IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


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.
Reply
Old 31st July 2022, 03:44 PM   #281
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,413
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I think you might be being asked for examples. I suspect the next questions, when you have given examples, will be - what they mean by "valid", do they in fact mean "is a woman", or something else? If they mean, "is a woman", why do they think that they are a woman?

Being an expert doesn't mean we take their unnuanced assertions as fact. Maybe, like "racism", they have changed the definition of "woman" rather than discovering any fundamental truth in the nature of the existing concept?

Perhaps you're unaware that in matters related to fundamental identity/character, there's usually almost no "fundamental truth"? Rather, we rely - not unequivocally of course, but primarily - on the judgement-call conclusions of those people who are expert in these matters. People such as psychiatrists and psychologists. The people who come across patients frequently, and who have the experience/knowledge/skill to compare different people and interrogate different people in order to make their judgements.

Let me perhaps refer you back to the reclassification of homosexuality. In the modern post-industrialisation era, the prevailing medical/scientific view on homosexuality - right up to 1986, astonishingly - was that homosexuality was a psychiatric disorder. But as psychiatrists and psychologists learned more, and applied their knowledge & experience to dig deep into the minds of gay people, they ultimately concluded (in a special amendment to DSMIII, I think) that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder, but rather it is a valid identity in its own right.

And subsequently, (most of) the "western world" (outside of fundamental religions, of course) now completely accepts that a gay person is not suffering from either a delusion or a mental illness/deficiency.....
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2022, 03:50 PM   #282
Olmstead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,128
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Maybe read DSMV?

Or do some other reading on the subject?

(You are aware, aren't you, that transgender identity is now considered valid by the experts in the relevant fields? And that they arrived at this opinion by means a great deal more exhaustive and extensive than sticking a finger into the wind? I ask because it seems to me that this fact keeps slipping your mind....)
It'll be a dark day when transgender identities are classified as invalid. Gender reassignment surgery might make people functional and happy, but because their identity is invalid, we'll have to keep them dysfunctional and miserable.
Olmstead is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2022, 04:05 PM   #283
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Perhaps you're unaware that in matters related to fundamental identity/character, there's usually almost no "fundamental truth"? Rather, we rely - not unequivocally of course, but primarily - on the judgement-call conclusions of those people who are expert in these matters. People such as psychiatrists and psychologists. The people who come across patients frequently, and who have the experience/knowledge/skill to compare different people and interrogate different people in order to make their judgements.
If there is no fundamental truth, then an expert is in no better position than I am to say whether a trans-woman is a woman. I'm pretty sure I posted a few days ago that this wasn't something that expertise could answer. Now you seem to be agreeing with me, there is no fundamental truth. No expert in the world can say that the traditional definition of "woman" is wrong.

That being the case, why should we defer to an expert in psychology? What are they going to tell us, that their patient really and truly believes that they are a woman? Sure, but they aren't. That their patient would be happier if I thought of them as a woman? Sure, but they aren't. Psychologists aren't priests that we defer to to receive revealed non-rational truths. Psychologists aren't party apparatchiks that we defer to for political truths that we accept without question.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Let me perhaps refer you back to the reclassification of homosexuality. In the modern post-industrialisation era, the prevailing medical/scientific view on homosexuality - right up to 1986, astonishingly - was that homosexuality was a psychiatric disorder. But as psychiatrists and psychologists learned more, and applied their knowledge & experience to dig deep into the minds of gay people, they ultimately concluded (in a special amendment to DSMIII, I think) that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder, but rather it is a valid identity in its own right.
I'm not at all sure that that is what happened, and it makes no difference to the current case. You can't simultaneously contend that there is no fundamental truth, and that we should defer to experts. If there is no fundamental truth, it amounts to having a political truth dictated to us. Maybe you are right and the reclassification of homosexuality was indeed such a decision, and "trans-women are women" is also. Why should I defer to a psychiatrist for such political truths any more than I would a priest? There is no fundamental truth that they have special access to after all.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
And subsequently, (most of) the "western world" (outside of fundamental religions, of course) now completely accepts that a gay person is not suffering from either a delusion or a mental illness/deficiency.....
This is a political change? Why should I defer to a psychologist for political truths? We all know what the politically correct answers to these questions is, the issue is we disagree with the politically correct answer.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2022, 04:20 PM   #284
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 48,676
Post moved to the DSD thread because I think it was getting off-topic here. Linky.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post13867864
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 31st July 2022 at 04:48 PM.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2022, 05:15 PM   #285
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Maybe read DSMV?
I'm at least 80% sure that you haven't read the relevant chapter of the DSM-5, because if you had done so you would know that it makes no mention of whether and when any given "identity is now considered valid." About the most one can say is that identity itself is no longer clinically pathologized, as it was in the previous DSM.

In my copy of the manual, the chapter starts on page 451. I'd be happy to type out a paragraph or so here, if it would help you clarify any of your claims about experts and validity.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2022, 05:22 PM   #286
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 48,676
I'd still like LondonJohn to explain what he means by "valid".
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2022, 05:31 PM   #287
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,951
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I'm at least 80% sure that you haven't read the relevant chapter of the DSM-5, because if you had done so you would know that it makes no mention of whether and when any given "identity is now considered valid." About the most one can say is that identity itself is no longer clinically pathologized, as it was in the previous DSM.

In my copy of the manual, the chapter starts on page 451. I'd be happy to type out a paragraph or so here, if it would help you clarify any of your claims about experts and validity.
This is not true.

In DSM-IV what is now called gender dysphoria was called gender identity disorder. In DSM5 the name of the condition was changed to gender dysphoria to focus on the distress rather than identity and to reduce stigma. However, the presence of dysphoria (distress and functional impairment) was already an essential requirement for diagnosis of gender identity disorder in DSM-IV, meaning that identity itself was not considered a disorder.

The idea that simply having a cross-sex identity without dysphoria was previously considered a disorder is promoted by activists to draw false parallels with the declassification of homosexuality as a disorder, as well as to discredit entire bodies of literature based on earlier editions of the DSM, because the results of that literature do not support their narrative. Unfortunately, this myth is frequently accepted without question and repeated across multiple sources.

Here is an explanation of the rationale for the change from gender identity disorder to gender dysphoria in DSM5 written by the working group who actually made the change.

Memo Outlining Evidence for Change for Gender Identity Disorder
in the DSM-5
__________________
"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." - Salman Rushdie.
Elaedith is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2022, 05:36 PM   #288
Olmstead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,128
Psychiatry doesn't make such value judgments. Homosexuality wasn't socially acceptable, so it was a mental illness. Now it is socially acceptable, so it isn't a mental illness. There isn't anything more to it.
Olmstead is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2022, 06:14 PM   #289
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
In DSM-IV what is now called gender dysphoria was called gender identity disorder. In DSM5 the name of the condition was changed to gender dysphoria to focus on the distress rather than identity and to reduce stigma. However, the presence of dysphoria (distress and functional impairment) was already an essential requirement for diagnosis of gender identity disorder in DSM-IV, meaning that identity itself was not considered a disorder.
I stand corrected. The relevant line in the current DSM is this:
Quote:
The current term is more descriptive than the previous DSM-IV term gender identity disorder and focuses on dysphoria as the clinical problem, not identity per se.
This was as close as anything I could find to what LondonJohn seems to be saying.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2022, 03:19 PM   #290
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,951
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I stand corrected. The relevant line in the current DSM is this: (The current term is more descriptive than the previous DSM-IV term gender identity disorder and focuses on dysphoria as the clinical problem, not identity per se.)
Yes, the focus in the name of the condition was changed from identity to distress and the word 'disorder' to be removed. This is what enabled the misrepresentation that just 'having a trans identity' used to be considered a disorder but then with the DSM5 everything changed and the diagnosis became just about distress.

Jesse Singal has gone into this issue in quite a lot of depth including in his critiques of the 2021 articles in SBM as this misrepresentation was repeated there (I don't know if you saw this before).

'This, too, is a common and misleading trope. Ever since the DSM-5 was published in 2013, a bunch of people have falsely spread the rumor that “being transgender,” or “exhibiting gender diversity,” or some other, similar thing, switched from being a mental disorder in IV to not being a mental disorder in 5. But as I explained at length in this newsletter, when you look at the texts of the DSM-IV (where the relevant condition is “gender identity disorder”) and -5 (where it was renamed “gender dysphoria”), that just isn’t true at all. In neither document is someone considered to have a mental illness simply for “being transgender...'


In this post Singal shoes the screenshots for diagnostic criteria in DSMIV and DSM5 side-by-side to show how similar they are.


In spite of this SBM repeated the misrepresentation only a few weeks ago.
__________________
"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." - Salman Rushdie.
Elaedith is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2022, 05:49 PM   #291
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Maybe read DSMV?
I've read the DSM-V entries on Gender Dysphoria. Absolutely NOWHERE does DSM say that transgender identities are valid, nor even imply such. In fact, DSM-V doesn't address transgender identities in any way whatsoever. And it most certainly does NOT imply that transmen are men, or that transwomen are women. Not in any way, shape, or form.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Or do some other reading on the subject?

(You are aware, aren't you, that transgender identity is now considered valid by the experts in the relevant fields? And that they arrived at this opinion by means a great deal more exhaustive and extensive than sticking a finger into the wind? I ask because it seems to me that this fact keeps slipping your mind....)
WHICH experts? If there are so very many authoritative experts in so very many relevant fields, it should be sophomorically easy for you to provide actual relevance and cites to support your assertion.

Without such, you only have sophisticated theology.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2022, 05:50 PM   #292
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Perhaps you're unaware that in matters related to fundamental identity/character, there's usually almost no "fundamental truth"? Rather, we rely - not unequivocally of course, but primarily - on the judgement-call conclusions of those people who are expert in these matters. People such as psychiatrists and psychologists. The people who come across patients frequently, and who have the experience/knowledge/skill to compare different people and interrogate different people in order to make their judgements.

Let me perhaps refer you back to the reclassification of homosexuality. ...
Let me refer you back to the diagnosis and treatment of repressed memories...
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 04:44 AM   #293
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
In fact, DSM-V doesn't address transgender identities in any way whatsoever.
This isn't entirely true.

Quote:
Gender identity is a category of social identity and refers to an individual's identification as male, female, or, occasionally, some category other than male or female. Gender dysphoria as a general descriptive term refers to an individual's affective/cognitive discontent with the assigned gender but is more specifically defined when used as a diagnostic category. Transgender refers to the broad spectrum of individuals who transiently or persistently identify with a gender different from their natal gender.
Italics in original, highlighting mine.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 2nd August 2022 at 04:48 AM.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 11:53 AM   #294
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 205
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I'd still like LondonJohn to explain what he means by "valid".
Sprinkled with gendered holy water? Has eaten a wafer from the body of Judith Butler?
Steersman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 12:10 PM   #295
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 205
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
This isn't entirely true.

Italics in original, highlighting mine.
You might be amused - or horrified - by a recent tweet from Matt - What Is a Woman? - Walsh (and JPG below):

https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/st...82790952656899

Even more so when you take a look at Merriam-Webster's similar definition for "male":

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/male

Quote:
Definition of male (Entry 1 of 2)
1a(1): of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to produce relatively small, usually motile gametes which fertilize the eggs of a female

b: having a gender identity that is the opposite of female
What a bunch of cretins; Merriam-Webster has sold their soul and bought into the "Circular Definitions R Us" franchise.

Whatever gender identity ideologues mean by "female (gender identity)" is clearly not at all what the rest of us mean by "female (sex)". Not quite sure how the former think that their idiosyncratic, entirely subjective, circular and content-free re-definitions justify any claims to any rights that society grants - wisely or not - to those individuals who meet the objective criteria implicit in the conventional and standard biological definitions.

My recent elaboration on that theme:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substa...ents-corrupted
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Tweets_MattWalsh_MerriamWebster_GenderIdentity_1A.jpg (62.0 KB, 0 views)
Steersman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 12:16 PM   #296
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,483
In as much as a dictionary catalogues how language is used, all you have to do to change the dictionary is to get a bunch of academics to make up a new meaning and start using it. What are the dictionary people supposed to do? Suppress the new meaning? They aren't the Académie Française!
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 12:17 PM   #297
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,243
Self-identities arising from gender dysphoria are presumably a mechanism for coping with the distress of the condition. We can certainly have a reasoned, science-based discussion about whether affirming these identities are a healthy part of a medically sound course of treatment for the dysphoria. We can have a reasoned, science-based discussion of how far this treatment should extend, and for what medical value. Should it include social transition? Bodily alteration? Transcending of sex-segregated spaces?

We can have that discussion - but only about people who have actually been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and who have been prescribed a transgender identity as part of their treatment. Unfortunately, hanging the discussion on a recognized medical condition, its diagnosis, and its treatment, is anathema to trans-activists. As I'm fond of saying, this would be a very different discussion if it were actually on this basis. I think that LJ and others would find the reaction much more humanitarian and supportive if the discussion were on a sound medical basis.

But it isn't, and TRAs don't want it to be.

So that leaves us with self-identities not arising from gender dysphoria (which in LJ's framework isn't even a medical condition anyway). For me, self-identities arising from whim or whimsy or ideological capture or any other "non-medical" process need very little in the way of accommodations in public policy. But that's exactly what LJ and others want.

A man says he's really a sexy blue fox and also a wind elf, no big deal. A man says he's really a woman, and suddenly he has a right to demand recognition as such. He has a right to transcend sex segregation, and suddenly the burden is on everyone else to show why it shouldn't be so.

Tolerating - even welcoming! - genderqueer expressions is one thing. That I can get behind. I think preferred pronouns are silly, but if all you ask is that I not be a jerk to you because you wear your fursona on your sleeve, that I can happily do.

But transcending sex segregation is something else entirely. That's intolerable to me. And to the extent that all the seemingly innocuous accommodations - such as preferred pronouns - are part of an effort to normalize transsexuality, those become intolerable to me as well.

There's probably a lot of innocent transgender folk out there, who don't deserve my suspicion and reticence. But they're getting it anyway, because they're being used as stalking horses for the transsexual rights activists, and among them are some who are co-conspirators.

Bringing it back around to the central topic of the thread: What does "identifies as" mean, when it comes to transgender self-identity? Does it mean "I suffer from gender dysphoria, and adopting a transgender identity helps me ameliorate the distress I feel; please do what you can to support this"? Or does it mean, "it's like a fursona, no big deal, feel free to leave us alone if this isn't your thing"?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.

Last edited by theprestige; 2nd August 2022 at 12:19 PM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 12:26 PM   #298
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 205
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
In as much as a dictionary catalogues how language is used, all you have to do to change the dictionary is to get a bunch of academics to make up a new meaning and start using it. What are the dictionary people supposed to do? Suppress the new meaning? They aren't the Académie Française!
Sure. But dictionaries aren't gospel truth. As I often say, Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt. Sinai on tablets A through Z.

Such definitions are, in fact, socially constructed. But they're not all created equal - if they lead to logical contradictions then Houston, we have a problem; then they should be deprecated if not anathematized. "So let it be written, so let it be done" ...

All Merriam-Webster is doing by publishing such definitions is turning themselves into something hardly better than the Urban Dictionary.

Just because words are used - or rather misused - in certain ways does not mean that they're compatible with more fundamental principles which kind of have to be trump. Principles which, sadly, far too many haven't got a clue about - and are too pigheaded to learn about.

Rather brilliant summation of that point by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder:

Quote:
No one has any idea why mathematics works so well to describe nature, but it is arguably an empirical fact that it works. …. The maybe most important lesson physicists have learned over the past centuries is that if a theory has internal inconsistencies, it is wrong. By internal inconsistencies, I mean that the theory’s axioms lead to statements that contradict each other.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/201...nevitable.html
Steersman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 12:26 PM   #299
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
What a bunch of cretins; Merriam-Webster has sold their soul and bought into the "Circular Definitions R Us" franchise.
Do you have any objection to "typically" in the first definition?

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What does "identifies as" mean, when it comes to transgender self-identity? Does it mean "I suffer from gender dysphoria, and adopting a transgender identity helps me ameliorate the distress I feel; please do what you can to support this"? Or does it mean, "it's like a fursona, no big deal, feel free to leave us alone if this isn't your thing"?
I've seen both, but then I've also seen people demand that their fursonas be respected with the neopronouns "fur/furself" so who knows? At the risk of being identified as furphobic, I try to avoid actual social interaction with furries.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 2nd August 2022 at 12:34 PM.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 12:29 PM   #300
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,483
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Bringing it back around to the central topic of the thread: What does "identifies as" mean, when it comes to transgender self-identity? Does it mean "I suffer from gender dysphoria, and adopting a transgender identity helps me ameliorate the distress I feel; please do what you can to support this"? Or does it mean, "it's like a fursona, no big deal, feel free to leave us alone if this isn't your thing"?
I think you are missing out the aspect that, if you accept the logic of the TRA "identifies as", "trans-women are women" crowd, there is nothing to your gender beyond identity either. The nature of your identity must be reconceptualised as well.

Last edited by shuttlt; 2nd August 2022 at 12:30 PM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 12:44 PM   #301
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 205
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Do you have any objection to "typically" in the first definition?

<snip>
Yea, I do - big time. A mealy-mouthed definition that evades the question of exactly what are the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for "female (sex)" category membership.

If there are other conditions - which ones? wearing pink dresses? - that also qualify individuals for membership then basically they're arguing that "female (sex)" is a spectrum. Them and Novella - and Hilton, and Jerry Coyne, and far too many others. Frauds, scientism-ists, the lot.

See:

Quote:
An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extens...al_definitions
Steersman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 01:03 PM   #302
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 205
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I think you are missing out the aspect that, if you accept the logic of the TRA "identifies as", "trans-women are women" crowd, there is nothing to your gender beyond identity either. The nature of your identity must be reconceptualised as well.
Exactly right. If there are no objective correlates, no objective properties that qualify individuals for membership in the "female (gender identity)" and "male (gender identity) categories then they're totally content-free, useless if not worse than useless.

Though that's not to say that "gender" itself - in contradistinction to "gender identity" - is an entirely useless concept. At least to the extent that "gender" can be "reconceptualized" into something more or less equivalent to personalities and personality types - as more than a few are attempting to do, myself included.

For example, see my recent kick at that kitty and, in particular, a quote of Janet Hyde of the University of Wisconsin, all in the section on "Rationalized Gender":

Quote:
But the foregoing emphasizes that anyone can be more masculine on some traits, on some axes of that multi-dimensional gender spectrum, while being more feminine on other traits. For example, a person, of either sex, who is very agreeable and 6 ft. 1 in. tall (185. cm) is therefore hyper-feminine AND hyper-masculine, although on entirely different axes. So a great deal of justification to argue that gender is in fact a spectrum, but it’s a seriously problematic misperception to suggest that it’s only one-dimensional. Quite an illuminating article - Gender Similarities and Differences - by Janet Hyde on that perspective:

Quote:
Moreover, this difference or distance is along a dimension in multivariate space that is a linear combination of the original variables, but this dimension is uninterpretable. What does it mean to say that there are large differences in personality, lumping together distinct aspects such as emotional stability, dominance, and vigilance? Certainly contemporary personality theorists do not argue that there is a single dimension to personality.
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/welcome
Steersman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 01:04 PM   #303
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,243
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Do you have any objection to "typically" in the first definition?

I've seen both, but then I've also seen people demand that their fursonas be respected with the neopronouns "fur/furself" so who knows? At the risk of being identified as furphobic, I try to avoid actual social interaction with furries.
Thankfully I've only seen neopronouns online. The day I see one in the workplace is the day I'll seriously consider inquiring with HR if policy mandates I respect them. And then I'll bin the inquiry, since I have no interest in attracting that kind of attention from my employer in the current climate.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 01:05 PM   #304
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,243
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I think you are missing out the aspect that, if you accept the logic of the TRA "identifies as", "trans-women are women" crowd, there is nothing to your gender beyond identity either. The nature of your identity must be reconceptualised as well.
I have no opinion about that.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 02:09 PM   #305
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
A mealy-mouthed definition that evades the question of exactly what are the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for "female (sex)" category membership.

If there are other conditions - which ones?
Here you go:
Quote:
We have seen that when we say an organism has a sex, what we mean is that it has developed along one of the two evolved pathways that support one of the two gamete types. This allows us to classify in principle any individual in a gonochoric species (one sex per individual) as either male or female. We must observe which reproductive anatomy has developed: is it associated with sperm or eggs?
Via Quackometer; h/t Elaedith
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 2nd August 2022 at 02:11 PM.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 02:09 PM   #306
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 205
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Thankfully I've only seen neopronouns online. The day I see one in the workplace is the day I'll seriously consider inquiring with HR if policy mandates I respect them. And then I'll bin the inquiry, since I have no interest in attracting that kind of attention from my employer in the current climate.


https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/edmund_burke_377528

Largely why Tavistock was given free rein to butcher defenseless children for some 18 years:

Quote:
The Tavistock scandal shows the dangers of civil service groupthink

I was advised not to listen to Keira’s harrowing story but I overruled that: ministers must overcome obstacles to find the truth
https://archive.ph/2022.07.30-172911...-827.0-845.128
Steersman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 02:25 PM   #307
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 205
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Here you go:


Via Quackometer;
You might take a gander at the 64 comments there, some 25 of which are mine:

https://www.quackometer.net/blog/202...comment-175082

https://www.quackometer.net/blog/202...comment-175191

Lewis is another fraud who's peddling the structure-absent-function definitions of Hilton and Company that still boil down into spectra that are little better than the "patchwork definitions of [so-called] social sciences", than what he's throwing stones at Novella for.

Kind of amused - if a bit disconcerted - that Andy has memory-holed two of my last comments. Which I'll probably post on my Substack at one point. But he's hardly better than PZ Myers for enforcing an orthodoxy and banning those who challenge it; kind of ironic given that I recollect that Andy was similarly defenestrated there.

Apropos of such defenestration over "heresies" of one sort or another, see my comments - as Fred Kadiddlehopper - on PZ's post on Walsh's documentary and his response to me:

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...omment-2141695

No one complains until it is their own ox that's being gored ...
Steersman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 02:48 PM   #308
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
You might take a gander at the 64 comments there, some 25 of which are mine:
https://www.quackometer.net/blog/202...comment-175082
I am highly skeptical that either Jussi Lehtonen or Geoff A. Parker have ever asserted that pre-pubertal boys aren't yet male or that post-menopausal women are no longer female. To the extent that you are leaning on their definitions to reach that (absurd) conclusion, I think your trust is misplaced.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 03:28 PM   #309
porch
Muse
 
porch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 680
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
You might take a gander at the 64 comments there, some 25 of which are mine:

https://www.quackometer.net/blog/202...comment-175082

https://www.quackometer.net/blog/202...comment-175191

Lewis is another fraud who's peddling the structure-absent-function definitions of Hilton and Company that still boil down into spectra that are little better than the "patchwork definitions of [so-called] social sciences", than what he's throwing stones at Novella for.

Kind of amused - if a bit disconcerted - that Andy has memory-holed two of my last comments. Which I'll probably post on my Substack at one point. But he's hardly better than PZ Myers for enforcing an orthodoxy and banning those who challenge it; kind of ironic given that I recollect that Andy was similarly defenestrated there.

Apropos of such defenestration over "heresies" of one sort or another, see my comments - as Fred Kadiddlehopper - on PZ's post on Walsh's documentary and his response to me:

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...omment-2141695

No one complains until it is their own ox that's being gored ...

A couple comments on a couple comments:

1. A vasectomy does not inhibit sperm production.

2. Clownfish? No. Don't do that.
porch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 03:38 PM   #310
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,243
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
It'll be a dark day when transgender identities are classified as invalid. Gender reassignment surgery might make people functional and happy, but because their identity is invalid, we'll have to keep them dysfunctional and miserable. : rolleyes :
No darker a day than when otherkin identities were considered invalid.

Or when bodily identities arising from BIID were considered invalid.

Also, "gender reassignment surgery" doesn't make sense. It should really be called transsexual emulation surgery, and should be regarded with as much trepidation as surgery to treat BIID distress.

But perhaps you meant to say it would be a dark day when transgender identities were recognized as arising from a serious mental health condition, and not just a fiat affectation.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.

Last edited by theprestige; 2nd August 2022 at 04:13 PM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 03:46 PM   #311
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
You might take a gander at the 64 comments there, some 25 of which are mine:

https://www.quackometer.net/blog/202...comment-175082

https://www.quackometer.net/blog/202...comment-175191
I note that your posts are the only ones making the claim that prepubescent, menopausal, and sterile humans are "sexless". All of the other seem to be either 1) arguing with your extremely narrow definition or 2) being persnickety about the nature of bimodal distributions.

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Lewis is another fraud who's peddling the structure-absent-function definitions of Hilton and Company that still boil down into spectra that are little better than the "patchwork definitions of [so-called] social sciences", than what he's throwing stones at Novella for.
You've done a lot of calling other (well respected) people "frauds" and implying that they're completely wrong. You seem to think that we (general we) should accept your view on the basis of nothing more than your say-so.

If you wish rational, educated people to ignore the views of people in relevant fields and to accept your definition instead, I think you will need to provide some justification for why you are more of an authority than they.

Right now, you mostly seem to be providing a gish gallop of posts, with minimal real engagement. Additionally, you have several fundamental comprehension errors in your arguments, indeed, comprehension errors even with respect to the dictionary definitions that you keep referencing.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 04:04 PM   #312
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 205
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I am highly skeptical that either Jussi Lehtonen or Geoff A. Parker have ever asserted that pre-pubertal boys aren't yet male or that post-menopausal women are no longer female.
You think that whoever "promulgated" the definition for "teenager" - i.e., those between 13 & 19, inclusive - should have specified that those younger than 13 or older than 19 didn't qualify?

That IS what "necessary and sufficient" MEANS; those exclusions are implicit.

In addition to which, you might note the definition for "distinguish":

Quote:
distinguish (transitive verb): to separate into kinds, classes, or categories
distinguish words by their part of speech
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguish

That is clearly and exactly what Parker & Lehtonen were doing: separating into mutually exclusive categories by stipulating the necessary and sufficient conditions for each of the two sexes.

Wonder if you ever took a look at the "metrics" for that 2014 article of theirs .... Rather popular by the look of it, though maybe moot whether those reading it ever got as far as the Glossary:

https://oxfordjournals.altmetric.com...802153/twitter

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
To the extent that you are leaning on their definitions to reach that (absurd) conclusion, I think your trust is misplaced.
Conan Doyle:
Quote:
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/a...n_doyle_134512

J.B.S. Haldane:
Quote:
“The four stages of acceptance:
1. This is worthless nonsense.
2. This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
3. This is true, but quite unimportant.
4. I always said so."

(Review of The Truth About Death, in: Journal of Genetics 1963, Vol. 58, p.464)”


https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/786...hless-nonsense
Steersman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 04:10 PM   #313
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 205
Originally Posted by porch View Post
A couple comments on a couple comments:

1. A vasectomy does not inhibit sperm production.
But it clearly does "inhibit" reproductive function. The sine qua non of male and female:

Quote:
Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/sex

Originally Posted by porch View Post
2. Clownfish? No. Don't do that.
You'd prefer a separate definition for the sexes when they pertain to humans, and another one for all of the other sexually-reproducing species?

A rather egregious case of special pleading, of "special creation" ...
Steersman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 04:20 PM   #314
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 48,676
Just as an aside. I'm doing a Gaelic course on Zoom at the moment. The tutor remarked that in Gaelic you're a teenager starting at eleven. (The numbers start being "teen" - deug - at eleven, not thirteen.)
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 04:25 PM   #315
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
That is clearly and exactly what Parker & Lehtonen were doing: separating into mutually exclusive categories by stipulating the necessary and sufficient conditions for each of the two sexes.
If at some point either author claimed that pre-pubertal boys and post-menopausal women are neither male nor female, I will retract my skepticism of your idiosyncratic interpretation of their definitions. Until then, I'd say you are on your own with no subject matter experts backing you up.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 2nd August 2022 at 04:26 PM.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 04:36 PM   #316
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 205
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
If at some point either author claimed that pre-pubertal boys and post-menopausal women are neither male nor female, I will retract my skepticism of your idiosyncratic interpretation of their definitions. Until then, I'd say you are on your own with no subject matter experts backing you up.
No true Scotsman, eh?

But you don't think that a well-regarded professor and expert in the philosophy of biology - i.e., Paul Griffiths - qualifies as a relevant "subject matter expert"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Griffiths

And I might also mention that PZ Myers also explicitly endorsed that "interpretation":

https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/1466458067491598342

At least in his Dr. Jekyll phase ...
Steersman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 04:43 PM   #317
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 205
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Just as an aside. I'm doing a Gaelic course on Zoom at the moment. The tutor remarked that in Gaelic you're a teenager starting at eleven. (The numbers start being "teen" - deug - at eleven, not thirteen.)
Interesting.

You might be interested in an article on "natural kinds" that I'm trying to chew my way through - heavy going - for another Substack post in view. But of particular note:

Quote:
Scientific disciplines frequently divide the particulars they study into kinds and theorize about those kinds. To say that a kind is natural is to say that it corresponds to a grouping that reflects the structure of the natural world rather than the interests and actions of human beings.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/

By which one might argue that "teenager" is something of an artificial kind, rather than a natural one. Though still subject to the rules that govern category membership.
Steersman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 05:06 PM   #318
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
But you don't think that a well-regarded professor and expert in the philosophy of biology - i.e., Paul Griffiths - qualifies as a relevant "subject matter expert"?
Sure, but he has to be balanced against any number of well-qualified biologists and physicians who feel perfectly comfortable using phrases like postmenopausal female, if he's going to make the case that the phrase carries no meaning on account of internal semantic contradiction.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 05:15 PM   #319
porch
Muse
 
porch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 680
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
But it clearly does "inhibit" reproductive function. The sine qua non of male and female:



https://www.lexico.com/definition/sex

You are the one who has been pumping your definition of male and female by the strict criteria of gamete production. I am pointing out that your exclusion of vasectomized persons from the male category is inconsistent with your own definition.
porch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2022, 05:23 PM   #320
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 205
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Sure, but he has to be balanced against any number of well-qualified biologists and physicians who feel perfectly comfortable using phrases like postmenopausal female, if he's going to make the case that the phrase carries no meaning on account of internal semantic contradiction.
"well-qualified biologists and physicians" - quote, unquote.

You mean like Novella? Like PZ, in his Mr. Hyde phase, & his 7 sexes of horses? Like the authors of those 300 out of some 320 papers which used "gender" to refer to fish? That Rolfe and Company were laughing at?

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...15.2012.687265

You're far too quick to take someone wearing a lab-coat for some kind of an expert, to think that what they say is gospel truth. The only way of separating wheat and chaff is to go back to first principles.

What ARE the definitions for the sexes on the books? Which sources are promoting and subscribing to them? What are the principles implicit in their phrasing and terminology?

Carl Sagan in his Demon-Haunted World suggested or claimed that some 90% of us are "scientifically illiterate" - sadly including far too many so-called scientists. But that just makes too many of us easy marks for the charlatans and grifters. Or the sloppy thinkers or those with an axe to grind or with "vested interests".
Steersman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.