|
I mean I think you're gonna need to know why he believes it to begin with, 'cos I think conspiratorial beliefs are generally rooted in a desire to believe or disbelieve a certain thing rather than critical analysis.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:this is a bit harsh, biological sex is a decently-defined and genuinely useful term, it's simply not completely adaptable to a binary system
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean I think you're gonna need to know why he believes it to begin with, 'cos I think conspiratorial beliefs are generally rooted in a desire to believe or disbelieve a certain thing rather than critical analysis. Yeah, this is basically the truth. Do you really think you're going to explain something and then he's gonna be like "Oh, jeez, looks like I forgot to carry the 1 when I was doing calculations on the tensile strength of steel. It was definitely an airplane now."
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:Oof, this is a rough one. I have a co-worker whom I really like, he's even a proper labor democrat and everything. Sadly, he let slip today that he's a 9/11 truther. As it had never occurred to me to doubt that Saudi radicals flew giant airliners into the towers to bring them down, since I saw Saudi radicals fly airliners into the towers and all, he had me at a disadvantage on the bullet points (bullshit engineering and the like). This is usually a reasonable guy who I really think can be reached. It's just that his healthy skepticism of those in power has led him down a dark path here. Any go to resources for squashing this sort of insanity would really be appreciated. you can't, conspiracy theories don't come from a rational place just refuse to discuss it with him entirely. freeze him out on this topic. just say you're sorry, but it's complete nonsense and you're not going to waste your time thinking about it or talking about it. ignore him, and if he keeps talking about it, just blatantly change the subject as often as necessary. nothing works except for shame and social censure. you've really got to underline that while you may like this guy as a person, this one topic of his is beneath discussion
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Or you can just say something like "Yeah, I think conspiracy theories are fun, like what if the Earth was hollow and Nazis lived there, or what if the Queen of England is actually an alien... but I found out that some people actually believe in them, so they sorta lost the appeal, like, what if we were talking about it and someone overheard it and thought we weren't just goofin."
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:I mean, sure, if you want to have a system of biological sex that has dozens of categories, none of which map to "man" or "woman" then you can make that work. Meanwhile, non-scientists are never going to run a blood panel before talking about someone's gender, so I have no idea why you would bring that concept up when talking about gender. both 'male' and 'female' are entirely useful categories, they just aren't exhaustive like, the vast majority of any sexed animal population is going to be straightforward xx or xy or equivalent, with a number of predictable differences you're being a tad dogmatic here tbh
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:both 'male' and 'female' are entirely useful categories, they just aren't exhaustive i mean are zw and x0 systems exact equivalents
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
stone cold posted:i mean are zw and x0 systems exact equivalents i honestly fail to see the pertinence of the existence of different sex-determining systems when what we're discussing is the legitimacy of sex as a biological phenomenon - it makes sense, in most animals (or, if you want to take the hard line, in mammals) to define two main sexes while taking account for various more or less weird aberrations from this scheme á la klinefelter's syndrome the point being, the scientific consensus is definitely that there are such things as male and female, and that these terms can be used to rationally predict certain phenomena, e.g. physical height or colour-blindness
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i honestly fail to see the pertinence of the existence of different sex-determining systems when what we're discussing is the legitimacy of sex as a biological phenomenon - it makes sense, in most animals (or, if you want to take the hard line, in mammals) to define two main sexes while taking account for various more or less weird aberrations from this scheme á la klinefelter's syndrome you brought it up my dude V. Illych L. posted:both 'male' and 'female' are entirely useful categories, they just aren't exhaustive right here you don’t get to claim it’s irrelevant when you’re citing it as being equivalent
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
like, when studying e.g. x-chromosomal silencing, you will select phenotypically female mice for your data set, because it's a process that occurs in a genotype very strongly correlated with this assigned sex
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
stone cold posted:you brought it up my dude I mean I can amend that statement to say 'mammals' if you want, but it would change nothing about my point as far as I can tell
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:I mean I can amend that statement to say 'mammals' if you want, but it would change nothing about my point as far as I can tell yeah because as I said before, while similar, i don’t necessarily think x0 and zw systems are exact equivalents tia
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:both 'male' and 'female' are entirely useful categories, they just aren't exhaustive
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
twodot posted:Please define "male" and "female". Also are you are using "male" and "female" because you realize this whole conversation has nothing to do with gender? I've already agreed there's coherent definitions of biological sexes, they just don't map onto gender in any way and are irrelevant to any discussion on gender. they do in most cases, though. the vast majority of people self-identify as male or female, which correlates strongly to aspects of their genetic and physiologic makeup. this is relevant in e.g. medical research, where physiological differences between the principal sexes are often important to recognise effectively what i'm saying is that yes, biological sex and gender are quite strongly (though, to be precise about this, not perfectly) related. clearly the male/female dichotomy is incomplete, but "man" and "woman" remain valid terms, socially as well as biologically, and attempting to discard either the terms or the link between them is radical in a way that is simply not supportable from a pragmatic point of view, i.e. it's empirically wrong so then the implication would become that, for example, examining the effects of the male physiology on harassment crimes might offer a solution (such as castrate all cis men idk) which would be unnecessary, impractical or expensive to apply to women (having no balls) or trans men or what have you - the point being, the terms are useful and to a large extent accurate, even if they don't match perfectly this is not a biotruths thing, nor even a gender essentialist thing (though one might end up somewhere essentialist from these premises) - it's just using terms that are useful and maintaining a link that there's pretty strong evidence is there, though again, not one-to-one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:[a post containing no definitions of male and female]
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
There are clearly different and overlapping definitions of the terms, though they are to a large part related i can tell that you're trying to get me to commit to some specific wording so you can bog this whole business into semantics, which is a spectacularly unrewarding discussion to have. if you insist, we can say that biological maleness is that which produces sperm or equivalent, whereas biological femaleness is that which produces eggs or equivalent. as superstructure you have the related social concepts of masculinity and femininity. now, inevitably, you will find something outrageous here which i've left out or forgotten or what have you and pretend that this invalidates the central point, which is: self-identified gender correlates strongly to the complex of physiological and genetic properties we call sex, making it perfectly reasonable to assume that there is a link between the concepts
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i can tell that you're trying to get me to commit to some specific wording so you can bog this whole business into semantics V. Illych L. posted:now, inevitably, you will find something outrageous here which i've left out or forgotten V. Illych L. posted:if you insist, we can say that biological maleness is that which produces sperm or equivalent, whereas biological femaleness is that which produces eggs or equivalent. as superstructure you have the related social concepts of masculinity and femininity. twodot fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Nov 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:as superstructure you have the related social concepts of masculinity and femininity. Define these in a way that is consistent among the same culture across different generations, let alone different cultures and different centuries
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
it sure would be nice if somebody would define their goddamn terms
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yes, my whole point is that a dualistic system of biological sex is semantically incoherent. If you can't present definitions that just bolsters my point. no, it is not, this is not how language works if i asked you to define a car, you would say something like "a four-wheeled engine-propelled piloted vehicle", whereupon i could say aha but what about three-wheelers or broken cars, the notion of a "car" is semantically incoherent. the notion of the car is a useful concept because, generally, in actual situations, one may use the term "car" to signify meaning and generally, people will tend to understand what's going on similarly, the concept of biological sex is useful, because one may reasonably apply it to predict things in science. so, for instance, the sentence "men (understood here implicitly as the xy chromosome type giving rise to the complex of phenotypes generally associated with maleness) are more predisposed to red-green colour-blindness than women (here understood implicitly as the xx chromosome type)" has semantic content and has meaning. this is, of course, not saying that one cannot have the gender "man" with the genotype xx, but in general one will not be covered by the genetic definition of maleness in this case. "male" and "female", as with other terms, have a multiplicity of meanings depending on the game being played at any given time - so when i say "man" while discussing genetics, i will necessarily mean something in the context of genetics, whereas if i say "man" in a social context i will say "someone who presents as what we call a man" like, what you're trying to do here was demolished by wittgenstein decades ago, and is an extremely unproductive way of looking at language - it's only useful insofar as you can rag on people for being wrong. in general, a term is legitimate if one can usefully employ it to convey meaning, and i feel that i've demonstrated that pretty handily over my previous posts. no definition of any term is going to adequately cover all real uses of that term. it's not possible in a living language ate all the Oreos posted:Define these in a way that is consistent among the same culture across different generations, let alone different cultures and different centuries please demonstrate why i need to do this for my argument, because i don't see it
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:no, it is not, this is not how language works quote:similarly, the concept of biological sex is useful, because one may reasonably apply it to predict things in science. so, for instance, the sentence "men (understood here implicitly as the xy chromosome type giving rise to the complex of phenotypes generally associated with maleness) are more predisposed to red-green colour-blindness than women (here understood implicitly as the xx chromosome type)" has semantic content and has meaning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
FWIW I don't personally have trouble with either way of using the word, generally context will tell you whether or not someone's using sex as a gloss for biological trends or whether they're being a oval office about someone's gender. You've got two sets of discussion that both have reason to want to use the word, or not use the word. I just adapt based on that. The word's just kind of in flux like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:please demonstrate why i need to do this for my argument, because i don't see it Specifically with masculinity and femininity you're claiming they're useful "social concepts." I'm saying they're not because they're constantly in flux, like if you were trying to build some kind of consistent classification framework based on "coolness"
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:FWIW I don't personally have trouble with either way of using the word, generally context will tell you whether or not someone's using sex as a gloss for biological trends or whether they're being a oval office about someone's gender. You've got two sets of discussion that both have reason to want to use the word, or not use the word. I just adapt based on that. The word's just kind of in flux like that. Yeah I don't think they're completely worthless words I just also don't think they're in any way "scientific" words or particularly useful in anything but a casual sense
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:Specifically with masculinity and femininity you're claiming they're useful "social concepts." I'm saying they're not because they're constantly in flux, like if you were trying to build some kind of consistent classification framework based on "coolness" i mean there is clearly such a thing as toxic masculinity which bears researching, which is connected to the phenomenon of social maleness so idk if i can accept this twodot posted:No, you idiot, you couldn't, because I would just say "things with three wheels or things that were formally cars but do not perform car functions aren't cars, what's incoherent about that statement" and that would be the end of the conversation, however you clearly aren't willing to just declare menopausal women aren't women, so you have a problem. For this argument to work I would need to insist that I've developed a system where I've categorized all vehicles as "cars" or "trucks", and then you would rightly say "but what about vehicles that are not clearly cars or trucks, but share qualities of both, what are those?" and then I would reply "Oh, good point, this whole attempt to objectively categorize all vehicles as a car or truck is stupid, and we should just let people call some vehicles cars and some vehicles trucks without breaking them apart and examining the exact sort of motor they have, if there's ever a scenario where it's very important to talk about whether a vehicle has a V6 engine or is gasoline powered or diesel powered, we will just talk about those characteristics directly". you don't necessarily need one, no, but it is useful shorthand and it is relatively straightforward to interpret statements using it as opposed to including jargon for the sake of it, which is generally Bad certainly you won't see many people writing scientific papers about mouse reproduction or w/e using the term 'xx' rather than 'female', which indicates that empirically, the term is seen as uncontroversial and useful - weird semantic tricks with fertility notwithstanding also seriously do try to be polite, it's extremely tiresome to try to have a good-faith discussion when the other party clearly has an axe to grind and where any disagreement is taken as hostility
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:you don't necessarily need one, no, but it is useful shorthand and it is relatively straightforward to interpret statements using it as opposed to including jargon for the sake of it, which is generally Bad quote:certainly you won't see many people writing scientific papers about mouse reproduction or w/e using the term 'xx' rather than 'female', which indicates that empirically, the term is seen as uncontroversial and useful - weird semantic tricks with fertility notwithstanding quote:also seriously do try to be polite, it's extremely tiresome to try to have a good-faith discussion when the other party clearly has an axe to grind and where any disagreement is taken as hostility
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:What is useful about saying "men" instead of "people with XY chromosomes"? Are you running out of keystrokes? Do you prefer vagueness over specificity in your biological discussions? If both you and your intended audience know what you mean then there's not much reason to use more words. It would get very tiresome both to write and read "people with XY chromosomes" unless there is a reason you think parts of your audience won't know that you mean that by using a shorter substitution. It's like I don't explain my colourblindness by using those words unless I'm explaining it to someone who cares about but doesn't already know the genetic basis of it, I just say that women don't usually get it, which is sufficiently accurate. Someone who doesn't care gets a simple explanation and someone who already knows how the genetics works doesn't need to be told. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Nov 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If both you and your intended audience know what you mean then there's not much reason to use more words. quote:It would get very tiresome both to write and read "people with XY chromosomes" unless there is a reason you think parts of your audience won't know that you mean that by using a shorter substitution. quote:It's like I don't explain my colourblindness by using those words unless I'm explaining it to someone who cares about the genetic basis of it, I just say that women don't usually get it, which is sufficiently accurate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:If your intended audience knows what you mean, but one is a man that doesn't have XY chromosomes, why should they bear that abuse? I would imagine that any trans geneticists out there would probably be aware of the inherited meaning of the words "men" and "women" and while they may disagree with their use probably aren't going to assume that the rat scientist mafia are insulting them with their use of inaccurate-yet-functional terminology. If you are writing something for wide consumption then you have to make a choice between clarity, efficiency of communication, and consideration and: twodot posted:Ok, why is "men" a superior substitute for "people with XY chromosomes" than "nu"? "nu" is one character shorter and isn't co-opting a pre-existing term. Like I disagree that it would be tiresome to read a person talking about people with XY chromosomes by using the phrase people with XY chromosomes, but if we need to build jargon, fine, why choose "men"? It happens to be that "men" already has a correlation with "has XY chromosomes" in common use, which makes it a somewhat immediately interpretable word for that concept. You could preface the document with a glossary where you define another word as having that meaning and that would function fine, but that again that's choosing consideration over efficiency/clarity in the case that the glossary is not included, such as if the work is being used as an extract in another one. In circumstances where I think that it's very important to be very clear and where I think my audience is likely to contain people who would prefer different terms, and I'm familiar enough with the better terms to use them, and when I think the audience as a whole will not suffer impaired comprehension as a result of their use, I'll use them. But we live in a world where gender, as wholly disconnected from sex as it is, and despite the two having different sets of terminology in circles discussing that disconnect, gender-as-distinct-from-sex is not a very commonly considered topic. So using the technically wrong words for it remains the most effective way to communicate a lot of the time. Stuff like XY/XX is jargon in a lot of cases outside people who habitually discuss it and gender theory's a pretty complex thing to introduce someone to and something you can't really do just in the middle of a conversation, nor is it something you'd probably consider relevant in a document about mouse genetics. I'd be quite happy if we had universally understood, short, effective words for these ideas that everyone understood the specific meanings of but we don't really. As I said the words are still in flux and practically mean different things to different people so I don't really have an issue with either use until the point where they become malicious. If I was writing a paper about human genetics then depending specifically on the subject I might actually consider it important for understanding the subject, to introduce gender theory and come up with some alternate words for classes, but I don't think it's important for all subjects. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Nov 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
i offered a provisional definition and you responded with obvious hogwash. this is not a reasonable way to constructively engage - it is a bad faith argument, if you will be that as it may, biological sex in mice is not, in principle, distinct from that of people. if a general scientific term is valid for mice (as sex manifestly is, being near-universally used) it is to valid for people. you cannot accept the use of a biological term in one case on its own merits and not the other it is not my interest nor intention to 'erase' anyone, hence my repeated insistence that the sexes as defined biologically are incomplete. however, the terms are still valid because the vast majority of any given mammalian population corresponds to a match between chromosomes and the corresponding phenotype, I.e. with basic sexual characteristics some people don't fit with either of these terms. I have no problem with this, nor with them having an assigned gender. they will not, however, fit into the ordinary model adapted for the majority population, and this is a simple, pragmatic adjustment to respond with a challenge: if there is nothing to the concept of biological sex, why there difference in the conditions of trans and cis people? clearly the numerous modes of physical therapy associated with e.g. gender reassignment indicates a basic phenotypic correlation between gender and the assumed underlying body in practice, the reason one wishes to preserve the terminology of sex is because it offers an intuitive and easily comprehensible shorthand for a system of attributes which is genuinely useful in many avenues of research, some of which i've mentioned - and that there is nothing much to be gained from abandoning them
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
though if we're both convinced that the other is uninterested in a genuine discussion, there seems to be no point in continuing it
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would imagine that any trans geneticists out there would probably be aware of the inherited meaning of the words "men" and "women" and while they may disagree with their use probably aren't going to assume that the rat scientist mafia are insulting them with their use of inaccurate-yet-functional terminology. If you are writing something for wide consumption then you have to make a choice between clarity, efficiency of communication, and consideration and: quote:It happens to be that "men" already has a correlation with "has XY chromosomes" in common use, which makes it a somewhat immediately interpretable word for that concept. V. Illych L. posted:i offered a provisional definition and you responded with obvious hogwash. this is not a reasonable way to constructively engage - it is a bad faith argument, if you will quote:we can say that biological maleness is that which produces sperm or equivalent, whereas biological femaleness is that which produces eggs or equivalent quote:so then the implication would become that, for example, examining the effects of the male physiology on harassment crimes might offer a solution (such as castrate all cis men idk) which would be unnecessary, impractical or expensive to apply to women (having no balls) or trans men or what have you - the point being, the terms are useful and to a large extent accurate, even if they don't match perfectly edit: This claim is perhaps too strong. It at least demonstrates that you yourself don't care about the definition you offered. It's a self-consistent definition, it just doesn't tell you anything. It doesn't tell you anything about that person's gender, age, fertility, or literally anything that would actually be useful relating to sexual organs. quote:be that as it may, biological sex in mice is not, in principle, distinct from that of people. if a general scientific term is valid for mice (as sex manifestly is, being near-universally used) it is to valid for people. you cannot accept the use of a biological term in one case on its own merits and not the other quote:to respond with a challenge: if there is nothing to the concept of biological sex, why there difference in the conditions of trans and cis people? clearly the numerous modes of physical therapy associated with e.g. gender reassignment indicates a basic phenotypic correlation between gender and the assumed underlying body quote:in practice, the reason one wishes to preserve the terminology of sex is because it offers an intuitive and easily comprehensible shorthand for a system of attributes which is genuinely useful in many avenues of research, some of which i've mentioned - and that there is nothing much to be gained from abandoning them twodot fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Nov 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:Specifically with masculinity and femininity you're claiming they're useful "social concepts." I'm saying they're not because they're constantly in flux, like if you were trying to build some kind of consistent classification framework based on "coolness" I don't know man, saying a social concept can't be useful because it's in flux would mean that no social concept could ever be useful for understanding the present or the past? The language people speak changes a noticeable amount within a mere few years often, can we then say there's no English?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I don't know man, saying a social concept can't be useful because it's in flux would mean that no social concept could ever be useful for understanding the present or the past? As I said in the next post I don't really consider them to be completely useless or anything they're just not really precise enough for serious study.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
I'm perfectly happy with saying, there is biological sex, there are socially constructed gender roles, and for most things you observe a person be or do, it in principle might be one, or the other, or neither. Some things are obviously the former: trivially, men are stronger and taller than women. Some are rather obviously the latter: men have long hair in one society, short hair in another. With others, might in principle turn out to be either way, e.g., interest in abstract philosophical discussions. Some might depend on both, perhaps in quite complicated ways. Since there obviously is biological sex, and just as obviously, some things men do differently from women are entirely socially constructed, I think nobody should want to reduce the terminological inventory here. What the importance of either is is in the end an empirical question: maybe it turns out biology explains 99%, maybe we come to learn it explains 1%. For now, if you're honest and keep up with the research, you'll have to say the uncertainty is high. I assume "male" vs. "man" vs. "XY" would in an ideal world be strictly associated with either concept - i.e., male is biology, man is social, or something like that. Generally, I think the broader the conceptual inventory, the more precise we can be, and the less we fight due to misunderstandings. I have the intuition 90% of fights here come from people misunderstanding each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:As I said in the next post I don't really consider them to be completely useless or anything they're just not really precise enough for serious study. If it's not "precise" enough for serious study, what can be? Like you're kinda saying the vast amount of human culture is unstudyable at that point. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
fishmech posted:If it's not "precise" enough for serious study, what can be? Like you're kinda saying the vast amount of human culture is unstudyable at that point. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'm perfectly happy with saying, there is biological sex, there are socially constructed gender roles, and for most things you observe a person be or do, it in principle might be one, or the other, or neither. Some things are obviously the former: trivially, men are stronger and taller than women. Some are rather obviously the latter: men have long hair in one society, short hair in another. With others, might in principle turn out to be either way, e.g., interest in abstract philosophical discussions. Some might depend on both, perhaps in quite complicated ways. no i am literally having to argue that there is a biological component underlying and to a significant degree overlapping with gender, this is the actual argument we're having. i have repeatedly and explicitly said that the major categories for biological sex are non-exhaustive, which for some reason is seen as essentially excluding. twodot's position is effectively that the notion of sexes as a biological entities is prima facie incoherent, because you'll never be able to produce a definition of sex which is entirely exhaustive and robust. my response to this was pointing to practical use in biological research, and the response was essentially that "male" and "female" as "xx and xy or equivalent with associated phenotypes" is practically incoherent because of the existence of intersex or trans people if you feel that i'm being unfair in this summary, do correct me twodot posted:See argument above for how we would never tolerate this sort of short hand for other topics above "well not everyone in America is recently descended from Europe, but a lot of Americans are people recently descended from Europe, let's just use "Americans" to refer to people in America who are recently descended from Europe". this, in particular, i would like to address, because it's entirely facetious. a biological sex existing and underlying a gender construct is in no way similar to racial attributes, because race really is incoherent as a biological term. you will never be able to construct a racial theory which generally overlaps even closely to the socially extant racial categories we have in our western societies today and, again, it's scientific terminology. you simply cannot accept technical terminology in one species and not in another analogous species. that it is normal scientific practice to use these terms is an empirical fact - you can consider it illegitimate, but it demonstrates that a lot of people with specialist knowledge on the matter find the terms coherent, which seems to be a fairly strong argument that semantic incoherence is not an argument which you can effectively use here i note that you've shifted to an effectively moral discourse, which is a different matter and i'm sure we can call it something else if you feel like it, but the notion of biological sex is not, emphatically, semantically incoherent if a woman has testicles, that woman is a part of the non-included set of individuals re: the two major biological sexes. this has been a fairly straightforward line of mine all along - the categories are not complete. individuals will not fit, and that is fine. for all social, practical purposes, these people are the gender that they're identified with. this does not mean that studies concerning the majority of those claiming those identities (i.e. cis women, cis men) are inherently problematic, nor that such studies should - if trans people are included, since they genuinely are special cases, this may generally be expected to be mentioned. there is undoubtedly interesting research to be made here, too, but a different set of categories is required. for most studies, the two major categories are genuinely all that's needed, since it includes genetic makeup and a bunch of phenotypes if what you're saying is that study X should say "sampled 50 cis women" instead of "sampled 50 women" for reasons of inclusivity i guess that's ok, but that does not mean that cis woman/common parlance "woman" is an a priori invalid biological concept, which is what i reacted to in the first place the reason i didn't want to offer a specific definition of gender is because i genuinely believe it to be pretty much irrelevant to the point i've been trying to make, and the only actual reason for demanding it would be to lash me to a mast of some description and turn the discussion from a general discussion of concepts to a specific discussion of definitions. as, again, i actually said in that same post
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Now that you say it: essentially, yes. Non-STEM science is quite awful. Is there really much Science that doesn't involve Science, Technology, Engineering or Math?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
Anyone else annoyed that when people add arts into STEM, they go with STEAM, instead of TEAMS?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 03:44
|
|