Share this comment
I DID say that Singal had some valid criticisms. But point taken -- I quite agree that Stewart's (mis)understanding of sex and gender is a large part of the problem.
In particular, Stewart, along with too many others, seems to "think" that "male" and "female" encompass the "behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits" that are typically…
I DID say that Singal had some valid criticisms. But point taken -- I quite agree that Stewart's (mis)understanding of sex and gender is a large part of the problem.
In particular, Stewart, along with too many others, seems to "think" that "male" and "female" encompass the "behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits" that are typically associated with one sex or the other, and that are more reasonably the defining criteria for the entirely separate category of "gender":
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender#usage-1
Much of the transgender clusterfuck -- excuse my French -- turns on the conflation of sex and gender, and on a general reluctance to define exactly what is meant by each of those terms. Hence my falling back on the strict biological definitions for the sexes as the only defensible "line in the sand".
But Singal did have a nice summary of that problem in his preliminary review of Byrne's "Trouble With Gender: Sex Facts, Gender Fictions" -- even if that book is rather badly flawed in many ways:
JS: "... but the fact of the matter is that our national conversation about sex and gender and gender identity is completely hamstrung by dumb and incoherent language games. Some of the biggest and most influential players in this space often refuse to even define their terms, let alone use them consistently, or to even try to make clear exactly what they’re arguing when they argue. .... I do think the present, extremely sorry state of philosophy when it comes to sex and gender can be partly explained by the contagious allergy to debate and discussion of difficult subjects that has been contracted by so many thinkers and activists, especially younger ones. "
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/win-a-copy-of-trouble-with-gender
Sadly, UB is more or less in that same boat of "refusing to define their terms" -- not quite sure how she thinks that workable laws around women's rights can be created without them.
But you might have some interest in a Substack post by "Eliza Mondegreen", in particular my conversation with Hippiesq -- another NYC lawyer, and mother of a dysphoric teenager -- who endorses that same definition for gender, even if we're "quibbling" over the definition for sex itself. Of particular note:
Hippiesq: "Sorry to go on and on, but, like you, I think the definition of 'gender' is a big part of the problem here. .... I guess [gender] could be hundreds of different intersecting spectrums ... One might fall well into the masculine zone of some of these little spectrums, towards the middle for others, and more towards the feminine on others ..."
https://elizamondegreen.substack.com/p/lies-darn-lies-and-journalism-with/comment/63147198
If we can't agree on what words mean then we haven't a hope in hell of resolving issues that turn on them.