John seems to believe pronouns are matter of kindness. But the social context we find ourselves in makes matters more complicated than that, and context is everything:
Two problems, and activism, not compassion vs intolerance, are at the core of both of them:
:
One, there is a new paradigm in town
In the original paradigm, the M-F distinction exists to reflect the fact that you can participate in procreation in only one of two ways. each associated with markers that are present at birth. Unsurprisingly, societies have noted this, and created complex social norms and rituals without knowing anything about chromosomes genes or gametes and without becoming confused by the fact that some people are different is some ways. Here womanhood is not something distributed by acts of kindness, but a distinction of enormous significance across wide ranging disciplines and issues. Anyone presenting with gender dysphoria should be treated with compassion and evidence based care, which will also remain completely open to an examination of the causes of the phenomenon. Social contracts can be negotiated, and interest groups are free to develop any codes of conduct they want amongst themselves. But crucial distinctions are upheld in language.
That paradigm is now challenged, and while many Biden appointees have not had the courage to articulate what it is in front of congress, Maya Wiley, in a recent interaction with Nancy Mace, actually answered the notorious question of what a woman is: “A woman is a person who says she is”, and she continued: “and let me just tell you a story..”
This is revealing both of strategy - tell stories - and of what the core of the paradigm is. It is rooted in social justice ideology. From a logical standpoint a circular definition is put forward. But the rhetorical trick is two-fold: to create the impression that something self-evident, something to be accepted at face value is being said. And secondly, relying on established meaning in order to immediately subvert it! Such methods are necessary, we are told, because the binary is “oppressive” - even in this day and age. Well, nobody likes oppression, but what is left? It becomes self-ID, you are what you claim you are. Is that new paradigm really better than the old one?
Smart people, some of whom have lived experiences of female vulnerability, like J.K Rowling, spotted the problem and noted the asymmetry in consequences for men vs women: The category has been hacked wide open. And the issue has been inserted into a toxic culture war where aggressive activism pushes a non-negotiable binary: you are with us or against us. If you don’t uncritically download the new paradigm you are a transphobe.
Which brings us to the second problem: the trans phenomenon cannot be reduced to simplistic narratives insinuating simple solutions. There are many manifestations, and reasons why someone might claim womanhood, Those differences have social consequences.
Scandinavian and other countries are coming to the realization that the profiles of those presenting as trans have changed and multiplied, and that we do not yet fully grasp the implications of that. They have noted that best evidentiary practices have been bypassed, something that is also the unfortunate consequence of activism.
Some say that this is about gender, not sex, but there is no consistency here, except that the social significance of sex-differences is being undermined. If the same terms are used, confusion will ensue, and has. You have someone like the former Scottish first minister stutteringly trying to articulate what the problem is with allowing rapists into woman prisons. So if your intention is to create clarity, another approach is needed.
So let’s not establish social contracts forced upon us by activism. Let there be room for people to be situationally kind as they see fit, but not be seen as unkind if they have questions. These are muddy waters now.
Yes. Glenn plays the devil's advocate well (but safely ducks offering a personal opinion). John dives in, claims it's a challenging issue, and so wants to default to kindness. He then somehow claims the usage of language is "just skin" and there is a deeper reality, defined by the individual. But really, John's thinking is appallingly shallow. He's playing a surface level technical linguist here, acknowledging the abuses but claiming that the language has nothing to do with it. That's ridiculous. The shared reality we know is what he dismisses as a simplistic view of chromosomes. The modern, "civil" way of looking at it is more complicated, to the point that it is "wise" to not be able to define the term woman. That is precisely the domain of language and law, which John casually abandons.
John seems to believe pronouns are matter of kindness. But the social context we find ourselves in makes matters more complicated than that, and context is everything:
Two problems, and activism, not compassion vs intolerance, are at the core of both of them:
:
One, there is a new paradigm in town
In the original paradigm, the M-F distinction exists to reflect the fact that you can participate in procreation in only one of two ways. each associated with markers that are present at birth. Unsurprisingly, societies have noted this, and created complex social norms and rituals without knowing anything about chromosomes genes or gametes and without becoming confused by the fact that some people are different is some ways. Here womanhood is not something distributed by acts of kindness, but a distinction of enormous significance across wide ranging disciplines and issues. Anyone presenting with gender dysphoria should be treated with compassion and evidence based care, which will also remain completely open to an examination of the causes of the phenomenon. Social contracts can be negotiated, and interest groups are free to develop any codes of conduct they want amongst themselves. But crucial distinctions are upheld in language.
That paradigm is now challenged, and while many Biden appointees have not had the courage to articulate what it is in front of congress, Maya Wiley, in a recent interaction with Nancy Mace, actually answered the notorious question of what a woman is: “A woman is a person who says she is”, and she continued: “and let me just tell you a story..”
This is revealing both of strategy - tell stories - and of what the core of the paradigm is. It is rooted in social justice ideology. From a logical standpoint a circular definition is put forward. But the rhetorical trick is two-fold: to create the impression that something self-evident, something to be accepted at face value is being said. And secondly, relying on established meaning in order to immediately subvert it! Such methods are necessary, we are told, because the binary is “oppressive” - even in this day and age. Well, nobody likes oppression, but what is left? It becomes self-ID, you are what you claim you are. Is that new paradigm really better than the old one?
Smart people, some of whom have lived experiences of female vulnerability, like J.K Rowling, spotted the problem and noted the asymmetry in consequences for men vs women: The category has been hacked wide open. And the issue has been inserted into a toxic culture war where aggressive activism pushes a non-negotiable binary: you are with us or against us. If you don’t uncritically download the new paradigm you are a transphobe.
Which brings us to the second problem: the trans phenomenon cannot be reduced to simplistic narratives insinuating simple solutions. There are many manifestations, and reasons why someone might claim womanhood, Those differences have social consequences.
Scandinavian and other countries are coming to the realization that the profiles of those presenting as trans have changed and multiplied, and that we do not yet fully grasp the implications of that. They have noted that best evidentiary practices have been bypassed, something that is also the unfortunate consequence of activism.
Some say that this is about gender, not sex, but there is no consistency here, except that the social significance of sex-differences is being undermined. If the same terms are used, confusion will ensue, and has. You have someone like the former Scottish first minister stutteringly trying to articulate what the problem is with allowing rapists into woman prisons. So if your intention is to create clarity, another approach is needed.
So let’s not establish social contracts forced upon us by activism. Let there be room for people to be situationally kind as they see fit, but not be seen as unkind if they have questions. These are muddy waters now.
Yes. Glenn plays the devil's advocate well (but safely ducks offering a personal opinion). John dives in, claims it's a challenging issue, and so wants to default to kindness. He then somehow claims the usage of language is "just skin" and there is a deeper reality, defined by the individual. But really, John's thinking is appallingly shallow. He's playing a surface level technical linguist here, acknowledging the abuses but claiming that the language has nothing to do with it. That's ridiculous. The shared reality we know is what he dismisses as a simplistic view of chromosomes. The modern, "civil" way of looking at it is more complicated, to the point that it is "wise" to not be able to define the term woman. That is precisely the domain of language and law, which John casually abandons.