From Quillette, an MIT professor describes the outraged reaction from fellow philosophers when he argued that a woman is an adult human female. Back in 2019 Alex Byrne wrote one of my favorite essays on the incoherence of gender identity and as far as I can tell no one has managed to offer a solid refutation. Byrne follows up by discussing the difficulties he's had in getting a chapter and a book published on the topic, and his travails are equal parts infuriating and hilarious. For example, consider how a fellow colleague was treated once the crowd got wind that her book might be a bit too
I see your point and the parallel to deBoer's post (which I also liked), but as always, I'm going to continue to call out deBoer for his *absolute blind spot* when it comes to the screamingly obvious problems with gender identity and the hysterical reactions of the progressive left to those of us who point out those obvious problems. He has plenty of company in other Liberal Dudez, but I expect better of him.
The more ridiculous the beliefs one must hold, the more loyal that person seems to their ideology. These are loyalty tests, not tests of intellectual merit. Back when humans lived in small tribes, freethinkers could proclaim to be correct all they wanted... before they were cast out of the tribe to die.
But they do have something. Everything, in a sense - refined emotional blackmail techniques coupled with the backing of institutional power. What else do they need? Rational justification? That’s so last century.
Funny that you quote deBoer, since he is an absolute gender ideologue who brooks no dissent from his commenters, who must rigidly adhere to the ideology or be permanently banned. (As I was, for a a one-sentence comment supporting women's sex-based rights.)
Apr 21, 2023·edited Apr 21, 2023Liked by Yassine Meskhout
I agree, but let’s not pretend to be so mystified about this. Those of us who are experienced enough and honest enough can certainly attest to the presence of fragile intellects and collapsible arguments in every grouping of minds. This is just the latest example.
Reading -- skimming -- Byrne's screed reminds me of Nietzsche's quip about many if not most "philosophers": "they muddy the waters to make them seem deep" -- job security. A quip that fits Byrne & Lawford-Smith to a T.
Totally clueless that there are NO intrinsic meanings to any of our words -- "woman" and "female" in particular. Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt Sinai on tablets A through Z so no definitions qualify as gospel truth.
There is certainly some value in STIPULATING that "woman" means or denotes "adult human female (sex)". However, we might also define the term as "an adult human who has any passing resemblance to any adult human female (sex)" -- which corresponds, more or less, to what many take "woman (gender)" to mean.
But we might also define the term to denote "adult human vagina-haver" which is at least consistent with the definition of "female", in the context of plumbing and electrical connectors, as having a concave mating surface:
The point is that there are many different possible definitions for those terms, and the issue is which one is going to qualify as trump. However, not all definitions are created equal -- the issue then is, or should be, using reason and logic to adjudicate the different claims. Sadly the "debate" looks more like a Lilliputian civil war over egg (ova)-cracking protocols, a reprise of The Rape of the Lock saga (Part Deux): a bloody clown show with a cast of millions.
The incoherency of Gender Ideology has been in the back of my mind for a while. Like there is a purported definition of gender, in the same way I could make up any concept and give attributes to what it means. But Gender Ideology takes that extremely poorly defined concept and makes all kinds of contradictory pronouncements on what we should do with regards to it.
It really seems to have replaced “People with Gender Dysphoria need help” with “People who say they are a thing are the thing and we should use medicine to make them the thing” as the reason for the medicalization of “trans” people.
But they do have something. Everything, in a sense - refined emotional blackmail techniques coupled with the backing of institutional power. What else do they need? Rational justification? That’s so last century.
This is entirely off-topic, and almost certainly outside your area of legal expertise, but I (a lawyer myself) am mystified by the back-and-forth between Disney and Ron DeSantis. I keep reading articles from different sides of the political fence, with both parties repeatedly declaring victory over one hyper-technical point after another, while the articles rarely describe what has actually happened, what it actually means, and what options remain available to the belligerents.
This dispute isn’t actually very important, but my inability to find a trustworthy account of the actual events has frustrated me considerably.
I have profoundly mixed feelings about the whole thing. I understand DeSantis’ attack as a prima facie 1st Amendment violation, but I despise the turn to wokeness in all its forms, and in children’s entertainment it seems especially pernicious.
Contemplate Confucius and the Rectification Of Names.
Short version: "things in actual fact should be made to accord with the implications attached to them by names, the prerequisites for correct living and even efficient government being that all classes of society should accord to what they ought to be".
I see your point and the parallel to deBoer's post (which I also liked), but as always, I'm going to continue to call out deBoer for his *absolute blind spot* when it comes to the screamingly obvious problems with gender identity and the hysterical reactions of the progressive left to those of us who point out those obvious problems. He has plenty of company in other Liberal Dudez, but I expect better of him.
The more ridiculous the beliefs one must hold, the more loyal that person seems to their ideology. These are loyalty tests, not tests of intellectual merit. Back when humans lived in small tribes, freethinkers could proclaim to be correct all they wanted... before they were cast out of the tribe to die.
But they do have something. Everything, in a sense - refined emotional blackmail techniques coupled with the backing of institutional power. What else do they need? Rational justification? That’s so last century.
* cross-posted from article comments.
Funny that you quote deBoer, since he is an absolute gender ideologue who brooks no dissent from his commenters, who must rigidly adhere to the ideology or be permanently banned. (As I was, for a a one-sentence comment supporting women's sex-based rights.)
I agree, but let’s not pretend to be so mystified about this. Those of us who are experienced enough and honest enough can certainly attest to the presence of fragile intellects and collapsible arguments in every grouping of minds. This is just the latest example.
Reading -- skimming -- Byrne's screed reminds me of Nietzsche's quip about many if not most "philosophers": "they muddy the waters to make them seem deep" -- job security. A quip that fits Byrne & Lawford-Smith to a T.
Totally clueless that there are NO intrinsic meanings to any of our words -- "woman" and "female" in particular. Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt Sinai on tablets A through Z so no definitions qualify as gospel truth.
There is certainly some value in STIPULATING that "woman" means or denotes "adult human female (sex)". However, we might also define the term as "an adult human who has any passing resemblance to any adult human female (sex)" -- which corresponds, more or less, to what many take "woman (gender)" to mean.
But we might also define the term to denote "adult human vagina-haver" which is at least consistent with the definition of "female", in the context of plumbing and electrical connectors, as having a concave mating surface:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners
The point is that there are many different possible definitions for those terms, and the issue is which one is going to qualify as trump. However, not all definitions are created equal -- the issue then is, or should be, using reason and logic to adjudicate the different claims. Sadly the "debate" looks more like a Lilliputian civil war over egg (ova)-cracking protocols, a reprise of The Rape of the Lock saga (Part Deux): a bloody clown show with a cast of millions.
The incoherency of Gender Ideology has been in the back of my mind for a while. Like there is a purported definition of gender, in the same way I could make up any concept and give attributes to what it means. But Gender Ideology takes that extremely poorly defined concept and makes all kinds of contradictory pronouncements on what we should do with regards to it.
It really seems to have replaced “People with Gender Dysphoria need help” with “People who say they are a thing are the thing and we should use medicine to make them the thing” as the reason for the medicalization of “trans” people.
But they do have something. Everything, in a sense - refined emotional blackmail techniques coupled with the backing of institutional power. What else do they need? Rational justification? That’s so last century.
This is entirely off-topic, and almost certainly outside your area of legal expertise, but I (a lawyer myself) am mystified by the back-and-forth between Disney and Ron DeSantis. I keep reading articles from different sides of the political fence, with both parties repeatedly declaring victory over one hyper-technical point after another, while the articles rarely describe what has actually happened, what it actually means, and what options remain available to the belligerents.
This dispute isn’t actually very important, but my inability to find a trustworthy account of the actual events has frustrated me considerably.
I have profoundly mixed feelings about the whole thing. I understand DeSantis’ attack as a prima facie 1st Amendment violation, but I despise the turn to wokeness in all its forms, and in children’s entertainment it seems especially pernicious.
Contemplate Confucius and the Rectification Of Names.
Short version: "things in actual fact should be made to accord with the implications attached to them by names, the prerequisites for correct living and even efficient government being that all classes of society should accord to what they ought to be".