that, based on the reasons stated above) often begin their late night web-surfing for images of genitalia immediately after asking me why I'm fixated on genitalia? Why do some Jews who question my fixation on genitalia on Friday night, attend a bris Saturday morning (and yes it can be performed on sabbath), where they gather around a male genital being bled, at which point they celebrate with toasts and glad-handing once the demon has been gashed?

Which is worse in your estimation, an acknowledged interest in why humans are so interested in seeming disinterested in genitalia, or an admission that few things are as interesting to humans as genitalia, and or, the interesting phenomenon of convincing themselves they're disinterested in them by covering them up literally, cognitively, or bleeding them to death ritually, or in Origen's case, literally?

Since history makes it patently clear that humans are obsessed with genitalia, it might be scientifically correct to imply that those who feign disinterest in genitalia are probably sublimating their interest in other areas. History documents that people who sublimate passions tend to do it in areas, and in ways, that are actually more dangerous and troublesome than the thing they're running from through their sublimation; they often attack people who aren't sublimating their passions, as though sublimation is nine-tenths of Victorian puritanical virtue. :D



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Then shouldn't you phrase it as male is faux-female? I'm not sure you are reading what I am writing.

. . . It seems more correct to speak of a "faux-male" since if the argument is correct the alleged male is really a female through-and-through such that the faux pas is in thinking the female is a genuine male. . . Besides it worked better in the title of the thread. :D



John
 
Last edited:

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
. . . It seems more correct to speak of a "faux-male" since if the argument is correct the alleged male is really a female through-and-through such that the faux pas is in thinking the female is a genuine male. . . Besides it worked better in the title of the thread. :D



John
IMO

Sorry, but males are in no way female through-and-through. There are fewer genes and totally DNA in the 23 chromosome between male and female. Additionally, the resulting sexual organs are physically and functionally different.

In essence, the arguments you have been making do not make sense from a biological standpoint.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
The universe was dark not because light (photons) were not there, but because it was that they were absorbed immediately.

I've argued some unorthodox theories concerning gender in numerous past threads. What interests me in this thread is the idea that just as the biological male is really a faux-female (and this is scientifically true), by the same token (or the same metaphysical revelation) the light we see outside our window is not the true light that's the binary opposition to darkness, but merely faux-light, which is to say, merely a whiter shade of pale.

Ironically, one of the most seminal passages in all scripture, John chapter one, justifies this scientific reality when it claims that by means of his virgin birth (from an asexual, non-gendered, conception), Jesus revealed himself as the only true male, in opposition to all faux-males, and, paradoxically, that he is therefore the true light of the world, the true photon, or in the Greek φωτός (photos) of the world, in opposition to all the faux-photons, all the false light that dimly illuminate the world.

John claims that the true light, the true male, came into the darkness of the existing world order, but that he wasn't recognized because men's eyes have grown accustom to thinking they're true men, and believing that the whiter shade of pale that palls in comparison to true light is light indeed.



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Sorry, but males are in no way female through-and-through. There are fewer genes and totally DNA in the 23 chromosome between male and female. Additionally, the resulting sexual organs are physically and functionally different.

I'm implying that just as an Indian elephant is just as much an elephant as an African elephant, even though they're anatomically different, so too, a faux-male is just as much a female as any other female even though they're anatomically different.

In essence, the arguments you have been making do not make sense from a biological standpoint.

Right. It's all just semantics unless there's a genuine male who existed before, or at least simultaneous, to the first female. In that case, he isn't just an evolutionary addendum to the female form, a faux-male or second order female. He's a male through-and-through. He's a genuine, metaphysical, ontological, binary opposition to all females (and all faux-males, or second order females).

The Bible claims there is such a male. And that even though he's stillborn, he's still born. And his conception and birth are utterly unique in comparison to the conception and birth of all faux-males.




John
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I'm implying that just as an Indian elephant is just as much an elephant as an African elephant, even though they're anatomically different, so too, a faux-male is just as much a female as any other female even though they're anatomically different.



Right. It's all just semantics unless there's a genuine male who existed before, or at least simultaneous, to the first female. In that case, he isn't just an evolutionary addendum to the female form, a faux-male or second order female. He's a male through-and-through. He's a genuine, metaphysical, ontological, binary opposition to all females (and all faux-males, or second order females).

The Bible claims there is such a male. And that even though he's stillborn, he's still born. And his conception and birth are utterly unique in comparison to the conception and birth of all faux-males.




John
Best of luck in your continued meditations.
 
Top