I just read your other article, on Sam Harris. I don't think it is *as* compelling as the Charles Murray article, but it is still very informative and has mostly good arguments.
It though is riddled with what appears to me pious tribal references to things like "Mansplaining", which is sexist. I've observed that people of a particular political tribe, who often find themselves in the Church of the Awoken, have the tendency to find the bigotry of "minorities" (which irrationally includes women), to be acceptable or even noble. Thus, the same people who think "mansplaining" isn't sexist are more likely to believe black people cannot be racist. I suspect, based on the way you wrote of "feminism" you don't hold people of particular groups to the same rigorous standards of morality or reason that you hold Charles Murray or Mr. Reasonable. That you refer to Mr. Kendi, aka Mr Ministry of [Racist] Anti-Racism, as support in an essay about the statist and totalitarian fantasies of Sam Harris is... quaint.
I'll point out one thing I found to be erroneous.
"Sam Harris constantly deploys insults (“preening,” “delusional,” “unscrupulous”), and as Dan Jones notes, his “style of argument is more about beating people down than engaging in any sort of dialogue that would help him, and others, get straight on deep, complex issues.”
Insults, like calling Charles Murray odious? I could not gather from your article whether you thought him using insults simply watered down his self-image of being Mr Reasonable, or whether you were proposing that insults undermined a person's arguments entirely. I don't think they necessarily do. Insults are *sometimes* just the "rational" outcome of what we believe and feel about people, and they aren't necessarily part of an argument. Charles Murray being odious is not an argument for why his ideas are garbage, but a judgement in response to his ideas and sentiments being garbage, which you do a good job of explaining why you think they are.
So, when Sam Harris says that "feminist epistemology" is crazy, it could just as well be a conclusion, and not a premise. Do you personally think no philosophical ideas are crazy? I doubt that. If you do, I imagine you haven't read much philosophy. I find that highly unlikely though given the breadth of your criticisms of Harris. Which means, your opposition toward Harris calling feminist epistemology crazy may be driven mostly by your attachment to your tribe. I don't know what version of feminist epistemology Sam or you are referring to, but if it supports the pseudo-popular the mind-twisting notion that "transwomen are women", it is definitely crazy. What say you? Are "transwomen" women?
So I will guess your answer to my question is yes, "transwomen" are women. Its okay, you are probably just "displaying the exact intellectual blind spots so typical among men."
I would be delighted to have a conversation with you about trans philosophy and "have a dialogue that would help" you "and others, get straight on deep, complex issues."
Given Nathan's status as a devout follower of the Church of Trans, it's not really that surprising that he would believe that men can be women. But if he's seriously interested in trying to show the rest of the world how to be rationale and to recognize flaws in their arguments, he really needs to take some time to re-examine his nonsensical religious beliefs and drop the science-denying pontificating that he's picked up from the Trans Cult.
Nathan wrote: 'If people become convinced that trans women do not belong in women’s sports, it reinforces the idea that trans women are not "really" women.'
Charles Murray is a racist just as certainly as Lia Thomas is a woman. I think we can all agree on that!
Lia Thomas is not a woman. Biological sex is real and it is not true that everyone who says "I am a woman" is a woman. I totally agree with Jeffrey Peoples - the notion that "transwomen are women" is mind-twisting and has absolutely nothing in common with science. The biological differences between male and female bodies are real and have real consequences.
I just read your other article, on Sam Harris. I don't think it is *as* compelling as the Charles Murray article, but it is still very informative and has mostly good arguments.
It though is riddled with what appears to me pious tribal references to things like "Mansplaining", which is sexist. I've observed that people of a particular political tribe, who often find themselves in the Church of the Awoken, have the tendency to find the bigotry of "minorities" (which irrationally includes women), to be acceptable or even noble. Thus, the same people who think "mansplaining" isn't sexist are more likely to believe black people cannot be racist. I suspect, based on the way you wrote of "feminism" you don't hold people of particular groups to the same rigorous standards of morality or reason that you hold Charles Murray or Mr. Reasonable. That you refer to Mr. Kendi, aka Mr Ministry of [Racist] Anti-Racism, as support in an essay about the statist and totalitarian fantasies of Sam Harris is... quaint.
I'll point out one thing I found to be erroneous.
"Sam Harris constantly deploys insults (“preening,” “delusional,” “unscrupulous”), and as Dan Jones notes, his “style of argument is more about beating people down than engaging in any sort of dialogue that would help him, and others, get straight on deep, complex issues.”
Insults, like calling Charles Murray odious? I could not gather from your article whether you thought him using insults simply watered down his self-image of being Mr Reasonable, or whether you were proposing that insults undermined a person's arguments entirely. I don't think they necessarily do. Insults are *sometimes* just the "rational" outcome of what we believe and feel about people, and they aren't necessarily part of an argument. Charles Murray being odious is not an argument for why his ideas are garbage, but a judgement in response to his ideas and sentiments being garbage, which you do a good job of explaining why you think they are.
So, when Sam Harris says that "feminist epistemology" is crazy, it could just as well be a conclusion, and not a premise. Do you personally think no philosophical ideas are crazy? I doubt that. If you do, I imagine you haven't read much philosophy. I find that highly unlikely though given the breadth of your criticisms of Harris. Which means, your opposition toward Harris calling feminist epistemology crazy may be driven mostly by your attachment to your tribe. I don't know what version of feminist epistemology Sam or you are referring to, but if it supports the pseudo-popular the mind-twisting notion that "transwomen are women", it is definitely crazy. What say you? Are "transwomen" women?
...Oh, you wrote this https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/05/the-arguments-against-trans-athletes-are-bigoted-and-irrational
So I will guess your answer to my question is yes, "transwomen" are women. Its okay, you are probably just "displaying the exact intellectual blind spots so typical among men."
I would be delighted to have a conversation with you about trans philosophy and "have a dialogue that would help" you "and others, get straight on deep, complex issues."
Given Nathan's status as a devout follower of the Church of Trans, it's not really that surprising that he would believe that men can be women. But if he's seriously interested in trying to show the rest of the world how to be rationale and to recognize flaws in their arguments, he really needs to take some time to re-examine his nonsensical religious beliefs and drop the science-denying pontificating that he's picked up from the Trans Cult.
No need to guess...
Nathan wrote: 'If people become convinced that trans women do not belong in women’s sports, it reinforces the idea that trans women are not "really" women.'
Charles Murray is a racist just as certainly as Lia Thomas is a woman. I think we can all agree on that!
Lia Thomas is not a woman. Biological sex is real and it is not true that everyone who says "I am a woman" is a woman. I totally agree with Jeffrey Peoples - the notion that "transwomen are women" is mind-twisting and has absolutely nothing in common with science. The biological differences between male and female bodies are real and have real consequences.