there is no material basis for 'biological sex', just like there is no biological/material/scientific basis for race. there is no biological reason to address people with dicks as 'he' and ppl without dicks as 'she'. this is just a language thing. gendering is assigning roles and behaviours to somebody because they were born with certain genitalia, and doing surgeries on intersex people to match their genital appearance to the ideology of two genders.
“an adult human of a biological sex that can bear offspring” - ok then so every impotent person is a man? what is biological sex? is person with XXY or XXYY chromosomes male or female? is a person born with XX chromosomes and a penis male or female? sex cannot bear offspring, a person can.
"Hey, this guy's dead and we can't ask him his views on the subject nor can we know how they would (or wouldn't) have evolved since he sang that song, but let's cite that as an example of hypocrisy on the part of those calling me transphobic!"
> The definition of “woman” is, of course "An adult human female."
How do you know this? Isn't this definition of a term in the English language? Aren't definitions in the English language socially-constructed? Otherwise, where in nature do you find the definition of the term "computer?"
> "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman."
This isn't entirely correct; most progressives require two conditions: identifying as a woman and presenting as one.
> A "Trans woman" is, by definition, a "male." A "male" cannot belong to a subset of "female."
There is a complicated relationship between sex and gender. They aren't exactly the same, nor are they entirely disjoint. Male and female are terms referring to two different sexes, whereas man and woman are genders.
This is why a trans woman is biologically male, but is also a woman. It's because these two terms describe independent variables; they answer different questions.
> the net result is a large number of people simply becoming unable (or unwilling) to define a word that has been basic, scientific, and obvious for as long as language has existed.
There is a difference between science and philosophy. Definitions of words (including the word "computer," for that matter!) change over time, so they do not fall under the category of "a posteriori" knowledge, but rather the category of "a priori" knowledge. The irony here is that people cannot define the term "human" in a logically consistent way without deferring to self-identification. (For example, is it determined by one's number of chromosomes? That leaves out people with Down's Syndrome.) Therefore, the only inclusive definition is a recursive one, and that's ok. If you accept these premises for the word "human," why not for the word "woman?" After all, your definition of woman defers to the definition of human, so... your definitions are equally based on identity.
> that makes a lot of other people a transphobe too. Like, for example, Mister Rogers.
Mister Rogers was a nice man, but he can be wrong about something. No one is infallible. This is an Ad Verecundiam fallacy (was Mister Rogers an expert in psychology, sociology, or gender theory?). It also reminds me of the fallacy that you pointed out on Twitter when you said that people are wrong to criticize the *source* of a tweet that you were retweeting rather than addressing the *substance* of an argument.
> Because reality is important. Words are important.
That's true, and we already have words to describe anatomical reality: namely, male and female. What progressives want is simply to expand the terms "man" and "woman" to be more inclusive, which would provide a benefit to society at no cost. Even more fundamentally, the science suggests that there is a difference in structure between an average man's brain and an average woman's brain, and that trans people's brains align more closely with the gender with which they identify. So it turns out to be a deep psychological connection that we should respect if we care about science.
> When something is true — when something is obvious and real — you don’t need to threaten, attack, or torture someone to force them to believe it. A well stated argument, supported by logic and facts, is the name of the game.
Absolutely, and I believe that, even if it's not "obvious," the scientific literature actually supports the validity of transgender identities. I would be happy to discuss this with you further sometime, if you're curious.
“The problem with reductionism is knowing when to stop.” -- Philosophy 101
This is pontificate is a great example of several logical fallacies (even if we ignore “appeal to authority”).
All definitions have an attribute of *scale*.
By that I mean there is always a qualification as to the range of applicability for the definition. Mathematicians are usually the most forthright with phrases like “For all integers, ...” or “Given a complex number z which is an odd root of unity,...”. The theorem is only applicable given the constraints.
Likewise, quantum mechanics usually applies only to the very large or the very small. That’s why something that exposed quantum behavior at “human visible scale” is so novel. (eg, quantum computers)
The “simple” definition of “female” offered by our host Is a broad generalization which is largely descriptive of a large group. But it commits the sin of excess reductionism when asserting that the description applies equally to every person in that group.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Or claiming that the mean of a distribution
is the actual value of every sample in the distribution.
Nope nope nope! That’ll get you flogged in Statistics 101.
To examine the scale violation, consider that a non-trivial number of people who claim to be women are born barren, or through disease or medical treatment, or even choice, are rendered barren (ie, unable to bare any (possibly more) children. Are those persons no longer female? The definition offered radically oversimplifies the situation if one is concerned with the details of a particular individual.
I don’t believe that “conservatism” includes the last part of “reductio ad absurdum.” A a person who self-identifies as “conservative” on many topics (but certainly not all), I believe in due diligence based on externally verifiable evidence and rational though that understands the misuse of statistics and logical fallacies.
I believe that one’s personal epistemology,
ie, how one decides what to believe, is the
fundament axioms of one’s belief system. (and yes, I understand the Mobius loop that can potentilly create.) One’s personal epistemology is also the component most subject to subtle attack.
Change how people decide what to believe and you can cause them to believe anything, no matter how antithetical the slime might be to the person’s very existence.
Unfortunately we have seen a worked example of this over the last 3 years at least.
Never thought this guy I watched on a podcast 10 years ago would show up on my substack feed pushing weird conservative nonsense I'd expect out of the backbench of the House.
Look, I only care about one thing when it comes to this topic: If a person asks you to refer to them as a woman, will you? If not, why? Is it because you think they're crazy? Even if you did, does it feel right to challenge someone's identity in front of their face when it changes nothing else about the situation?
It's just such a weird thing to pontificate about, to the point of being creepy. Only 1.4% of the population identifies as trans, yet as a social wedge, it commanded more effort to preach than talking about literally any other conservative position on an issue that affects more than 1.4% of people.
So, "what is a woman?", my answer is, "why even ask?"
This debate isn't new. Yet this post doesn't address the arguments about gender being a social construct and being different than sex. So it's very superficial unfortunately.
And also there are real people facing discrimination on this topic. This article should acknowledge them and what should be their daily lives according to the premise of the article.
there is no material basis for 'biological sex', just like there is no biological/material/scientific basis for race. there is no biological reason to address people with dicks as 'he' and ppl without dicks as 'she'. this is just a language thing. gendering is assigning roles and behaviours to somebody because they were born with certain genitalia, and doing surgeries on intersex people to match their genital appearance to the ideology of two genders.
here's a good intro to the conception of gender and sex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUDfDbNeECY
“an adult human of a biological sex that can bear offspring” - ok then so every impotent person is a man? what is biological sex? is person with XXY or XXYY chromosomes male or female? is a person born with XX chromosomes and a penis male or female? sex cannot bear offspring, a person can.
"Hey, this guy's dead and we can't ask him his views on the subject nor can we know how they would (or wouldn't) have evolved since he sang that song, but let's cite that as an example of hypocrisy on the part of those calling me transphobic!"
Really trashy argument. Do better.
> The definition of “woman” is, of course "An adult human female."
How do you know this? Isn't this definition of a term in the English language? Aren't definitions in the English language socially-constructed? Otherwise, where in nature do you find the definition of the term "computer?"
> "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman."
This isn't entirely correct; most progressives require two conditions: identifying as a woman and presenting as one.
> A "Trans woman" is, by definition, a "male." A "male" cannot belong to a subset of "female."
There is a complicated relationship between sex and gender. They aren't exactly the same, nor are they entirely disjoint. Male and female are terms referring to two different sexes, whereas man and woman are genders.
This is why a trans woman is biologically male, but is also a woman. It's because these two terms describe independent variables; they answer different questions.
> the net result is a large number of people simply becoming unable (or unwilling) to define a word that has been basic, scientific, and obvious for as long as language has existed.
There is a difference between science and philosophy. Definitions of words (including the word "computer," for that matter!) change over time, so they do not fall under the category of "a posteriori" knowledge, but rather the category of "a priori" knowledge. The irony here is that people cannot define the term "human" in a logically consistent way without deferring to self-identification. (For example, is it determined by one's number of chromosomes? That leaves out people with Down's Syndrome.) Therefore, the only inclusive definition is a recursive one, and that's ok. If you accept these premises for the word "human," why not for the word "woman?" After all, your definition of woman defers to the definition of human, so... your definitions are equally based on identity.
> that makes a lot of other people a transphobe too. Like, for example, Mister Rogers.
Mister Rogers was a nice man, but he can be wrong about something. No one is infallible. This is an Ad Verecundiam fallacy (was Mister Rogers an expert in psychology, sociology, or gender theory?). It also reminds me of the fallacy that you pointed out on Twitter when you said that people are wrong to criticize the *source* of a tweet that you were retweeting rather than addressing the *substance* of an argument.
> Because reality is important. Words are important.
That's true, and we already have words to describe anatomical reality: namely, male and female. What progressives want is simply to expand the terms "man" and "woman" to be more inclusive, which would provide a benefit to society at no cost. Even more fundamentally, the science suggests that there is a difference in structure between an average man's brain and an average woman's brain, and that trans people's brains align more closely with the gender with which they identify. So it turns out to be a deep psychological connection that we should respect if we care about science.
> When something is true — when something is obvious and real — you don’t need to threaten, attack, or torture someone to force them to believe it. A well stated argument, supported by logic and facts, is the name of the game.
Absolutely, and I believe that, even if it's not "obvious," the scientific literature actually supports the validity of transgender identities. I would be happy to discuss this with you further sometime, if you're curious.
587 words, 3,511 characters (13 Tweets)
“The problem with reductionism is knowing when to stop.” -- Philosophy 101
This is pontificate is a great example of several logical fallacies (even if we ignore “appeal to authority”).
All definitions have an attribute of *scale*.
By that I mean there is always a qualification as to the range of applicability for the definition. Mathematicians are usually the most forthright with phrases like “For all integers, ...” or “Given a complex number z which is an odd root of unity,...”. The theorem is only applicable given the constraints.
Likewise, quantum mechanics usually applies only to the very large or the very small. That’s why something that exposed quantum behavior at “human visible scale” is so novel. (eg, quantum computers)
The “simple” definition of “female” offered by our host Is a broad generalization which is largely descriptive of a large group. But it commits the sin of excess reductionism when asserting that the description applies equally to every person in that group.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Or claiming that the mean of a distribution
is the actual value of every sample in the distribution.
Nope nope nope! That’ll get you flogged in Statistics 101.
To examine the scale violation, consider that a non-trivial number of people who claim to be women are born barren, or through disease or medical treatment, or even choice, are rendered barren (ie, unable to bare any (possibly more) children. Are those persons no longer female? The definition offered radically oversimplifies the situation if one is concerned with the details of a particular individual.
I don’t believe that “conservatism” includes the last part of “reductio ad absurdum.” A a person who self-identifies as “conservative” on many topics (but certainly not all), I believe in due diligence based on externally verifiable evidence and rational though that understands the misuse of statistics and logical fallacies.
I believe that one’s personal epistemology,
ie, how one decides what to believe, is the
fundament axioms of one’s belief system. (and yes, I understand the Mobius loop that can potentilly create.) One’s personal epistemology is also the component most subject to subtle attack.
Change how people decide what to believe and you can cause them to believe anything, no matter how antithetical the slime might be to the person’s very existence.
Unfortunately we have seen a worked example of this over the last 3 years at least.
Sigh
-mo
"Be excellent to each other"
- Bill and Ted
Never thought this guy I watched on a podcast 10 years ago would show up on my substack feed pushing weird conservative nonsense I'd expect out of the backbench of the House.
Look, I only care about one thing when it comes to this topic: If a person asks you to refer to them as a woman, will you? If not, why? Is it because you think they're crazy? Even if you did, does it feel right to challenge someone's identity in front of their face when it changes nothing else about the situation?
It's just such a weird thing to pontificate about, to the point of being creepy. Only 1.4% of the population identifies as trans, yet as a social wedge, it commanded more effort to preach than talking about literally any other conservative position on an issue that affects more than 1.4% of people.
So, "what is a woman?", my answer is, "why even ask?"
This debate isn't new. Yet this post doesn't address the arguments about gender being a social construct and being different than sex. So it's very superficial unfortunately.
And also there are real people facing discrimination on this topic. This article should acknowledge them and what should be their daily lives according to the premise of the article.