I agree that we have to start the discussion at the conceptual layer gender.
I usually begin by asking “What is gender?” which elicits a few predictable responses that can be easily memorized and refuted.
The first is: Gender is one’s gender-identity.
Response: That is a circular definition. *What* is a person identifying with when they identify with a gender?
Once you’re past that, you usually get one of two responses. Either gender is the behaviors society associates with males and females (sexist stereotypes: men wear pants women wear dressses, boys like blue girls like pink, etc..) or gender is a feeling.
Response to gender is behavior: Saying there is a *correct* way to behave for each sex is sexist. Behavior does not define a person. Wearing dresses is not what makes a woman and woman, nor does it make a man any less of a man. That’s regressive. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to force people to fit sexist stereotypes. You should be ashamed that you’re telling children to base their identity on sexist stereotypes.
Response to gender is a feeling: Which feeling? Any feeling? It would certainly seem so since people claim to be wolf-gender, cake-gender, tree-gender, etc. If gender is feelings, then it can be literally anything since people can feel anything they want. If gender can be literally anything, then it’s a meaningless concept. And if it’s a meaningless concept, then we don’t have to grant special rights to people who invoke it. We might as well give special rights to anyone who has any opinion if that’s the case.
Lastly, they’ll argue that gender is a part of human biology. Like a heart of kidney or lung. Often they will try to prove this by referring to a study that claims to measure “gender-identity” but that simply puts you back in the viscous circle where gender is undefined, so it is unclear what is actually being measured.
Response: Where is the body is gender? Oh, the brain? So you believe that any belief a person holds about themself is actually a part of their biology? So an anorexic woman who believes she is obese is literally obese? Or a 5-foot man who believes he is 6’3 is actually 6-foot 3-inches? No. Obviously not. The existence of a belief is not proof that the belief is true. Some people simply have false beliefs.
And that covers pretty much every single definition of gender you will encounter.
If this why detrans stories can only move people so far? Because there is always another story that’s sad too? Or a person that’s happy with their missing body parts?
A lot of great points. From my perspective I wouldn't say it's just America - I think most countries are seeing the same kind of ambivalence towards critical thinking.
I think the cultural production systems and status seeking drives are the big factors - in that sense, pragmatism is going with the tribe, regardless of the logic. There's enough smoke and mirrors they can hold off their cognitive dissonance as a plausible deniability - 'sex is a spectrum you see, yada, yada'. Underpinning it for the true believers of the progressive utopia, where all special souls are saved.
You are a GENIUS. This could not be more brilliant. I'm going to deploy it at once.
Honestly this approach could apply to ANY argument you wanted to make to Americans. "They cling to their theories even though real life experience has shown over and over that the theories don't work" is like kryptonite to Americans. THANK YOU for that insight!
UB, I had the urge to share this via Twitter, so I went to your account expecting to share your post of it…except it looks like you haven’t (or I’m not seeing it for some reason). Do you plan to? If you don’t, should I also refrain? Or proceed?
Nice article!
I agree that we have to start the discussion at the conceptual layer gender.
I usually begin by asking “What is gender?” which elicits a few predictable responses that can be easily memorized and refuted.
The first is: Gender is one’s gender-identity.
Response: That is a circular definition. *What* is a person identifying with when they identify with a gender?
Once you’re past that, you usually get one of two responses. Either gender is the behaviors society associates with males and females (sexist stereotypes: men wear pants women wear dressses, boys like blue girls like pink, etc..) or gender is a feeling.
Response to gender is behavior: Saying there is a *correct* way to behave for each sex is sexist. Behavior does not define a person. Wearing dresses is not what makes a woman and woman, nor does it make a man any less of a man. That’s regressive. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to force people to fit sexist stereotypes. You should be ashamed that you’re telling children to base their identity on sexist stereotypes.
Response to gender is a feeling: Which feeling? Any feeling? It would certainly seem so since people claim to be wolf-gender, cake-gender, tree-gender, etc. If gender is feelings, then it can be literally anything since people can feel anything they want. If gender can be literally anything, then it’s a meaningless concept. And if it’s a meaningless concept, then we don’t have to grant special rights to people who invoke it. We might as well give special rights to anyone who has any opinion if that’s the case.
Lastly, they’ll argue that gender is a part of human biology. Like a heart of kidney or lung. Often they will try to prove this by referring to a study that claims to measure “gender-identity” but that simply puts you back in the viscous circle where gender is undefined, so it is unclear what is actually being measured.
Response: Where is the body is gender? Oh, the brain? So you believe that any belief a person holds about themself is actually a part of their biology? So an anorexic woman who believes she is obese is literally obese? Or a 5-foot man who believes he is 6’3 is actually 6-foot 3-inches? No. Obviously not. The existence of a belief is not proof that the belief is true. Some people simply have false beliefs.
And that covers pretty much every single definition of gender you will encounter.
This is truly insightful. Thanks.
Absolutely brilliant. Perfect subtitle. Thank you so much for this.
If this why detrans stories can only move people so far? Because there is always another story that’s sad too? Or a person that’s happy with their missing body parts?
A lot of great points. From my perspective I wouldn't say it's just America - I think most countries are seeing the same kind of ambivalence towards critical thinking.
I think the cultural production systems and status seeking drives are the big factors - in that sense, pragmatism is going with the tribe, regardless of the logic. There's enough smoke and mirrors they can hold off their cognitive dissonance as a plausible deniability - 'sex is a spectrum you see, yada, yada'. Underpinning it for the true believers of the progressive utopia, where all special souls are saved.
How to change the cultural production systems?
You are a GENIUS. This could not be more brilliant. I'm going to deploy it at once.
Honestly this approach could apply to ANY argument you wanted to make to Americans. "They cling to their theories even though real life experience has shown over and over that the theories don't work" is like kryptonite to Americans. THANK YOU for that insight!
America loves a story!
UB, I had the urge to share this via Twitter, so I went to your account expecting to share your post of it…except it looks like you haven’t (or I’m not seeing it for some reason). Do you plan to? If you don’t, should I also refrain? Or proceed?
It's up now, please feel free to RT or otherwise share. Thanks!
https://twitter.com/unyieldingbicyc/status/1789020162630238240
Wow, superb. Thanks for this strategic insight which actually makes a lot of sense.
Lots of these doctors aren't white!
Just sayin'