On Antinatalism

Person 1: Wondering your thoughts on antinatalism.

Person 2: I mean, it sounds nice to me.

Person 1: Why?

2: Well, I, for one, do not like life too much.  “To Never Have been born may be the greatest boon of all”

1: But do you believe it's a universally moral wrong to give birth to children?

2: Bah, not really but I could defend such a position. I could see why some would believe so, but I probably would not see it as a moral wrong. 

1: The reason I'm asking is because the only time I've ever said "I'm anti-life" was in a joke. I didn't realize it was a genuine philosophical position that people defend as their life's work. So I'm looking for people who either are antinatalists or who appreciate the position and asking for their defenses, because thus far I've only heard bad arguments and "this is our only option" sorts of deals.

2: Yeah, i haven't come across a living antinatalist. I doubt you'll be finding any soon either. For me, I would argue for antinatalism because it would lead to the absence of pain and suffering. To give birth would only perpetuate suffering, for the offspring is now vulnerable to suffering. 

1: But it would also lead to the absence of enjoyment, or just being, or even the opportunity for enjoyment. Is it safe to assume that life's suffering will always outweigh its benefits?

2: I would state, "not always." I would also agree with Benatar.

(1) The presence of pain is bad.
(2) The presence of pleasure is good.
(3) The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
(4) The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation1: [laugh] it's like you're reading the Wikipedia to me.

2: Well, yeah.

1: But Benatar would be a person to argue that it is a universal wrong.

2: True true, but for the sake of argument, let's say I do agree with him.

1: Okay, in that scenario, on what grounds do you say that the absence of pleasure isn't bad? At least in the context of a human life.

2: Well, it's not quite good or bad. Life for one that suffers from persistent depression, for example, I suppose.

1: Isn't depression bad, though? I'm not following. There's a reason we class it as a debilitating mental illness.

2: Ah, well. I guess it is bad. I'm not quite sure if I know of a context in human life then.

1: Well what I was asking was this: specifically in the context of life as a whole, how can you say that the absence of pleasure is neither good nor bad? Because for example, I can say that in any given day, I wouldn't say that I had a bad day just because I didn't do anything fun. It'd be "alright" or something. But for someone's entire life, in terms of fulfillment and long term ideals, is the absence of any pleasure really not a bad thing? Just to be clear, I'd argue that in that sense, the absence of pleasure is bad. I'd never, ever want to live a life void of pleasure. That would be unfulfilling and pointless.

2:  I'm not quite sure if I could state whether or not the absence of pleasure is good or bad. Though, for someone to live a life devoid of some pleasure seems impossible or unlikely.  Perhaps one would argue that one would never ever want to live in a world that harbors pain. 

1: Well you did say you agreed with Benatar for all intents and purposes, so I'm assuming that you're agreeing with his 4th premise that the absence of pleasure is not bad unless it deprives someone. While it's impossible or unlikely to live a life devoid of pleasure, I'd change it to more general terms: a life that has not had a satisfactory amount of pleasure; so little that someone says "my life is boring." Or "my life is unpleasant."

(Noting of course that the word unpleasant, by connotation, is bad in most contexts). And lastly, of course nobody would want to, but would they settle to live in a world where pain and suffering exists rather than to never have been born? Perhaps live to change it?

2: Well, one that lives a life and states, "my life is unpleasant", then the burden of life outweighs pleasure. To avoid such a life, one ought not to be born. It's better to be in the absence of pain than the experience of pleasure. Some, sure, may want to be born into suffering in an effort to amplify the amount of pleasure and lessen the pain. Some would not.  To have neither have suffered and to not have experienced pleasure is to be in a neutral state. The living one will experience ups and downs. In accordance to Benatar, no pain is greater than the experience of pleasure. Perhaps it is because pain is avoidable by not living.

1: I'd argue that the absence of pain is not better than the experience of pleasure, again from experience living.

Thinking in that manner, a person who had the "unfortunate" experience of being born as two options (other than suicide): 1: To put the most effort into life to minimize the amount of suffering they experience. or 2: To put the most effort into life to maximize the pleasure they experience. Who can honestly say that the vast majority of living people settle for #1? No, most people actively pursue things to make them happy, not just to be rid of suffering. Although they'd probably settle for a life absent of suffering, if they were given a choice between "total absence of suffering as well as pleasure" and "presence of suffering but also presence of pleasure," I would wager most people would pick the latter. I know I would.

2:  Understandable and I don't think I can rebut. From my perspective, however, I would choose the former, the total absence of pleasure and suffering—but, hey, I have depression. 

1: Well at least there's common ground: it's relative, what people would choose. For someone who has more suffering than pleasure, they'd just give anything to take it away. For someone who has a balance of both, they'd do anything to get more pleasure. But that relies on lived experiences. What's the default for a potential future person?

2: Quite true. That was one reason as to why I could not believe that giving birth was a universal moral wrong. Some things are relative. The default for the potential person may be dependent on the mother. Life can get better for some and there is the potential for pleasure. The mother most likely gives birth to the potential in hopes of a better or equivalent life to hers. I think some mothers are reluctant to give birth when in abysmal situations. In some stories pregnancies end in abortion because it would lead to a more unpleasant life for either or both lives.  From the perspective of the unborn, well, that would be interesting.

1: The last part is what I mean, what would the unborn say if they could say it. And here's a better question: is it bad to say "this is all relative and the antinatalist/natalist war is just a battle of opinions"?

2: Well, all would be conjecture if we were to guess the opinion of the unborn. If the unborn was able to know of what life it was to have and be able to tell us, I would assume that its statement would depend on the life the unborn would be born into. Those with a sufficient life would like to be born. Is it bad? I'd say not. It is a bit of a battle of opinions. It is all relative. 

1: Hm, that answer doesn't really satisfy me, if only because I don't believe that so many people could dedicate themselves to a philosophy that really just comes down to a matter of opinion, and not of any kind of solid foundation. Heh, come to think of it, a lot of people do that, don't they?

2: Yeah, not very satisfying indeed. And yeah, it does seem like a lot of people do that. A solid foundation may be wanted for but one rarely is obtained. We should do this more often.

1: I wish I could, but I've become too salty too fast. Most philosophy that people talk about nowadays is boring and stupid. Examples of which would be nihilism, antinatalism, solipsism, etc.

2: Don't get me started with solipsism. Nihilism and solipsism are too popular; I haven't seen too much antinatalism. And you're probably salty due to your fishing hobby.

1: Hah! One thing I don't get about antinatalists is that they don't seem to advocate murder or suicide. Like they don't actively tell natalists to kill themselves, and they don't try to kill off large amounts of people if given the opportunity. Wouldn't the views of antinatalism necessarily entail that you do as much as you can to reduce the number of potential people from coming into the world to experience suffering?

2: That would be too much work and entail too much suffering, I'd suppose. Instead, they just seem to advocate not giving birth. The living, well, they are already here and they/we may as well do something with this life.

1: But what about the risk they pose: they could produce more people to suffer. One healthy woman can produce a dozen kids if she wants, or on average about 2. Wouldn't killing her and causing her suffering be good because it ends the potential suffering of 2 more people, and also ends her suffering?

2: A movement of thought would not survive too long if that is what they would do. By definition, the antinatalist is anti-birth and not anti-life, in a sense. They do not want to end a life that is already living but, rather, end a life from becoming. 

1: So, hypothetical scenario, there are 51% antinatalists and 49% natalists on the planet. The 51% are armed, and all things equal, they could kill the rest of humanity if they so chose, and then kill themselves. Would they do it?

2: Perhaps some would argue so. But, then again, that would entail a lot of further suffering and unpleasentness. Instead, those 51% would not give birth and the natalists would then continue living. 

1: So how exactly do they plan on winning? If they're willing to prolong generations upon generations of suffering because they don't want to actively just end it all in a matter of a few years, what exactly do they think they can do? Just convince people not to have children? Doesn't not having children prolong their own suffering, since many people rely on the next generation to take care of them?

2: Yea, just convince others to not have children. One would think they do not need another child to take care of them. Or, perhaps, the antinatalist is just a holier-than-thou and laughs at the amoral peoples. 

1: Pfft, I think it's pretty ubiquitous or societies to understand that they need a new generation to take care of the old. Imagine the suffering that would ensue for our older generation in America if they couldn't get disability/social security/retirement because no new generations are paying taxes.

2: If it results in no one continuing to give birth, then perhaps such is worth it, to not have children and suffer before death. A lot of suffering would happen if the older generation could not get disability/social security/ retirement.  So, I suppose they would justify it.

1: But then it becomes a question of "at what point can you cause suffering to end suffering" and it begs the question: if you're willing to let millions of people suffer from a lack of resources by allowing the younger population to never exist, why wouldn't you just kill them instead? It'd be quicker and would involve less suffering.

2: To know, I think we would have to ask a real antinatalist. I can not quite conceive an answer.  The suffering of the millions from not giving birth is due to one's choice. So, it can be seen as a long and drawn out suicide instead of mass murder. 

1: At which point, they'd be conceding that they value freedom of choice; and at that point I'd challenge them on imposing their view of life's worth on people who have not had the opportunity to choose whether life or death is better for themselves.

2: The opinion of the unborn is not in the antinatalist's equation, I suppose.  Life is full of suffering, so do not let one be born. "We're doing them a favor"

1: But are they? It would be the potential future person's free will to decide whether or not it's really better to not live than to live.

2: True, but disregard that. They are not living yet.

1: So because they can't express their opinion, we can decide it for them? On that same note, I can easily say that my opinion is that their life will be full of pleasure, and so it is on their behalf that I'm bringing them into the world: so they can experience that. And that they will enjoy that decision having been made.

2: And it would seem we went full circle. Here, our difference of opinion is apparent. For the antinatalist, absence of pleasure and pain is best. Somewhat like an optimist vs pessimist looking at a half-glass of water.

1: Well when you put it like that, "This is stupid."

2: [laugh] Yes. To our benefit, antinatalism is not too popular.

1: Yeah,

Art: John Maler Collier (1850 - 1934) of the Priestess of Delphi (1891).

Gender and Sex Elasticity

Gender Elasticity 

In Terrae Occidentali [Western Lands], gender and sex are often thought of to be the same concept. If one is born male, XX, then the male is to be, both in gender and sex, male; if one is born female, XY, then the female is to be, both in gender and sex, female. Why did the West retain a non-distinction between sex and gender can be due to several considerations that will not be featured herein. However, the objective of this essay is to enlighten the reader to learn and understand how cultures may - and can - alter notions of what is to be of one gender and of a sex. Why do some cultures allow and retain multiple distinctions between sex and gender? What are these different genders like? To answer these questions, I will briefly summarize a few cultures that retain a non-binary gender and or sex manner of classification.  

Firstly, one ought understand the definition of sex and gender. Sex can be defined in biological terms; genetically, sex is determined by chromosomes. Females have the double X chromosomes and males have both the X and Y chromosome. However, sex is often able to be distinguished by the primary or secondary sexual characteristics; the primary characteristics are composed of the female or male reproductive organs (i.e., vagina, ovaries, and uterus for females and the penis, testes, and scrotum for males) while secondary characteristics are composed of superficial differences between the sexes (i.e., breast development and hip broadening for women and facial hair and voice deepening for men) (Wienclaw, Ruth A.,). Gender, in biosocial terms, refers to the psychological, cultural, and behavioral characteristics associated with being sexually male or female—or even intersex (Wienclaw, Ruth A.,). Gender is often, as we will see, determined and influenced by culture. Genders and their roles are determined by the superstructural ideas and notions held by a culture, Furthermore, one basis as to why some cultures have distinguished three or more genders and or sexes are due to the existence of the intersex. Some people are born with reproductive organs, genitalia, and/or sex chromosomes that are not exclusively male or female. These individuals do not neatly fit neatly into a binary gender standard (Haviland, 2014). There may exist individuals with one X chromosome, Turner's Syndrome, in which one develops external female genitalia but do not produce ovaries and are thus infertile. Androgen insensitivity syndrome, occurs when an individual may have the XY sex chromosomes but some sort of abnormality on the X chromosome results in the body's increased sensitivity to androgens, male hormones. The XY individuals with androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) will appear to be female; an XY adult with complete AIS will have a normal clitoris, labia, and breasts but, internally, these individuals will have testes up in the abdomen and not the usual descended position in the scrotal sac (Haviland, 2014). They are born without a complete set of male or female internal genital organs as they also tend to have a short, blind-ended vagina (Haviland, 2014). There also exists other intersexual combinations like the ones described above with similar circumstances. These intersexual conditions can be seen as a third sex that are often overlooked by the Western society that often disregards and or are unaware of these conditions as Anne Fausto-Sterling notes. 

That idealized story papers over [that] some women have facial hair, some men have none; some women speak with deep voices. some men veritably squeak. Less well known is the fact that on close inspection, absolute dimorphism disintegrates even at the level of basic biology. Chromosomes, hormones, the internal sex structures, the gonads and external genitalia all vary more than most people realize. Those born outside of the . . . dimorphic mold are called intersexuals. (Fausto-Sterling, 2003)  

How often do these intersexuals occur within nature among the Homo sapiens? About 1 percent of all humans are intersexed—about 70 million people worldwide (Fausto-Sterling 2003; Fausto-Sterling et al., 2000) In the West, due to the level of medical knowledge, intersex individuals have the ability to perform hormonal treatment to combat intersexual conditions and may remove, say, a penis when the vagina and other female sexual organs are apparent and probably more developed. It is the cultural society that determines how the individual perceives the intersex and their attitude toward them. As we will see, some cultures view the intersex, male, female, and genders in a different perspective than that of the Western perception of what it is to be male or female, in regards to gender and sex.  

Among the Lakota of the northern Plains in North America, there exists those that are often identified as transgenders from the Western perspective. As noted by French explores and missionaries in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, there are those in some of the Native American tribes that identify as neither male or female. The French called these individuals berdache (Wishhart). Berdache is a term that is—or was—used to describe the younger male in a homosexual relationship within the French culture (Wishhart). The Native Americans', like the Lakota, male berdache did the work that was often culturally designated by the women, dressed like women, and formed relationships with non-berdache males (Wishhart). The Lakota term these third-gender individuals, winkte, applying the term to a male "who wants to be a woman." (Haviland, 2014). These winkte are often thought to have curing powers and enjoy a sort of special status in their communities (Haviland, 2014). Winkte is often translated as two-spirited. Similarly, a neighbor tribe of the Lakota are the Cheyenne have a similar classification to that of the winkte, hemanah, literally meaning "half-man, half-woman" (Haviland, 2014). As reported by Schützer, Wakon, a winkte and member of the Lakota tribe is told by the grandfathers to be different from the males and females. 

I have my feet rooted in the earth of my ancestors and my spirit soars with them in the "land above the pines." The anthropologists call me 'Berdache,' but this is wrong. This word has come a long way from its beginnings in Arabia. It means "kept boy" . . . that, I am not. The Western medical community calls me 'transsexual', but this is not entirely true either. I am 'winkte,' I am a gender-crosser. My people see me as multidimensional and I do not have to fight for a place in my society to be accepted. I already have a place, a very special and sacred place. In my culture I represent a profound healing, a reconciliation of the most fundamental rift that divides us, human from human - gender. (Schützer) 

The foundation for some of the Native Americans and their two-spirited people are most noticeably spiritual or related to a sort of religious aspect. In contrast, the West is largely influenced by Christianity and it seemingly rejects abnormalities like the intersex or anything from its perspective of the male-female binary as noted in Williamson's "The Blessed Curse". The person focused on in this article is a great-granddaughter of a Cherokee woman. She notes, the Native American  view of the intersex "in a very positive and affirming light." While her immediate family (mother, father, and brothers) were affixed in a negative Euromerican point of view and, as a result, were repulsed by her intersexuality and referred her condition as "the work of Satan" (Haviland, 2014). Her grandmother, however, in the perspective of, probably, her traditional views, rejoiced in her intersexuality, stating that she was born in a life given by God, the Great Spirit and was given "a great strength that girls never have, yet a gentle tenderness that boys never know" and so on (Haviland, 2014). In short, this traditional Native American perspective differs much from the West and celebrates both intersexuality and the third-gender, winkte. 

We-Wa, a Zuni two-spirit, weaving US national archives. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/oct/11/two-spirit-people-north-america

Within Somoa, there exists something similar to that of the two-spirited people of the various Native American tribes in North America, the fa'afafine. These fa'afafine are males that are sexually attracted to males. By the West, they may be classified as androphillic males. The term fa'afafine can be translated literally as "in the manner of a woman." (Vasey). The fa'afafine seem to essentially be females in the body of males as they portray feminine appearances, mannerisms, and behaviors. Again, from the perspective of the West, these males can be seen as effeminate males or transgendered. To describe them as transsexual would be erroneous because these fa'afafine do not experience any dyspohira towards their male genitals—some of which state that they do not want to have female genitals (Vasey). Furthermore, it would again be erroneous to percieve these fa'afafine as being homosexual or gay as they do not identify as males or want to be masculine in appearance. The fa'afafine do not engage in sexual activities with other fa'afafine like the gays would engage in sexual activities with those like them but the fa'afafine tend to form relationships with, primarily, males and to a lesser extent with females. Noted by Radio Australia, one basis or foundation for the existence of the fa'afafine is the need—or want—of a society, population, or family to have a relative balance of people willing to work as a female and male (Charting the Pacific, 2005). Sometimes a family is composed primarily of males and the family would like to have a female(s) to assist in women's work. If need be, the family or mother would have one of the sons work as a female and were raised to be female (Charting the Pacific, 2005). As they grew older, they remained essentially woman even if they married another woman (Charting the Pacific, 2005). In modern times, it is up to the child to determine whether or not he wants to be male or a fa'afafine (Charting the Pacific, 2005).  

Fa'afina. Photo by Jeantine Mankelow

Another example can be found among the Bugis, a Muslim ethnic group inhabiting Sulawesi Island in Indonesia and numbering more than six million (Haviland, 2014). The Bugis acknowledge five genders: oroane (masculine male), makunrai (feminine female), calabai (feminine male), calalai (masculine female), and bissu (neither male nor female) (Davies, 2007; Haviland, 2014). The bissu are traditionally high-ranking celibate intersexuals; their name derives from 'bessi', a term defined as 'clean' (Haviland, 2014). Why? Angkong Petta Rala states it is because the bissu "do not bleed, do not have breasts, and do menstruate, therefore they are clean or holy, therefore they are clean or holy" (Lathief, "Bissu: Imam-mam yang Menghibur," cited in Umar, 2008, pp7-8; Haviland, 2014). Because these bissu are 'clean', they are able to serve as mediators between the human and spirit world inhabited by dewata, genderless spirits or gods (Haviland, 2014; Graham, 2001). The calalai and calabai are defined as 'false man' and 'false woman' respectively (Graham, 2001). As noted by Inside Indonesia, Rani is anatomically female but is a calalai, married to a female, smokes cigarettes, works along with men as a blacksmith, and walks alone at night—things that are not to be done by feminine females (Graham, 2011). Again, though Rani is very much like a male, she does not wish to alter her—or his—sex and is thusly not transsexual but, rather, transgender from the Western perspective. A culture with five genders, naturally, has a lot of information to offer to learn from as they differ much from the gender and sex binary held by the West.  

Engel, center front, a bissu in the town of Bone in South Sulawesi.

Kate Lamb. Retrieved from http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/12/indonesias-transgender-priests-face-uncertain-future.html

In conclusion, but not in whole, three cultures and their perspective and notions of the intersex and or categories of gender have been examined above. Many of these cultures retain multiple genders in order to fulfill some sort of role a society or family. Whether it be religious or mundane, the genders—or sexes—fulfill a role in society that usually needs to be fulfilled and the superstructural notions held by a culture decides whether or not those genders are to be tolerated. This is most likely only one reason as to why these gender and sex categories exist and are tolerated. Naturally, there exists many more cultures, genders, and superstructural notions to observe and study. This being so, perhaps it would be beneficial for the West to reevaluate gender and sex classification. 

In addition, worldwide there are people who are gender variants: permanent or incidental transvestites (cross-dressers) without being homosexuals. Clearly, the cross-cultural sex and gender scheme is complex; the late 19th-century "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" labels are inadequate to cover the full range of sex and gender diversity (Schilt & Westbrook, 2009; Haviland, 2014).  

Especially with the rise of the LGTBQ et al community, it would seem that quite a few people in the West would and are fighting for an emergence—or maybe reemergence—of a non-binary gender and or sex classification. As many cultures already have such a system, it would not be too farfetched to imagine the West adopting different classifications in the future. Perhaps the West could learn something from some that are thought to be more tribal. 

Late Addendum (4/15/2016): 
So, as I see it, there are two gender categories: male and female (the lack of gender is, per se, not a gender category but a lack of gender). However, these are not determined by one's sex. Perhaps, this binary gender categorization is caused, in part, because of the English language. Perhaps, other languages and cultures do not base their gender categorizations as being male or female but, maybe, w, x, y, and z instead of, in English, y and z. This being so, I am convinced there is only two genders and a lack of gender that anyone of a sex can fit in. 

Page Break 

Resources used: 

Charting the Pacific - Fa'afafine - Samoan boys brought up as girls. (2005). Retrieved December 19, 2015, from http://www.abc.net.au/ra/pacific/people/hazy.htm 

Vasey, P. (n.d.). The Samoan Fa'afafine Research. Retrieved December 19, 2015, from http://people.uleth.ca/~paul.vasey/PLV/Samoan_Research.htm 

Wienclaw, R. A. (2015). Gender Differences: Biology and Culture.Research Starters: Sociology (Online Edition), 

Wishhart, D. (Ed.). (n.d.). Encyclopedia of the Great Plains. Retrieved December 19, 2015, from http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.gen.004 

Schützer, A. (1994). GENDYS Conference Papers: Winyanktehca: Two-souls person. Retrieved December 19, 2015, from http://www.gender.org.uk/conf/trilogy/winkte.htm 

Graham, S. (2001, June 1). Sulawesi's fifth gender - Inside Indonesia. Retrieved December 19, 2015, from http://www.insideindonesia.org/sulawesis-fifth-gender-2 

Haviland, W., Prins, H., Walrath, D., & McBride, B. (2014).Anthropology: The Human Challenge (14th ed.). Belmont, CA: Yolanda Cossio.