No one said that biological differences don’t exist.
They exist outside of feelings, so I can use them.
You’re right–it is not an accident that I emphasize relevance when discussing a given subject.
Again, you are correct–when it comes to academic social-science issues, I tend to defer to academic social scientists.
So, in your opinion, representatives from which corner(s) of the scientific community should be included when we’re trying to determine the consensus scientific opinion re gender-related science?
I didn’t say anything about Gender Studies professors; I referred to gender scientists.
Funny, that’s the same thing Ptolemy is rumored to have said.
How dare you assume my identity.
No, they can’t, because that would render categories meaningless if individuals can add or subtract criteria arbitrarily to suit individual agendas. But sane people reject that - and the commonly understood meaning of Swedish includes no biological component, and some individual somewhere’s desire to change that is irrelevant in trying to determine whether the former Nigerian is now Swedish.
Sorry about that! Despite what you may think of me, I genuinely appreciate your involvement. I’m going to bed.
Isn’t that what you are doing?
Really? How many people saw the French national soccer team and wondered where the French dudes were?
It’s early. Aren’t you on summer vacation?
Cool. Then you wouldn’t mind providing a citation for a mainstream and current gender-science textbook that uses the binary model as its starting point?
All of them that have relevance, especially the natural sciences, which are far more likely to go where the facts lead no matter whose ox is gored. Gender Studies - which, candidly, is more sociology than science - isn’t the final arbiter of all this stuff.
Ask other folks in the sciences, and you might get an impolite rejoinder that “gender science” is anythung but. Science, meaning.
Instead of trying to quip, wouldn’t it make more sense to point out why I’m wrong? Is there any reason to believe these genetic anomalies - currently miniscule in relation to male/female categories in the population - are going to present in such an exponential uptick in the next generation (or two or three) as to require reclassification of them as something other than rare anomalies?
Uh, nope. Good Lord.
Ten? Thousands? Who cares? Attachment to a nation isn’t the same as gender.
You are defining what being a woman is from simply biology. You are also defining what Swedish is, saying there is no genetic component when there is.
People defining who someone is relevant.
At what point did I claim I knew of and was relying on such a thing?
I said I was familiar with the literature, which I am - and as I said earlier, several times, it’s mostly self-reinforcing articles that is focused less on science and more on ideology.
And one other point I’d raise - it might serve you to have some skepticism when an entire academic discipline has hegemonic thinking on the level of these gender “scientists”. When you have a group like this that lacks diversity, it stands to reason it ain’t science they’re practicing.
I have to make Dr. appointments after looking into them. Oh, and hospitals. Good night.
I’m not - that’s the commonly understood (and commonsensical) definition. It isn’t mine, I didn’t create it.
But you say nurture can trump biology in the case of the black Swede. Identity is therefore not simply a case of genetics. And that is the argument. It isn’t whether or not a transsexual is the biological sex he claims but can he identify with it. If he believed he was a girl as a child and was raised accordingly, nurture is not relevant, only nature? He can dress like a woman. Say he is a woman. Do whatever else we identify with being a woman. But he can’t ask to be referred to as such? The reality of how he behaves, dresses, sees himself, was raised, etc., do not matter because only biology counts when it comes to gender identity? Reminding him that he isn’t a “real” woman is saving the world from extinction? It’s a cause worth fighting for? The truth is, if you were working with a woman you would call her a woman without the world stopping. If you found out she was transgender it still wouldn’t stop if you continued to treat her that way.
Physics? Geology? Really?
Not sure why you think there’s a bright line between sociology and science. (If pursued via the scientific method, sociology is a science.) And as for the assertion that gender science isn’t the final arbiter on gender science…Well, I’m at a loss.
As I am a ‘folk in the sciences,’ I don’t need to ask anyone else.
Note that the term anomalies is quite loaded here–in essence, you are assuming your conclusion. But setting that aside: Why are you trying to limit the issue to so-called genetic anomalies? Even from a strictly biological perspective, there are non-genetic factors that are determinative of gender.
What does the number of so-called anomalies have to do with the truth-status of the model in question?
In this exchange:
But now you walk it back with this:
If your knowledge of the literature on this (or any) subject is limited to a few articles that confirm your previously-held opinion, perhaps you should refrain from claiming familiarity.
Like, say, the way evolution dominates biology? Or entropy dominates thermodynamics? Talk about your hegemonies…Essentially no diversity at all in either of these groups. Must stand to reason that it ain’t science they’re practicing.
Yeah, so, trans-racial?
“But we could carry out genetic testing. Biological differences.”
We can do the same with a man claiming to be a woman. Among other biological tests. And, we’ve agreed to biological differences between men and women. And we’ve used those differences for “man” and “woman” for thousands of years.
“but black means people that…”
It’s a word. We can extend its usage. Just as we’re being asked to with woman, him, etc,
“Now they say gender only refers to a social construct.”
They also say that about race.
Oh, and ‘feelings.’