Words aren’t evil, though fixation can be a source of pain.
We have a part of ourselves, let’s call it mind or spirit (whatever you like), but it doesn’t confine itself to the rules of biology. Is there any evidence nature has much in the way of rules there?
The majority of plants are actually hermaphroditic though some are dual gender, and earth worms are hermaphrodites. Where is our wisdom greater than natures regarding gender? Hunting/gathering behaviour… Both genders do it in almost all species, and in a way they all do actually do it, just modified to suit the needs of the species. Bees can’t have their drones go wandering off and getting eaten, they don’t breed that many of them anyway.
The reproduction process is quite natural in nature kingdoms below human. Basically, animals eat and reproduce. I’m not making any judgements to humans who are conscious. Just commenting on nature and its basic drive. Is there any special mark that says our biology isn’t biology? Is there some way our bio-chemistry works differently than any other life forms? If so, how can we eat anything?
We are conscious. The current stance of animal behaviourists is that animals are conscious also. This is chemistry?
It’s different from animals. Our chemistry is different from animals? Not since last I read.
Our consciousness is different from animals. Ok. Something metaphysical makes us different, but is this metaphysical something disconnected from nature because humans are a special domain?
We can ask what is natural to humans. It’s different than what is natural to animals. Yes, but that’s a half truth. We are a special creature. The dominant species on the planet. The utmost apex predator even though we can survive as herbivores, and we have a range of communication that is unique in spanning ecosystems. We have the ability in theory, if not in actuality, to understand any other species, and yet how well do we understand those of our own kind?
Isn’t there something wrong when a man who does not seek what “real men” seek is attacked? How does that serve the species common good? Isn’t there something wrong when a woman who has the strength and initiative to guide the people is sidelined because she isn’t a “real woman”? Are these traits I described, the circumspect man and the driven woman, unnatural? I’m perhaps unnatural, but nature seems to accept mutation also, seems to like it, so in that sense natural.
The word natural is not good. Human evolution is different to me. Humans evolved in a closed system? Nothing guides or guided it?
It is the evolution of consciousness, not animal form. And humans are conscious of nothing but self? I cannot take cognizance of a dog, and in my thinking on the dogs way my own way cannot be changed?
Depends if we think humans only as intelligent animals or more. Perhaps more should be thought of animals? Our ancestors certainly did, the Egyptians, all the Shamanic cultures, perhaps even the elements too, or why would our body composed of those very elements be capable of consciousness?
Animals are guided in their evolution differently. I think we are “souls” and we take one gender and change so we have experiences of both genders. Why does anything exist if not for having a soul? What makes the rock endure? If it’s just mindless energy, then why and how can it keep any form? If there was no mind before man, how did mans mind ever come to be?
Gorillas can ask for the company of a female when taught to sign, but if you talk to them about being better than that female they will give you an empty stare. Chimpanzees can be taught to use the sign for boy and girl and use it appropriately, but they do not understand phrases for gender prejudice and react to any gender the same socially.
They can even express favour of one handler over another, but their favour of the one over the other is behaviour based. Often because one handler will play a game they like or is more generous with a favoured treat. Chimps have even been proven to have better short term memories than us. We are morally superior to these chimps?
I think our conclusion is the same, but our process of achieving it is different. That I would agree with, but our path lies on the surface of this planet. We walk on this earth. We can learn from it and what it can tell us about our bodies, including gender identity, or trust our thinking to figure it out.
Morality should not be based on animal behaviour. What should morality be based on? If not on life and the way life works, then what? Reason? Many dark acts were done fully under the auspices of well developed rationalization. Does nature work on subjectivity? Does it seem to honour any special cases? Or do humans just wish it would?
Moral rules are always based on society. And society is not composed of living things? If we argue the moral correctness of situational ethics and widely varying subjective behavioural guidelines, where will that get us?
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.One World class participants. Thank you!)