Regarding topics on biological sex, gender, sexual orientation and relationships it seems there are broadly 2 ways of thinking about social reality (roughly corresponding to more progressive and more conservative views)

On the one hand, there are people who advocate thinking of sex and gender as a fluid spectrum and do not have to share any associations with each other, and proclaiming that the acts of sex do not have any inherent meaning and meaning is up to people to determine (echoing existentialism perhaps) and also more and more people are embracing polyamorous ways of loving people which is pretty much a fluid, egalitarian free kind of loving where you can romantically love 10 people equally as deeply.

And on the other hand, there are people who advocate thinking of sex and gender as binaries (male/female; man/woman) people who tend to cherish the ideas of the Masculine, and the Feminine. People who tend to draw links between sex and procreation hence it has a 'procreative association'. They also prefer a monogamous way of loving (which is pretty much a hierarchical, structured way of loving if you think about it, you only romantically love 1 person on top, all other people underneath are excluded from this).

So the progressive view of social reality seems to be very fluid, free and sort of inherently meaningless in a way allowing people to construct their own meanings. While the conservative view of social reality seems to be more structured, rigid and is invested with 'concepts/meanings/values' like Masculine, Feminine, Procreation, Hierarchy.

Since the progressive view is already very popular, are there philosophical positions that one can take up if they wish to play devil's advocate and advocate for the conservative view of interpreting social reality?

  • 1
    Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Philosophy Meta, or in Philosophy Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.
    – Joseph Weissman
    Commented Apr 25, 2023 at 3:46
  • 1
    You can't love 10 people equally deeply. In a hypothetical bad crisis, if all 10 end up in different hospitals, you're going to have to choose who to visit, and you try telling me there won't be jealousy when you visit A first then B while C is waiting
    – Stewart
    Commented Apr 25, 2023 at 17:14
  • @Stewart Sounds like you could expand it into an answer (or take it to the chat room).
    – wizzwizz4
    Commented Apr 25, 2023 at 18:05

7 Answers 7


One of the interpretations for this difference across the political spectrum is 'tolerance of ambiguity'. There's also interesting work on politics and attachment-style, see Attachment Style and Political Ideology: A Review

It is interesting to note the sharp increase in partisan sorting. See How Identity, Not Issues, Explains the Partisan Divide, and note that only 3 of the 25 biggest US cities are run by Republicans. A similar pattern holds in the UK. Because of a lag in political divisions with shifting populations and the sharp rise in urbanism, there is a tendency for the right of the spectrum to have more influence than their numbers suggest (eg Trump not gaining the popular majority when he won). The leftwing areas have become economically dynamic, while rightwing areas generally represent economic decline and rely on struggling or dying industries.

Moral Foundations Theory is an interesting way to look at this. It resulted from research into what motivated moral reasoning. And it identified in-group preference, and sanctity/purity, as values that only seem to motivate people on the right. And Haidt linked this to growing up during formative years (teen to 25) feeling under threat, like near an active border dispute. And we see this in the whole rhetoric of fear and motivation by that, like the Fox News obsession with dangerous Halloween candies despite zero evidence of that, or the rightwing UK paper The Daily Mail's obsession with what causes cancer. And to tolerance of ambiguity mentioned earlier. You can see how this makes sense, to have different developmental tracks. Tolerance of ambiguity is good for solving problems, but bad for fighting wars. But modern media, especially the partisan kind, means we are not getting honest signals about what threats we face.

If the right is the politics of fear, the left is motivated by positive futures, eg that social and political change can ensure a more positive future, rather than simply stave off decline like with the everpresent 'border crisis' of nearly all rightwing parties. I think there is a good case that some measure of utopianism is essential for successful leftwing politics, and our increasing inability to feel hopeful about the future we have been creating, has been a major source of disunity and undermined motivation on the left. Utopianism has been widely criticised in it's extremes when it's been used to justify any means for it's ends, but I think a recovery of hope in the future is psychologically beneficial, maybe even necessary, fear is very motivating at first but it's power declines over time.

If you wish to play Devil's Advocate, you should seek to understand what motivations are involved.

There is a big leftwing split about trans-rights and women-only spaces, which a lot of people on the left just avoid talking about because it brings two sets of values into conflict.

I find it fun to point out to people on the right that they are all for liberty and self-determination, until people are in their bedrooms, and seem unable to see the irony of that.

A good Devil's Advocate provokes all sides, in my book. And so should a good philosopher.


What you're asking is quite broad. There are social-centric concepts all over philosophy from Wittgensteinian public language argument and language game in the philosophy of language, to the philosophy of education where contributions like Lev Vygostky's zone of proximal development requires two people in the ontology for education. It's arguable that the entire philosophy of social sciences rejects individuals as very meaningful as a topic of dicourse. In political philosophy, too, the Frankfurt School has made a social-centric case for philosophical theories. And for each and everyone of these philosophical positions, you dig hard enough, you'll find some clever counterarguments either before that the aforemention positions attack or after that attack the positions as a counter argument. One might see a spectrum of invidualism and collectivism from contemporary tax-is-theft libertarianism to hardcore communist collectivism. Most reasonable people are somewhere closer to the center.

My advice would be this. Start off by familiarizing yourself with three positions to undermine. One of them is represented broadly by the sociology of knowledge:

The sociology of knowledge is the study of the relationship between human thought and the social context within which it arises and the effects that prevailing ideas have on societies. It is not a specialized area of sociology. Instead, it deals with broad fundamental questions about the extent and limits of social influences on individuals' lives and the social-cultural basis of our knowledge about the world.

The next is social epistemology:

Social epistemology refers to a broad set of approaches that can be taken in epistemology (the study of knowledge) that construes human knowledge as a collective achievement. Another way of characterizing social epistemology is as the evaluation of the social dimensions of knowledge or information... As a field of inquiry in analytic philosophy, social epistemology deals with questions about knowledge in social contexts, meaning those in which knowledge attributions cannot be explained by examining individuals in isolation from one another.

The last is most specific, social constructionism:

In the fields of sociology, social ontology, and communication theory, social constructionism proposes that certain ideas about physical reality arise from collaborative consensus, instead of the pure observation of said physical reality. The theory of social constructionism proposes that people collectively develop the meanings (denotations and connotations) of social constructs.1 Social constructionism has been characterised as neo-Marxian theory and as a neo-Kantian theory, proposing that social constructionism replaces the transcendental subject with a societal concept that is descriptive and normative.

In good rhetorical and argumentative, practice, you have to dive deep down into that you want to oppose, and a lot of conservative pundits with their gotcha-style rhetoric do nothing more than attack strawmen, and commit other egregious fallacies. Extremists on both sides of the individual-group "dialogue" are often shrill, loud voices with little philosophical content.

You do that, and find the adequate counterarguments, and I suspect two things will happen:

  1. If you're relatively neutral from the start, you'll wind up coming to the notion of epistemological underdetermination of theory where you'll see both side's claims and arguments as being defensible.
  2. You'll develop some personal notion of philosophical pluralism.

If you don't, it's a good sign that your reason is already heavily contaminated by cognitive distortions and bias and that you're not participating in philosophy, so much as trying to build the next bigger, better ideology. Despite 2,500 years of progress in philosophy, say of natural philosophy evolving into the contemporary sciences, there are still lots of true believers rushing to the fill ranks and carry a banner. Even storm-the-US-capital libertarians are ironically part of a collective movement (or delusion in the case of those who wear buffalos on their heads).

  • @J D Thank you for your reply, as a secular person I think under-determination and hence pluralism is inevitable, I believe all things are defensible (even say genocide) if one intends on rationalising them and they have been done so before. I also believe people in the academia already hold preferences/biases which the philosophy is only a rationalisation of their already-held positions. Also, I think it is not useful to explore their rationalisations, rather it is more effective to begin your own. So I simply want the secular anti-thesis to leftist underpinnings you listed, is there one? Commented Apr 24, 2023 at 22:52
  • If you don't, your reasoning is flawed or there is sufficient evidence to determine the theory (and that's assuming it doesn't just come down to a conflict in values). How does one determine which it is – or, failing that, why do you suspect it's underdetermined?
    – wizzwizz4
    Commented Apr 25, 2023 at 1:58
  • @rcphilosophy Well, I think it to be a particular prejudice of Western philosophy that all of the progressive, community-oriented philosophy that I just cited is largely unnatural and peculiar to the Anglo-American experience. Thus, if you look at Rene Descartes, all knowledge starts with individual introspection, right? But if you're looking for particular philosophies that hold presumptions of the individual, I would consider the philosophers associated with Classic Liberalism. I hate to give her any mention, but Rand's...
    – J D
    Commented Apr 25, 2023 at 15:43
  • Objectivism is a low-quality, but popular philosophy that places the individual as supreme. Anarchism is also another group of writings that frames individual autonomy as a prime column of its doctrine. In fact, WP's article on individualism has all sorts of links that will be of assistance to you.
    – J D
    Commented Apr 25, 2023 at 15:46
  • @wizzwizz4 I think the question of conflict of values is actually the central concern. If one embraces a scientific worldview, then one starts to soften and generalize one's scientific truth to that of empirical adequacy just as one generalizes mathematical truth to satisfiability. A reasonable person accepts the plural, ranged values as inherent to human diversity and therefore accepts that theories are underdetermined by empirical factors given the limits of our practical experience, but also by accepting both plural values and logics.
    – J D
    Commented Apr 25, 2023 at 15:51

There is quite a bit factually wrong in your question (mostly in how you present progressive views).

But let's take it from the top.

Sex and gender

Broadly speaking, there are 2 ways in which progressives and conservatives may view sex and gender differently:

(The two are often conflated, which complicates discussion on the topic.)

Objective biological and scientific facts

(to the extent that humans can know objective fact, that is)

Progressives and scientists would argue that it's been scientifically demonstrated that there are parts of the human brain that corresponds to a certain sex (regardless of what you call this), which is distinct from any sexual characteristics in the body. The result of this is that some people who are born into male bodies have a brain that corresponds more closely to those typically born into female bodies, and vice versa. These differences in the brain corresponds to certain behaviours and preferences, and how one sees one's own body (e.g. feeling deeply uncomfortable with genitals corresponding to a certain sex).

This is what we call "gender", but rejecting that label wouldn't change any of the underlying facts.


"Sex" and "gender" are just sequences of letters. We can assign those sequences whatever meaning we want.

If we define "gender" in one way or another, this would include or exclude certain people from certain gender classifications, and that would have consequences for those people, and for others, based on the systems we've built around those classifications, as well as in terms of any psychological effects (e.g. feeling accepted or fearful or whatever).

One could make an argument for defining them one way or the other, but this isn't that argument.

Progressives assign them one meaning and conservatives assign them another meaning. This does not mean progressives advocate for terms that are "inherently meaningless" (even if there are varying progressive views on how concretely we should define gender).

Polyamory and progressivism vs conservatism in general

I think "conservative" summarises monogamous views quite well. People have been monogamous for quite a few years (and maybe less monogamous before that), and this is also strongly tied to religion (and many progressives don't believe in the existence of any deities).

This is similar to views on gender.

The whole basis for progressivism is to not accept that we should do something a certain way just because we've been doing it that way up to now (i.e. avoiding appeals to tradition), but rather consider the pros and cons of different approaches equally, in order to improve society.

One could argue about the pros and cons of monogamy vs polyamory, but this isn't really the place for that, and I'm not really the person to have that discussion. My point is more to focus on the general premise of progressivism.

Once upon a time, slavery was an accepted practice. At that point, the progressive view would've been to be anti-slavery. If you accept that slavery should've been outlawed, to be consistent and rational, you should broadly accept the general premise of progressivism and making social change, and it would be more a question of evaluating changes one-by-one and determining whether they're good on a case-by-case basis.

I'd also add that polyamory isn't particularly common among progressives, but they tend not to specifically condemn it. They're more inclined to "live and let live", if what other people are doing aren't hurting others. Whether you should tolerate something is a very different question from whether you personally should practice it.

Other common approaches to argue against progressive ideas in general is to appeal to objective morality, or fearmonger that society is devolving.

Rather than being well-justified, these tend to appeal to common beliefs (within certain groups) that certain things are good and other things are bad.

  • I find it interesting that opposing polygamy was once a socially progressive view, which emerged gradually to oppose what was once a privilege of the wealthy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy#Ancient_Israel Solomon for instance, exemplar of wisdom in the Bible, builder of the 1st temple, is still understood to be condemned for his polygamy by: "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away" -Deuteronomy 17:17
    – CriglCragl
    Commented Apr 25, 2023 at 12:39
  • @CriglCragl Biblical polygyny is a very different practice to modern polyamory.
    – wizzwizz4
    Commented Apr 25, 2023 at 17:48

You seem to confuse and conflate a lot of things here.

Like usually gender ≠ sex ≠ sexual orientation ≠ fluidity of relationships. And whether these things are a binary or a spectrum is different from being fluid or fixed. Also that's not really a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. So technically you could run experiments, crunch the numbers, do statistics and find out how the situation really is without relying on prejudices based on insufficient data and questionable analysis.

And whether it is a binary or a spectrum and what makes more sense depends on what you're talking about. Like on the level of gametes (sex cells) you apparently have a binary of plenty small mobile ones and large, scarce ones. One we call sperms, the others eggs. So as there is no third type of gamete it's valid to call it a binary. That being said, that's the situation for humans in other species there are more gametes or the existing gametes behave differently like sperms being bigger than eggs or off the same size and distinguished between what is passed on and what is receiving and so on. So while for humans it's a binary, for the bigger picture of biology it's more of a spectrum or even more complicated.

And that's the easy part of it. While there is some correlation between for example eggs, XX chromosomes, female and ovaries and conversely sperms, XY chromosomes, male and testicles. That's by no means the whole story. Apparently the chromosomes all have the information to build typically male or female body parts it's more about which parts get activated or not, which seems to be a multi step process with lots of potential for variation. And these variations do exist. There are people who are intersex and it's not even that rare 0.02%-0.05% according to Wikipedia which might not sound like much but that's about 2-5 actual human beings per 10,000 people. So it's statistically easy to miss on the level of the individual who might not have contact with 2000-5000 different people on a regular basis but given we live in countries of millions of people there are still enough intersex individuals to fill an entire village. So still a lot. But even if it were just one person, if they exist, they exist...

But that's still not all of it. I mean ignoring the elephant in the room that even if your genitalia are as is usually correlated with chromosomes, you've still a whole spectrum of how that might look like... How all that develops is not just the result of chromosomes and genes but also of hormones, which are build by the organs coded in the chromosomes, but which might also be build elsewhere or introduced through other channels and which might be produces based on external factors and the environment.

And apparently there are studies showing hints at "male" or "female" brains, meaning certain regions of the brain are of different sizes in typically male or typically female individuals while in trans people they happen to match with the identified sex but not the typical genitalia. So that might hint that the "male/female brain trapped in a female/male body" could actually be the case.

And that's just genetics, hormones, brains, and morphology. But beyond that you have a whole different component to it that is the social, cultural and behavioral constructs that societies develop around those, but which are not a biological necessity and might change between different cultures or over time. Where you nowadays have the distinction between the biological (largely morphological) "sex" and the social/behavioral/performative "gender".

Here's a video recommended to me on that topic.

And sex in the sense of coitus, sexual orientation and changing partners are yet again 3 different topics.

Like the sex/gender domain would differentiate between cis and trans. While the sexual orientation would differentiate between hetero/homo/bi. And again these are just the broad categories if you actually dig deeper into that you might find a whole spectrum of subcategories leaning more in one direction or another or you might find harder or softer edges to them (not an expert).

And regardless of where on the the spectrum of possible options you fell on cis/trans and hetero/homo/bi non of that determines where you fall on the monogamy/polygamy spectrum. Which by the way is apparently a term concerned with marriage, so while polygamy is often prohibited, polyamorie is usually legal.

Though again that's not really an opinion or a rationalized believe, but a fact, you either do feel that or you don't, people exist or they don't. So the question isn't really whether that exists or what reality is, but rather what it "should be".

Like do you accept differences or do you define a norm and see deviations from that norm as defective and wrong. And who has the right to define what the norm is and what's viable and what's defective. I mean that presupposes a plan or a universal purpose that is enforced upon the individual by an someone else. Like why should polyarmorie even be a topic of debate in the first place. Like either you are in such a relationship than it is a problem that you need to deal with or you aren't then it's quite literally none of your business. It's only if you have a vision of what life should be like, that you could draw prescriptive necessities and enforce that on other people.

Yet that breaks your neat progressive/conservative mold as both might use their agency to enforce there version of a "should be", it's just a different version.

Last but not least you could also argue that conservatives might base their model of reality on outdated understandings of the world and argue that the state of knowledge is in decline so that the old understanding is the true one and the modern is lacking, while the progressive perspective is that knowledge is growing and that the future always holds a deeper understanding than the past. Or one being curious the other being cautious.

But TL;DR you seem to want to squeeze a lot of semi- or unrelated topics into a binary distinction between progressive and conservative and you should be careful not just doing it for the sake of it...


Traditional philosophy and theological doctrine

It is my understanding that what you call the "progressive view" is a relatively new phenomenon in our society ; I do not wish to pretend that progressive ideas never existed in History before - I am simply referring to the sociological phenomenon of widespread progressive inclinations, not only among the masses but even at such a dominating institutional level. Before that, societies were mainly dominated and led by doctrines that fit the "conservative" pendant you describe, Dostoyevski was not alone in observing and criticizing their shift towards the opposite end more than a century ago. Whether you subscribe to the belief that societies swing either way of the spectrum as a consequence of doctrinal persuasion or you think the philosophical arguments are produced post hoc once (convenience|determinism|practicality|hedonism|pragmatism|arbitrariness|etc) determined their choice ; they demonstrably never fail to produce literature (philosophical and otherwise) to consolidate everyone's adherence and diminish rival philosophies, if only to serve as a teaching material. One option is to search theses sources for elements praising, explaining or defending the status quo of that time.

As far as I know, no civilization of consequence ever before championed the ideas of liberalism as this one does, so naturally very few felt the need to build an explicit school of thought to preemptively counteract them. As I mentioned, people before practiced traditional marriage because they practiced traditional marriage, I am not certain they even considered the alternative (as a society). After Dostoyevski appeared the Traditionalist movement, which in my opinion grieves the decline of tradition more than it criticizes the advent of "modernity" and the progressive ideology it begot. (I haven't read Guenon's Crisis yet but it seems too abstract to help with the matter at hand)

Another option would be to explore the reasons for the historical imbalance between "conservatism" and "progressivism". Is it the case that this progressive ideology never happened to enjoy great popularity, or could it never durably garner one ?

Kipling's The Gods of the Copybook Headings poem posits the latter, although it is closer to illustrative admonishment than to philosophical argumentation.


If contemplating morality itself does not fall outside the scope of the question, it may be relevant to consider structuralist thoughts. Jean Piaget compared the moral conduct and beliefs of children at various developmental stages, and he noticed the following evolution: young children act solely following their impulses and display amoral selfishness, they always try to escape punishment. As they develop more empathy, the moral conception of older children shifts to a morality that considers the potential consequences on everyone, on "the group" ; tolerating and even favoring the idea of punishment for what could qualify as sinful or "bad" behavior as defined by an authoritative figure (parents, law...). Children keep refining and adding flexibility to an ever intricate moral system as their ability grows to understand consequence of action, this development resembles in most cases a shift from strict conservatism to a more liberal mindset in relation to the previous stage, although this ripened form can fall anywhere between conservatism and liberalism. Thus, the acquisition of moral principles could be seen as the subtraction of external consequence (social compromise) from operational intent (selfish impulses) that crystallizes throughout repeated iterations as an individual develops and adapts to the world. Piaget delivers the key word emergence in a brilliant combination of behaviorism and Gestalt psychology.

Doing his findings justice is not easy so I will point to a pillar of structuralism that imo exalts Piaget's work. Mythology is thought to be one of the main vectors of morality, and studies have occasionally unveiled illuminating facets of myths and the role they consistently play across different cultures and civilizations. Claude Lévi-Strauss hence recommends disregarding the factual validity of myths to appreciate instead the function they play as vehicles for abstract ideas whose credibility lies in its rampancy within the collective subconscious. The American Dream ("work hard, become rich") is one such example. Lévi-Straus observed that myths tended to "emerge" and "transform" to adapt to the evolutions a society undergoes, which, especially in light of the role they fulfill as vehicles of meaning and values, appears to me as a parallel phenomenon to the emergence of morality in children on at least two levels. Compare two popular myths that are 3000 years apart: say the Great Flood episode of the Bible with the 21 Jump Street or The Hangover movies, this contrast illustrates a tendency that consistently distinguishes historical myths from modern ones and, congruously, moral values as well. Interestingly, The Society of Spectacle paints a similar portrayal of the process myths thereby shape people's perception of reality and thus morals, albeit with a higher resolution in regard to its declinations in the modern era (myth -> narrative, mythology -> mass media).

Instead of arguing points and considering the logical arguments of the opposing view which may or may not be sound in theory, examining its feasibility in light of History should also be a reliable strategy to test it out. If morality on a societal level does stem from a process that, similarly to that of children, results from the impediment of spontaneous outbreaks of free will by the constraints of practical reality on the long term (see Thomas Aquinas' definition of Natural Law), why can a conservative quasi-consensus on these questions be observed in independent civilizations eons and continents apart ?

This interrogation is the outset the Perennial and Traditionalist schools, but as I previously mentioned they should be of limited use as most of their philosophical production predated mass media and pop culture, which is depicted by the Society of Spectacle as well as Jameson's Postmodernism as the main vector that channels postmodernist tenets such as the reduction of being into appearance and the insidious premise that actions are, barring rare exceptions, "morally neutral" by default.

Perception, Truth and legitimacy

I am not familiar with the work of Lévi-Strauss enough to know whether or not the concept of Truth is sufficiently addressed therein in relation to myths and values. His work clearly emphasizes the notion that myths are truthful via their veracity on a symbological level rather than a factual one ("being good leads to success", "working hard earns you a happy life", "truth always prevails" ironically enough, "lies always betray their author", etc) ; and it is my intuition that disparities surrounding this theme are one of the primary rifts in the divide between conservatism and progressivism.

Those leaning to the "conservative" side you name are in my opinion reactionaries committed to fighting the social ripples of the Scientific Revolution, as they apprehend the world through a prism conditioned by the mores, which rest neither on öffentlichkeit nor on a neutral knowledge of the cold reality. As such, what they qualify as good or true depends in good part on a somewhat vestigial ethos (someone mentioned "appeal to tradition"), on what is considered "acceptable" by a time-tested value system. This persuasion is strongly correlated with religious beliefs, held as true despite the lack of material evidence, but conveying values that helped mold arguably stable societies. On the other hand, as illustrated by some replies to this question, "Science" is the principal reference to determine truth and, quite expectedly, oughts and coulds as well. It also appears that upholding Science as a keystone of Truth correlates with the underlying presupposition that Truth can be reduced to little more than the objectively observable (in the scientific sense) reality. And because "Science" says that people born with typically male reproductive organs can potentially be referred to as women, they are allowed to compete against females whereas this would be prohibited by conservatives. I am trying to highlight the idea that the divide shouldn't be seen as a group of people looking at a field of flowers, half of them choosing to pluck the red (conservative) ones and the other half the yellow (progressive): they see different scenes when looking at the same landscape. So instead of a conscious choice - however rationalized - I am keen on viewing it as one group seeing the red flowers as flowers and the others as snakes, and vice versa. Screaming at people arguments on a frequency they can't hear is by no means philosophical, at least not according to the etymological acceptation.

You may take issue with your opponent's source of truth: for instance the scientists that emit the claims that genders are not necessarily linked to biological sex. Determine whether or not there exists in that portion of the population a higher incidence of progressive inclinations and question the neutrality of their claims in such subjects in light of any observable bias you might find. The opinions of the same scientists reflected their society's opinion back when it didn't lean as much to the progressive side ; they even published papers to justify the racist beliefs they held as scientific fact. Attacking the legitimacy and alleged neutrality of that authority should encourage skepticism towards the views they spread - unless of course they happen to enjoy a non-critical religious following, which is unlikely - hence my recommendation to make this approach a central axis of your little experiment. (see Wolfgang Smith and Heisenberg)

While this is not a philosophical current, you could use it as an argumentative framework to help you target fragilities more accurately ; and combined with the previously mentioned traditional philosophies, you may have a satisfying basis to pose an ideological challenge to progressives.

Naive relativism

The observable purpose of concepts is the intellection of one's environment and field of experience through motifs that are commonly relatable, to enable communication and transmission ; this is why we do not natively distinguish fruit from vegetable nor do we need to be sensitive to nuances such as "fish" and "marine mammal". You may even argue that the imperatives of evolution - which demonstrably subjugate all others - favored honing and matching our subjectivities to facilitate communication over developing the ability to extract from reality an objective, scientifically accurate, peer-reviewed, academic knowledge untarnished by human biases to chuck into wikipedia articles that benefit nobody.

Exceptions are never counter-arguments to rules. Hybridization didn't abolish the concept of species among fruits, or breeds among dogs and horses, etc. The existence of ligers and limequats never gave any basis to the claim that species can be changed through appearance, behavior or brain activity.

Postmodernists profess that in the year 2023, defining a woman is nothing shy of an intellectual challenge. Recognizing females and treating them in a special way has been a crucial skill of the most important biological function for millions of years: reproduction. Competing for females, mating with them and protecting them has been the standard process since before mammals even came to existence. What does our presence today reveal about the difficulty of recognizing females and interacting with them in a special way (as though they were females, and not males) for our ancestors during the last 100 million years ? Declining the gambit and calling these attempts to reform basic concepts would be a way to break away from the "spectacle" ; suspension of disbelief being, after all, a consensual process.

Genuineness and intent

Sexes were hitherto conceived of as being the two observable patterns ("structures") that emerged through evolution to perpetuate the most widely observable sexual system, dioecy, a male/female dichotomy. Among the advantages this reproductive strategy gave Eukaryota, it is possible to mention mate selection, which adds a level of genetic competition before reproduction occurs ; and the specialization allowed by sexual dimorphism which opens the door to more complex social dynamics and structures, a necessity inherent to complex life forms. This dimorphism distinguishes the individuals of each sex relatively early in their development and produces physical differences in aspect, ability, function and trait that compromise the balance of weight-sensitive sporting disciplines ; and so making the request that this specific situation at least be left to observe the traditional divide of sexes for the sake of fairness and safety will allow you to contrast your seemingly rational plea with the reality we know, thereby dismissing a handful of justifications as hypocritical, seeing that the impacts of the recent progressive tide in sports and in the military reveal the work of a purpose much wider than the ones generally put forth, such as the comfort changing one's gender brings an individual who "feels in the wrong body".

Given the theorized role sexual selection played in our evolution, it wouldn't be senseless to think the ability of recognizing sexes and view other individuals of the same species through this prism hard-coded into us to the point of collectively and independently projecting it onto non-sexualized aspects of nature itself, and by the same token the ability to read the emotions of peers and see faces everywhere, the tendency to be unsettled by glaring eyes that seldom bat, etc. Thence it would be possible to dispute the alleged profitability of the liberty gained by ridding society of biases that have been entrenched in our very nature for millions of years. This could constitute a favorable path to follow when engaging progressivism as it draws from the same materialistic substrate progressivism is built upon, while also targeting its positivist origins as Friedrich Hayek does in a wider form in his Counter-Revolution.

I would also advise caution when debating such sensitive matters, as some platforms happen to punish the expression of opinions they consider wrongthink. Remember to make it clear that your stance only aims to catalyze discussion.


Different is that gender is not ever about baby born process, only about sexual social activity or demonstration - selfish role playing without any life creating...

Truth based not only on gametes binary, but on the pregnant possibility. there is still no any pregnant man, doesn't matter which gender role people are playing. And also when you are talking about binary, you are forgot that some people are healthy to beget a baby and some are invalids. So binary definitions are idiotic position at start, because we have men, women and invalids. Men and women are similar in beget functions(in binary model), invalids are different in function problems.

Invalids oriented society is looking unhealthy, or maybe i don't understand something.

Sexual instinct have only one primary function - life renewing. If life does not renew it have not chance for any progress. Doesn't matter what what kind of the fluids or structure it have. But for now all countries with active "gender agenda" have total demographic crysis. i don't know what kind of numbers or proofs you need more.

Unhealthy oriented society = dying of healthy population without renewing.


This is likely more of a biological or sociological answer than a philosophical answer but here is an argument in favor of the conservative way of thinking based on outcomes. If we are to assume that the existence of humans is good from there we can assume that the continuation of the existence of humans is good. If the continuation of humans is good then procreation is good. Your question and the chosen language used to ask your question suggest your question is coming from a western context so to contextualize my previous points we can start with the assumption that western civilization is good. I could provide arguments for this, but I believe it is self-evident that western civilization is good and all that is necessary to reach this conclusion is to travel to other civilizations. Whether western civilization is the best is not necessary to conclude that western civilization is good, and if necessary further arguments for this assumption can be given, but if we agree with the assumption that western civilization is good it therefore follows that the continuation of western civilization is good. If the continuation of western civilization is good then the continuation of the people who form western civilization is good. If the continuation of the people who form western civilization is good then western procreation is good.

If the procreation of westerners is good then we can look at the outcomes of children to determine what type of procreation is good. The outcomes of children raised in families with the biological mother and father are better by every metric such as life expectancy, level of educational attainment, income, risk of crime, risk of drug and alcohol dependency, risk of depression, etc. By every metric a household with the child's biological mother and father is the most favorable household for the rearing and development of successful children.

If we want our civilization to continue and prosper then we must encourage people in our civilization to rear children in households with the biological mother and father present to provide the next generation with the greatest likelihood of favorable outcomes. The birthrates in every western nation are below replacement levels, therefore the promotion of anti-natalist lifestyles is bad. This is a conservative argument in favor of biological parents raising children together which supports many of the ideas you mentioned such as binary gender roles, monogamy, and procreation and is in opposition to many of the other ideas you mentioned or alluded to such as gender fluidity, polyamory, and anti-natalism.

  • 3
    "The outcomes of children raised in families with the biological mother and father are better by every metric" this is an unjustified claim. The claim would be justified if there were indeed measures about both ways of living, other things being equal.
    – Nikos M.
    Commented Apr 24, 2023 at 17:56
  • 4
    In that case you should provide references to back up the claim. But this can be seriously doubted because that would be valid when other things being equal. Provided there are social obstacles to non-conventional families, a study would have to prove these social obstacles are not playing any role. And this is highly doubtful.
    – Nikos M.
    Commented Apr 24, 2023 at 18:19
  • 2
    Plus you should provide references that show that only mother/father families are better instead of alternative two-parent families.
    – Nikos M.
    Commented Apr 24, 2023 at 18:26
  • 2
    Without a precise definition of "western civilization," this answer is effectively just white supremacist dogwhistling.
    – Sandejo
    Commented Apr 25, 2023 at 2:02
  • 4
    I'd go one step further than @NikosM. and doubt that children of cis mother+father families are better by every metric (compared to e.g. gay parents) is true even if we ignore any social obstacles. Your entire answer relies on that one claim. Also, the collateral damage of your argument is against single-parent families, which often isn't a choice. Even if children of single parents are slightly worse off on average, I still wouldn't argue that future-single-parents should be prevented from having children, nor have their children forceably removed. Yet that's the implication of your argument.
    – NotThatGuy
    Commented Apr 25, 2023 at 9:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .