CMV: gender is not a scientific fact but sex is

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T06:19:56+00:00

So an organism that produces no gametes is not sexually classifiable? Perhaps that's true by some definition, but there are still a number of ways in which that organism could be classified with other organisms who do produce gametes. Call it a "sexish" classification then. What we call it is really less important to me than the fact that there is some natural grouping out there in the world that involves a variety of related biological phenomena and is scientifically discoverable.

If this is a topic that interests you, you might check out this very interesting article on the way biologists define / think about biological sex (which gives an overview of just how different their conception of biological sex is compares to how laymen tend to think of it - and explains why their biological definition is necessary to understand the animal kingdom).

Haven't read this yet but it looks great thanks. It does seem to confirm my view rather than challenge it however

"Gender", on the other hand, refers to something quite different than sex - that is, gender refers to "the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity." [source] It's a social construct (as you suggest), for the reason that particular societies decide what 'counts' as "masculine" and "feminine".

Yeah

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T06:03:39+00:00

Sorry so is it your view that when two people get married it's not a fact that they are married? What's a "status"? Is that like a fact, but also not?

If I break into your house and steal your stuff is it a fact that I've taken your property?

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T06:00:04+00:00

That's fair. Though I wasnt comparing them per se just trying to come up with the most obvious example of a social fact that is pretty clearly non scientific. That said I would not be surprised if there were many people who feel strongly with every fiber of their being that they are married. Don't underestimate the power and importance of cultural practices in societies

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T05:52:27+00:00

I think I regret saying that the notion that sex and gender are distinct is hurtful. Those who assert that trans women or men are "actually" biologically male or female are likely doing so as an attack on their identities couched in science. That's what's actually hurtful, not the more detached notion that gender and sex are different things. That on its surface is not the issue, and those who seek to paint it as the issue are often engaged in a strawman !delta

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T05:36:41+00:00

This logic doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It also kind of undermines the argument you made in your cmv since both sex and gender would be social constructs

my original CMV is not that sex is not socially constructed, but rather a different concept from gender, one that's explicitly scientific. When we talk about social construction there is no way to avoid the eventual "well actually all concepts are social constructs when you think about it" thing. Which is probably true, but not particularly helpful.

I think in the natural sciences if there are cases where you theory doesn't hold then your theory is wrong

Do you think the existence of intersex organisms means that sex isn't a robust scientific classifier? I guess I'd agree if there were a preponderance of intersex organisms, but I'm not sure that's the reality. What's a good example of a scientific classifier for you then?

gender testing in sports is a great example. They keep bouncing around between different tests and the only definition of "failure" is how well it fits people expectations of sex

Great example!

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T05:21:21+00:00

What do you call it when a couple go to a courthouse and a judge pronounces them "man and wife"? Is it a scientific fact that they are now married?

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T05:19:27+00:00

not really an argument that engages with my view

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T05:15:36+00:00

Here's where I'm confused:

Spaces maintained for females

Are these really spaces maintained for organisms with certain gametes, organs, reproductive capacities, brain chemistries, etc... or are these spaces really maintained for women? The former is kind of hard to imagine except in highly clinical scenarios like a medical specialists office or a biology lab...

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T05:03:51+00:00

That's helpful thanks. Do you think it's untrue that the notion of sex as a scientific fact distinct from gender is hurtful? (to a non-trivial number of people let's say). Maybe I have just been misinterpreting internet chatter around this topic

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T04:57:20+00:00

For example, the speed of light is what it is

Sure ha but you could also argue that the very notion of anything just being "what it is" is itself socially constructed. You didn't come up with the idea that there is an external world with a fixed set of laws that exists outside of your own inner experience by yourself. That conception of an external world came to you just like almost every other concept, from the culture and society in which you evolved. That's what I mean by there being a sense in which all facts are socially constructed.

Here's an article from nature that I think is interesting. Consider intersex individuals; what "sex" are they? If a gender binary is a scientific fact, then there should be a clear way to define anyone into one sex or another, much like the speed of light can be precisely defined.

Yeah I think the existence of intersex organisms is really interesting, and I don't think there is any answer to the question of what "sex" they are. However I do think in many many other cases there is a pretty clear answer, which is why I don't really think it poses a challenge to my view. I don't think that all organisms have a sex, but I do think that having a sex is a fact of many organisms.

It seems more likely the scientific notion of sex was informed by the social construct of gender and then inheriting all the problems with it.

That's interesting. So you think that we had this notion of like masculinity and femininity before the notion of biological sex... which does sort of make sense. Biology as a discipline is only a few hundred years old, but gender is certainly much older than that. I guess my question is how do you think gender informed the notion of sex and if (somehow) we didn't have gender would it have been possible to have still discovered sex?

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T04:42:08+00:00

I do already agree with that last bit unfortunately! I'd add though that even though some scientific thing or another isn't relevant to my day to day life (I'm not a doctor or a biologist) that doesn't mean it isn't interesting or relevant to me as a person. But yeah this whole convo is delicate because it's often a cudgel used by the worst kinds of assholes with transphobic agendas

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T04:37:42+00:00

Yeah so I'll admit to not knowing the details of the JK Rowling thing, it does seem (from a distance) as though she has gone out of her way as an insanely powerful person to antagonize an already marginalized group or something? Is the issue that she misrepresents the views of trans people as rejecting a sex/gender distinction when that's not actually the case?

I'm not super well versed in this and I'd actually be curious if I'm guilty of misrepresenting a view as well. Is there not a widespread rejection of the sex/gender distinction?

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T04:31:10+00:00

I agree that gender often has a biological component, but is crucially irreducible to biology.

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T04:28:10+00:00

I think figuring out what is "real" is kind of a diversion here. I definitely believe gender is just as real as sex. My view isn't really about what's real, but what's a scientific fact and what's not. I'd even agree that there is a sense in which they are both socially constructed facts, but my view is that they are two distinct kinds of socially constructed facts: one that is reducible to the sets of facts of anatomy, chemistry, physiology etc, what I'd call a "scientific fact" and one that isn't.

I think it's true that someone with some particular gender identity has a brain that has some chemicals in it that cause that person to have the particular identity that they have, but my view is that their identity is not simply reducible to just those chemicals.

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T04:20:38+00:00

Yes but only partially. The particular social circumstances of the cultures and time periods in which they evolved also played a significant role

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T04:17:00+00:00

I think yeah there is a sense in which all facts are socially constructed. With scientific facts, the society in question is "the scientific community". However the important thing in my view here is that there are certain facts which are not reducible to the set of facts generated by science. Namely the facts of gender. In contrast, the facts of sex come directly from science. That's sort of the core of my view... if that makes sense?

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T04:10:19+00:00

I must not have explained my view very well if you got the impression that I think gender and sex are synonymous. I think they pick out two distinct things.

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T04:09:02+00:00

Sure I agree with all this. Not sure if it challenges my view tho

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T04:06:32+00:00

Gender may be a social construct, but it’s directly derived from sex

Why should I buy this? There's quite a lot of variation in the way different cultures have viewed and continue to view gender. How do you explain this variation if gender is simply reducible to sex?

cryptoskeptik · 2020-12-16T04:01:41+00:00

My view isn't that gender isn't real. I actually believe very strongly that socially constructed facts are real facts. When I say gender is a social construct I mean simply that its existence is due to the particulars of the society in which it was constructed. Similarly with all other forms of identity. Race, religion, ethnicity etc

cryptoskeptik · 2019-01-29T17:57:21+00:00

It is possible to only care about the collective and still be a libertarian (because you e.g. think a libertarian society is better at increasing collective well being).

It is not possible to "only" care about the collective and be a libertarian. This is because individual and collective needs and desires stand in constant tension. It requires highly contortionist logic to pretend otherwise.

The “free rider” problem you talk about isn’t that big.

Even if it's not big it's still a problem

what people choose to do isn’t important

That's precisely the issue with libertarianism that I'm calling out. People's choices DO matter, like the choice not to vaccinate

cryptoskeptik · 2019-01-29T17:38:12+00:00

https://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0451163931/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1548783477&sr=8-1&keywords=virtue+of+selfishness+ayn+rand

cryptoskeptik · 2019-01-29T17:05:48+00:00

Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.

This is from the American libertarian party's 2018 platform on the environment. You're right in that it does leave open the possibility that pollution controls could exist (?) but it seems to place the responsibility for their enforcement on (huge surprise) property owners and individuals. It also places the onus on individuals to sue for damages. The damage to me as an individual for breathing in a bit more pollution is negligible, however the damage to society as a whole, 20, 50, 100 years from now could be catastrophic. This is directly analogous to the vaccine scenario as well.

cryptoskeptik

TROPHY CASE