I got into a kind of debate yesterday on what constitutes a scientific claim when it comes to the gender debate (i.e., how does one answer "What is a man?" or "What is a woman?"). My point is as follows, but I wanted to confer with folks here and get opinions on whether I'm just obfuscating the issues or not. I argued that we should be clear on the difference between substantive scientific claims versus how we define terms. When someone says something that like this: "A man is someone who identifies as male" goes against science, which instead says "A man is someone who is biologically male" my counter argument is that two people can actually be in complete agreement on the underlying facts and still disagree on how to define the word "man". I used the analogy of two biologists who agree on all underyling scientific facts but happen to speak totally different languages. For one biologist to understand what the other biologist is saying, and whether they agree with it, they need to agree to use a common language that they both understand. But what often seems to happen in gender debates that are purportedly scientific is that instead people get caught up in definitions. You end up with arguments of this sort: "The gender identity concept is factually incorrect, because it suggests that a man can be a woman, when a 'man' by definition cannot be a 'woman'." which strikes me as totally tautological. I understand that there are substantive disagreements on which language is best in order to foster clear communication (which effective science depends on). Like different scientists will argue for different scientific models to describe the same underlying reality, because choosing the wrong model is more likely to lead one to dead ends in their scientific investigative work. But this would be a disagreement over which scientific model is more useful -- not necessarily a disagreement over which underlying facts are true. Thoughts?
There is an issue with terminology. I’m fine labeling a person whatever gender they identify as. However biologically they are not that gender. The only real conflict I see is in sports where biological males can identify as female and crush biological females. If you object somehow that is transphobia. So you have some people who would rather ruin women sports than admit that identity is not biology.
Thanks for your response. There are some who argue that "gender identity" does map to a biological feature that develops in early childhood. If that turns out to be true, do you still think that gender should not be defined according to it?
I guess this is where it hinges, and you weren't specific about what models would be used for in this conversation you relate. There might be biology topics where sex is the significant factor or maybe pyschological topics where gender is the driver. Today, we're mostly seeing it in the politics of inclusion and exclusion. "Male", "female", "sex", "gender" are used to win a rhetorical fight. Where definitions might be tools in a scientific conversation, they are weapons in a political one. Of course, if you can force your opponent to accept your definitions you will gain the terrain advantage and ultimately win the fight. So, no one is going to concede to your definitions. They might not even stay put on their own definitions to avoid being outflanked. If appealing to 'science' is useful to pressing some advantage, they'll use that. If that's no good, maybe 'logic' or 'tradition' or 'religion' or 'progress' or 'common sense' or 'civil order' or 'pragmatism' will work better. They also have a quiver-full of rhetorical fallacies they can employ. Anyway, good luck trying to come to some agreement on definitions with someone who doesn't already agree with you.
I’m not being sarcastic. Is a bull the same as a cow? Is a chicken the same as a hen? Half our generic makeup is based on sex chromosomes. An animal is either XX or XY with a few very rare exceptions. The biological features that may affect gender identity are insignificant compared to the other differences between the sexes.
OK. So, your argument is that gender and sex should be interchangeable and defined according to that biological property that is most influential in determining one's physical sexual characteristics. And that would be sex chromosomes. While others might argue that gender should be defined separately from "sex" and refer to one's innate sense of male or female identity. Your view is that even if that sense of male or female identity is innate and has a biological basis, we still shouldn't use the word "gender" to refer to that. phenomenon. Did I capture the difference correctly?
This is a rehash of other trans threads. There's resistance and debate for gender being a social construct. Jewish people have defined 6 genders. Sex is still biological, but even that isn't a coin flip. Maybe you have XXY or your plumbing is damaged in utero or by a shitty doctor at birth or thru puberty. Humans are complex. It makes sense to have another layer of what humans think other humans are on top of what each thinks of themselves.
let me add to the previous comment with a link to "Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender": https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/
Crap. I meant rooster. A cow is female. The point being that there are large gender differences related to genetics.
I see the problem. I hadn’t realized that gender had been redefined to be associated with identity. I’m fine with that distinction. I always use the two terms interchangeably. If gender is identity and sex is biology then it solves the terminology issue.
What's topical about the animal reference is that the food/restaurant industry has long tried (and been successful) in convincing consumers of the animal meat they're serving. Chilean sea bass in some restaurants is really some other cheaper white fish. Lobster might only have langostino in it. Fake crab = K-rab. Pink slime as 100% chicken. People like simple and repeatable references. Reality and belief of it is a bit different.
