Eko Care wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 12:11 am
Pseudobabble wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 12:31 pm
We are all identical clones in every respect, remember.
Is there backing Suttas for this argument?
I was being sarcastic - of course we are not identical clones in every respect.
Eko Care wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 12:11 am
Pseudobabble wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 12:51 pm
In order to answer this question, we have to know (or specify) on which dimension one sex is superior to the other.
Suttas say women have higher lust and anger, higher promiscuity, two tongues etc. Doesn't it distinguish between genders?
I don't have enough of a sample to make a conclusion based on personally experienced evidence as to which dimensions the two sexes are superior or inferior to each other on. But there have been some studies which show that men and women each have their own relative proficiencies. You can find some in the references section of
this Wikipedia article.
Eko Care wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 12:11 am
Pseudobabble wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 12:51 pm
Women are superior on some dimensions, men on others.
Where in the Suttas can we find dimensions in which women are superior?
It is not just the Suttas which make true statements about the world. Women have much better peripheral vision, for example.
Eko Care wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 12:11 am
Pseudobabble wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 7:06 am
I don't know. I fully admit the possibility that on average there are differences between men and women. What does this mean though for us? For individual men and women? Nothing really. It may be useful info for people who create policies that affect thousands where statistics come into play, but that's about it.
If it is so, then why those facts are mentioned in the suttas by the Blessed one?
If you can prove that these are irrelevant for individuals then I'll accept it.
You have misquoted me - this quote above was in a post made by Dan74-MkII.
But since you ask: I have a bag of rocks weighing 20kg. There are 10 rocks in the bag. The mean weight of a rock in the bag is 2 kg - this is the statistical measurement.
There may be no rock in the bag that weighs 2kg. It might be that there is one big rock that weighs 9 kg, and 9 tiny rocks, each weighing around 0.1kg. The mean weight of a rock in the bag is still 2kg. That is why statistical measurements are not
necessarily relevant to individuals.
Eko Care wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 12:11 am
Pseudobabble wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 7:06 am
given that identity view is conceit,
Yes. Identity view is the main obstacle. How is it related to gender characteristics?
Identity view is intimately related to gender characteristics, insofar as gender characteristics are societally constructed behaviour patterns which centre around a persons 'identity'. Identity view is not related at all to sexual characteristics, which are biologically determined, except insofar as it is caused by a persons perceptions and constructions about their sexual characteristics.
Eko Care wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 12:11 am
Pseudobabble wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 7:06 am
and these are merely statistics about the influence of biology on human capability,
Who says? Which sutta or commentary says gender characteristics are statistics only about the influence of
biology?
Again, there are sources of truth which are not the Suttas. The Suttas have nothing to say about the gas composition of Jupiter, for example.
The facts on the influence of sex on behaviour, psychology, and non-concrete aspects of a human being are necessarily statistical. I can find you a woman with more testosterone than most men, but that does not change the fact that women (statistical grouping) have a lot less testosterone (biological factor) than men, and as a result display a lot less aggression (behavioural result). This statement is generally true because it is based on measurements across a sample of many, many people - it is statistical.
Eko Care wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 12:11 am
Pseudobabble wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 7:06 am
talking about it publicly should really been seen in the same light as talking about the relative prevalence of eye colour - these are just statements about measurements.
If it is such insignificant why Suttas mention gender characteristics? Suttas never mentioned about eye colour.
Do you think the effects of both gender-characteristics and eye colour are same and insignificant?
Who said it is insignificant? I certainly did not. I said that we should be able to talk about it publicly without losing our jobs, as Larry Summers did.
Eko Care wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 12:11 am
Pseudobabble wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 7:06 am
these are just statements about measurements. Attaching ‘personal’ significance to them is a mistake,
Yes and agreed. But where did you notice a ‘personal significance" in a comparison of gender-characteristics?
I did not notice one, but others have mistakenly thought they did. People often mistake statistical statements about groups to be statements which apply to them individually. My point was that this doesn't make sense. Just because most people of X type have measurement Y, does not mean that you, who are X type, necessarily have measurement Y.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" -
Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta
'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19
'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha