|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#2281 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,842
|
Absolutely. Whether we are talking about tools or talking about different uses of a word, we should use one appropriate to the situation.
In my opinion, when deciding whether someone ought to be allowed to see my sister naked in the shower, we should use the biological definition of "man". |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2282 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 5,293
|
That depends on the nature of your objection.
If it's because of the behaviors often exhibited by males, then we're really still talking about gender and gendered expectations, not biology. Plus, when we're talking about adults of consenting age, deciding by sex is not how it really works. Plenty of men can shower with other men, but if they find out one of them is gay, suddenly it's a "big deal." Plenty of women quite want to be seen naked by men they approve of doing so. So it seems to have a lot more to do with dynamics of attraction or whatever other criteria that particular person has, socialized norms all buried under a double-scoop of hasty generalizations assigning all of that to a binary, biological "hard-wiring." |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2283 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,842
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2284 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 5,293
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2285 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
|
|
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax" |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2286 |
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,688
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2287 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,842
|
Again, I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I'll play along and see.
No, they are not. The trans man is saying something along the lines of "Despite my biological condition, I feel more like a man than a woman. Indeed, the thought of me as a woman causes me anxiety. (i.e. dysphoria). Therefore, I will identify myself as a man. When a biological male is told by someone, "You are not a man." the speaker is making a judgment about the other person, saying that although he possesses the biology of a male, his character does not meet a sufficiently stereotypically masculine pattern to be considered a "true man". Perhaps the male is cowardly, or weak, or is insufficiently stoic (as is "take it like a man"). These are extremely different senses. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2288 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1,860
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2289 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
|
In my long experience someone can be as brave and stoic as all get out but it would not cut it with the "You're not a man" crowd if he has the wrong voice, mannerisms, interests etc.
On the other hand if someone has the right mannerisms, voice etc he will be accepted as a man no matter how cowardly or unstoic he is. So we have, on the one hand, biological males who consider themselves "men" in some mysterious non-biological sense. And on the other hand we have biological females who consider themselves "men" in some mysterious non-biological sense. I don't understand either, but I don't see any big difference, never mind an extreme difference. |
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax" |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2290 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,842
|
I think we are dealing with three different senses of the word.
When in doubt, we should ask google. Google knows everything. When I google the phrase "real man", the first hit was to Urban Dictionary. In that lingo, a "real man" was synonymous with "old fashioned" in the way they act toward women. The next entry was a question "What does it mean to be a real man?" And the answer began, " 'A real Man' for me, personally is someone with true Dignity, Integrity, and willing to sacrifice himself to take care of others.'A real Man' is someone who has the up most respect for Women, therefore does not harm them in any way.'A real Man' is someone who doesn't give up as easily..." That was the sense I was talking about as a "real man", and it seems that me and google are on the same page with that phrase. What you are talking about is someone who has effeminate mannerisms, and certainly their masculinity is questioned, and, especially in times gone by they were ridiculed, shunned, or bullied. Similarly, and with some overlap, a homosexual might be considered less masculine. So those are three different senses in which someone's "manhood" might be thrown into doubt. However, in none of those senses would anyone think to call those people actual women. Interestingly, we can think of the corresponding cases for women. "Real woman" is somewhat fuzzier, and used far less frequently as a phrase than "real man". Googling the phrase ends up with far more diverse answers. Interestingly, the most common use of the phrase in the top google hits was actually some sort of "less than perfect" sense. "Real women" were ordinary women who were not supermodels or did not fit some sort of idealized version of beauty or sex appeal. However, there were also other uses of the phrase for all sorts of different attributes. The phrase wasn't as common or the usage not as consistent as "real man". On the other hand, corresponding to the sense of effeminacy in men, women who are "butch" might be called less feminine, and homosexual women might have their femininity questioned. Again, though, though, these sorts of women would not be considered actual men. People who were not "real men", or men who were "girly" or women who were "butch" weren't perceived as the opposite sex. They were more perceived as somehow sexless. So there are multiple senses of words that might be used, or have been used in the recent past, to signal that a person who was a given biological sex somehow did not fit into some sort of idealized version of that sex, and so were not "really" a man or a woman, or were "less of" a man or woman, but in no sense of those words was there ever a sense that made them actually part of the other sex. In short, I'm still not following your reasoning. If we talk about biological males who were somehow said to not be "real men", or otherwise characterized as something other than male, they sure as heck weren't considered to be "real women" either. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2291 |
Other (please write in)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,281
|
For an analogous situation, for many races there are derogatory terms oreo/banana/etc. for not being "real" Black/Chinese/etc people. But no one takes that to mean Rachel Dolezal could possibly be a Black person. (Again, I'm not claiming trans people are like Dolezal, I am making the reference in the context of an argument I think is problematic and reject.)
My problem with the line of argument is that it seems to endorse that gender non-conforming people really aren't men or women, so it is a weirdly conservative and reactionary take. |
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2292 |
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,688
|
Sorry, but do you mind clarifying your question in the last paragraph?
Yes I am probably dim |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2293 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,080
|
Saw an interesting exchange on this topic recently, between a former JREF poster and another skeptic blogger named Andy Lewis.
https://twitter.com/skepchicks/statu...04236620460032 https://twitter.com/lecanardnoir/sta...23227644420101 http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2020...cepticism.html |
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2294 |
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 46,402
|
You know, I read that and didn't clock the "Rebecca" part at the time. My bad. Sudden lightbulb moment.
|
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2295 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,080
|
I think it's fair to say that Andy is doing scientific skepticism somewhat better than Rebecca at this point, inasmuch as he is carefully outlining and addressing specific scientific questions under dispute. He is, alas, completely failing at signaling social virtue in the usual sense.
|
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2296 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 48,031
|
Graham Linehan (author of Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd, among other things), is under attack on Twitter (there's a hashtag!) for making what seem to me reasonable points.
Quote:
|
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2297 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,640
|
I don't think unanimous approval is necessary.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2298 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,080
|
I'd be impressed if enough consensus was achieved among native speakers of English (men and women alike) to get the new meaning of the word listed as a lexical definitionWP in one or two standard dictionaries of the language.
|
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2299 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,023
|
I wouldn't, because it doesn't actually take consensus among native speakers of English, but only among the editors of said standard dictionary. Although ideally the editor's consensus matches the consensus of English speakers, there is no mechanism to actually enforce that. And we are under exactly the conditions where you might expect them to diverge: a politically contentious issue with strident activists who apply pressure to use preferred definitions.
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2300 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,023
|
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2301 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,640
|
Sooner or later, M-W and Oxford are going to turn into Urban Dictionary.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2302 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,080
|
Fair point, but have said activists converged on a definition which isn't explicitly self-referential yet? (I hear dictionarists are uptight about that sort of thing.)
|
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2303 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
|
|
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax" |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2304 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,842
|
Well it seems I am not very good at following pretty straightforward reasoning. I keep thinking you must be getting at something, but it seems that I'm not very good at figuring out what it is, so I'll give up trying to figure out the import of any questions you have.
I'll continue to answer them, though, if you would like answers. I'll go back to your last one.
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2305 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,729
|
A man beat a transgender woman for using the correct bathroom -- the women's. Now he's guilty of a hate crime
Originally Posted by CNN
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2306 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,080
|
|
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2307 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,023
|
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2308 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,080
|
I thought the really telling bit was where the author collapses the ideas of sex and gender into a sort of conceptual melting pot.
Quote:
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk |
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2309 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,023
|
"biological gender". The original point of introducing gender as separate from sex was that gender wasn't supposed to be biological even though sex was. Now sex is to be completely replaced by gender, which can be either social or biological, but is fluid in both cases. The efforts to create newspeak continue apace.
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2310 |
The Grammar Tyrant
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 27,953
|
The problem - as always - comes back to the level playing field.
Women have been denied that for all human history, and the gender wage gap reveals it's still happening in 2019, when the idea of gender can't be discussed outside of allowing trans women all the rights of women, as well as the biological advantage being born a bloke confers by way of strength, bone structure and muscle mass. The most important part of the Op-Ed seems to be the bit under the photo, which says:
Quote:
Boo - bloody - hoo. Half a dozen women are harmed by the decision, 3.5 billion are empowered. |
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2311 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 6,080
|
Agreed. If you're going to have a separate league for adults who have never experienced the advantaging effects of endogenous testosterone, you have to have some way of determining who gets to play in that league. The author of the Globe and Mail piece basically sidesteps this problem (so far as I can tell) in favor of subjective personal identity.
|
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2312 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 91,292
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2313 |
The Grammar Tyrant
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 27,953
|
|
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2314 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,640
|
This thread starts off shaky, but then gets into the thick of it:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=292005 Here's another one that gets right into it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=184875 |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2315 |
Other (please write in)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,281
|
Connecticut allowing trans girls to compete without restriction in school sports is letting the ADF look reasonable. This is going to be a successful wedge issue for conservatives.
|
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2316 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,640
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2317 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24,842
|
It already is.
I think it gave us President Trump. No, nobody ever says, "I'm voting for Trump because he will kick the boys off the girls' track team." but I remember listening to Hugh Hewitt (one of the more reasonable right wing radio yappers) on November 8, 2016 exhorting people to get out and vote, especially in swing states. Among the lines in his litany of reasons to make sure to get to the polls was, "Come on, North Carolina! Are you going to let the NCAA tell you what to do!" It was a close election. This is the sort of issue that makes 1% of the people say, "You've got to be kidding me." |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2318 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 20,166
|
You know, I'm back on the position that socially transitioned girls are girls and should be free to compete. A girl is a girl, and they are girl. Some girls will have natural athletic advantages than others for various reasons. This just so happens to be theirs.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2319 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,147
|
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2320 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 20,166
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|