Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[d4m10n]

Go look at the comments below his article, and then try to keep denying that this has nothing to do with public policy, and his audience isn't concerned about those policy questions.

We're all concerned, but that doesn't imply that Novella's arguments actually support any particular policy outcome, or were even intended to do so.

Like I keep saying, the only real debate is the debate about trans rights in public policy.

Whether my friends choose to go along with their kids' pronoun preferences has nothing to do with public policy, it is an entirely social and perhaps ethical question and it comes up with surprising frequency. I'd discuss that sort of thing in another thread, but all trans-related content gets dumped back here.

Everything else is just framing for that debate.

This strikes me as an arbitrary narrowing of the topic to the sort of questions we aren't actually expected to resolve except indirectly via the occasional vote.

 

[theprestige]

Yes. Everything else is just framing for that debate.

Some people seem overly excited by or committed to a weirdly abstract and doctrinaire debate. But from its inception, this thread has been about practical applications.

 

[theprestige]

We're all concerned, but that doesn't imply that Novella's arguments actually support any particular policy outcome, or were even intended to do so.

Whether my friends choose to go along with their kids' pronoun preferences has nothing to do with public policy, it is an entirely social and perhaps ethical question and it comes up with surprising frequency. I'd discuss that sort of thing in another thread, but all trans-related content gets dumped back here.

This strikes me as an arbitrary narrowing of the topic to the sort of questions we aren't actually expected to resolve except through the occasional vote.

Nobody here cares about what pronouns your friend uses with their children in the privacy of their own home.

The only question is whether your friend's preferred pronoun usage becomes a mandatory thing in public policy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah sex is definitely a 'what' I agree, you can do a blood test to demonstrate it.


The bit i made yellow sounds like you're actually comparing yourself to a gender stereotype without realising it? You are saying as a woman you have to deal with the yellow stuff? but everyone, regardless of gender has to deal with that stuff.

I suppose you could view it as a response to a gender stereotype. That's not necessarily wrong. The point I was making is that my personality, including my intransigent resistance to being dismissed when I actually know some ◊◊◊◊, is part of *who* I am, not *what* I am.

 

[Ziggurat]

We're all concerned, but that doesn't imply that Novella's arguments actually support any particular policy outcome, or were even intended to do so.

I do not believe you are actually this naive. I think you’re trying to play devil’s advocate in taking a position you don’t really believe.

That’s the charitable interpretation.

Whether my friends choose to go along with their kids' pronoun preferences has nothing to do with public policy,

Depends where you live. In some places it absolutely does.

This strikes me as an arbitrary narrowing of the topic to the sort of questions we aren't actually expected to resolve except indirectly via the occasional vote.

There is nothing arbitrary about my narrowing. I already explained why I narrowed the conversation. I did so to narrowly address a topic p0lka had brought up without having to unnecessarily relitigate a bunch of other ◊◊◊◊ I don’t consider to actually be in dispute. If you want to fringe reset, have fun, I’m not playing along.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nobody here cares about what pronouns your friend uses with their children in the privacy of their own home.

In some places, the courts care. And I for one care about that.

 

[smartcooky]

How can anyone with a scientific understanding of biology take anything Novella says these days at all seriously. The guy was once a well-respected skeptic.. he has now well and truly gone over to the Dark Side. Novella has long since fallen off my list of people I respect and pay any attention to. This sort of thing from him...

Biological Sex Is Not Binary

The notion that sex is not strictly binary is not even scientifically controversial. Among experts it is a given, an unavoidable conclusion derived from actually understanding the biology of sex. It is more accurate to describe biological sex in humans as bimodal, but not strictly binary. Bimodal means that there are essentially two dimensions to the continuum of biological sex. In order for sex to be binary there would need to be two non-overlapping and unambiguous ends to that continuum, but there clearly isn’t. There is every conceivable type of overlap in the middle – hence bimodal, but not binary.

... is utter claptrap. No peer-reviewed paper on biology, written by an actual biologist, has ever claimed that sex is “bimodal”. They might occasional claim that characteristic differences in various features of one sex or the other might be bimodal, but sex itself is not.

Anyway, apparently this digression is not supposed to be part of this discussion, but that of another thread (I actually disagree).

 

[p0lka]

I suppose you could view it as a response to a gender stereotype. That's not necessarily wrong. The point I was making is that my personality, including my intransigent resistance to being dismissed when I actually know some ◊◊◊◊, is part of *who* I am, not *what* I am.

Got it. I apologize for my opinion about the yellow bit as i was a bit drunk and I still don't know where I was going with it, so sorry..

 

[p0lka]

How can anyone with a scientific understanding of biology take anything Novella says these days at all seriously. The guy was once a well-respected skeptic.. he has now well and truly gone over to the Dark Side. Novella has long since fallen off my list of people I respect and pay any attention to. This sort of thing from him...


... is utter claptrap. No peer-reviewed paper on biology, written by an actual biologist, has ever claimed that sex is “bimodal”. They might occasional claim that characteristic differences in various features of one sex or the other might be bimodal, but sex itself is not.

Anyway, apparently this digression is not supposed to be part of this discussion, but that of another thread (I actually disagree).

Ziggurat only brought it up to demonstrate to me that people were actually talking nonsense and getting away with it.

 

[theprestige]

How can anyone with a scientific understanding of biology take anything Novella says these days at all seriously. The guy was once a well-respected skeptic.. he has now well and truly gone over to the Dark Side. Novella has long since fallen off my list of people I respect and pay any attention to. This sort of thing from him...


... is utter claptrap. No peer-reviewed paper on biology, written by an actual biologist, has ever claimed that sex is “bimodal”. They might occasional claim that characteristic differences in various features of one sex or the other might be bimodal, but sex itself is not.

Anyway, apparently this digression is not supposed to be part of this discussion, but that of another thread (I actually disagree).

I think it has a place in both discussions. There, as a discussion of the science and biology of sex in humans. Here, as a discussion of the anti-science rhetoric being employed by TRAs.

 

[d4m10n]

Nobody here cares about what pronouns your friend uses with their children in the privacy of their own home.

I don't recall any poll questions ever being fielded to test this hypothesis of yours, which you present here as an unqualified factual statement, but I'd be happy to watch that poll play out to see if you are correct, assuming the mods would allow it.

Lack of evidence aside, it's hard for me to imagine how anyone could say that there are good policy arguments for banning gender affirming care but no good ethical arguments against the sort of social transition (including pronouns) which makes medical transition into a seemingly necessary next step from the perspective of the adolescent transitioner on the brink of puberty.

If you want to fringe reset, have fun, I’m not playing along.

I've never accepted the notion of a "fringe reset," since it's usually used to dissuade new posters from asking old questions.

Now that we have search functionality, I'd say it's more pointless than ever.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've never accepted the notion of a "fringe reset," since it's usually used to dissuade new posters from asking old questions.

The question of whether sex is binary or bimodal is a very old question, and has already been hashed out at length both in this thread and the science forum one. You're criticizing me for not addressing it here (which is really what me not treating Novella's argument according to the principle of charity amounts to), but there's no point in me addressing it again. And you don't have the excuse of being a new poster to this thread, so your distaste for the fringe reset argument isn't even applicable. You aren't a noob, you should know better.

 

[smartcooky]

I've never accepted the notion of a "fringe reset," since it's usually used to dissuade new posters from asking old questions.

You've never participated in the JFK assassination thread have you, or a Moon landing hoax thread on other forums?

Remember that fringe resets usually follow a flounce - i.e. done by the same posters who have already asked those old questions, had them answered repeatedly and definitively, disappeared from the thread for a while, and then come back is if there hasn't been weeks or months of discussions in the intervening time.

I would not consider the line of questions by @p0lka to be a fringe reset. Certain other posters in this thread - not so much.

Now that we have search functionality, I'd say it's more pointless than ever.

Quite the opposite. Now that we have a search function, there is less excuse than ever for re-asking old questions.

 

[d4m10n]

The question of whether sex is binary or bimodal is a very old question, and has already been hashed out at length both in this thread and the science forum one. You're criticizing me for not addressing it here (which is really what me not treating Novella's argument according to the principle of charity amounts to), but there's no point in me addressing it again.

I've already conceded that the argument for bimodality fails spectacularly, in fact, I've argued for that position elsewhere.

Novella's primary argument is intended to conclude "humanity cannot be placed entirely into two categories" (M/F) and the bimodality claim needn't be true in order for that specific conclusion to be true. If his main conclusion is shown to be true, no specific public policy conclusions actually follow from it being true, at least not AFAICT.

 

[d4m10n]

Mark your calendars for tomorrow if you are interested in hearing the United States v. Skrmetti^WP arguments live.

Detailed coverage of how that one turned out from Nicholas Confessore at the New York Times (gift link) includes a pretty detailed and lengthy overview of the history of transactivism and gender medicine in the U.S.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've already conceded that the argument for bimodality fails spectacularly, in fact, I've argued for that position elsewhere.

I note that you have studiously avoided saying that sex is binary.

Novella's argument is intended to conclude "humanity cannot be placed entirely into two categories" (M/F) and the bimodality claim needn't be true in order for that specific conclusion to be true.

Stop with this sophistry already. Novella argues that you can't use M/F binary because sex is a bimodal spectrum. He's not claiming it might be trinary. This isn't one of those mathematical puzzles where it suffices to show one answer is false without showing what answer is true. There are only two options on offer here: binary and spectrum. Nobody is proposing anything else.

If it is shown to be true, no specific public policy conclusions follow from it being true.

Oh, bull ◊◊◊◊. Of course specific public policy conclusions follow from that. That's the entire ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ point. ALL of this is about public policy. Absent public policy, NOBODY CARES. But people do care, because specific public policy conclusions absolutely are tied to whether sex is binary or a spectrum. If it's binary, then sex segregation without exceptions is justified. If it's a spectrum, you have to allow for exceptions. EVERYONE knows this. That's why people argue about this ◊◊◊◊ even if they're not explicitly making policy recommendations, because they know how those conclusions link to policy. Everyone knows.

And it's deeply dishonest of you to keep pretending otherwise.

 

[Ziggurat]

I would not consider the line of questions by @p0lka to be a fringe reset.

Neither would I. d4m10n was doing the fringe reset, not p0lka.

 

[d4m10n]

Novella argues that you can't use M/F binary because sex is a bimodal spectrum.

No, he argues that there are too many different varieties of sex (gametic, genetic, morphological, etc.) to construct an overarching binary atop all of those various meanings which don't always line up.

There are only two options on offer here: binary and spectrum

False dilemma.

I note that you have studiously avoided saying that sex is binary.

Novella was correct to point out that gametic sex is binary.

Morphological sex obviously isn't, hence the Quigley scale^WP.

 

[d4m10n]

Of course specific public policy conclusions follow from that.

Such as?

...specific public policy conclusions absolutely are tied to whether sex is binary or a spectrum.

I remain skeptical of this claim. Seems to me that it's pretty easy to turn any actual spectrum into a binary—for purposes of discriminating between groups—if we arbitrarily assign a cutoff point somewhere along the spectrum. Ever heard of the brown paper bag test^WP or the Peter Griffin skin color chart meme? Those determined to implement a binary in public policy can do so even when faced with a spectrum.

 

[Ziggurat]

I remain skeptical of this claim.

Then you aren't paying attention.

Forget what's logically possible. Public policy debates don't actually work like that. Just look at what position each side in the debate has actually staked out. The side that wants to maintain sex segregation says that sex is binary. The side that wants to be able to circumvent sex segregation says that sex is a spectrum. These positions are inextricably linked. It doesn't matter that you don't think they should be, it doesn't matter if logically they don't have to be, in practice they are. And pretending they aren't because in some hypothetical world it would be logically possible for them not to be is just stupid.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP> for rule 12 breach.