I hadn’t heard of the substitution hypothesis but sounds similar conceptually to what Nietzsche talked about with the death of God but that the affect would be substituting one delusion for another instead of resulting in moral atrophy.
This made me wonder if perhaps mass delusion is simply a human constant and what changes are belief systems and that things have always been this way more or less throughout human societies and we are just better enabled by technology and surveillance to see the craziness of our world unfold in real time. I’ve always wondered what an iPhone would capture if we could travel back in time...
When you read a book like ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,’ and then peruse social media and see what most of us give our time and money to in this life that is the impression you walk away with-that we are sadly light years away from humans collectively reaching a more ideal rational and compassionate world that people like Dawkins and Sagan have poetically argued their whole lives for.
The „Woke Mind Virus“ (WOMIV20 ;)) infects only people who‘s minds are not strong enough to think for themselves. The fact that „woke“ has become such a successful memeplex, unfortunately, is evidence that mindfulness and free thinking is on the decline in Western societies. Is this an inevitability, or can it be reversed?
“not strong enough to think for themselves”?! <- Dunning-Kruger? Or those who think they are strong thinkers are simply critical of others with whom they disagree. Assuming you’re better than someone else is simply a tactic to discredit ideas that differ from your own.
It’s rather that „As long as you’re part of the delusion, you‘ll never be able to recognize it“ seems to apply to you.
Besides that, you’re just giving a good example of the prevailing strategy of the „liberal“, woke leftist: always accuse your opponents of the exact things you’re arguing or doing by yourself.
Transgenderism is clearly a religion. Jesus rose from the dead. A man can become a woman. Both are examples of a kind of magical thinking protected in the US by the First Amendment as is my belief as an atheist that they are religious nonsense.
Not entirely. No doubt there's a great deal of unscientific claptrap and outright woo that comes under that rubric -- a "merging of science, magic, and religion" in the view of Canadian cultural anthropologist Sahar Sadjadi:
But many reputable people and sources -- like, for starters, the British Medical Journal [BMJ], Canada's Statistics department, the late Justice Scalia, and many of the more rational feminists -- more or less DEFINE gender as synonymous with sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types:
Even if they're all rather rough around the edges, being charitable.
But given the premise that "gender" is roughly analogous to those sexually dimorphic personalities AND personality types, it is not a major stretch to see "gender identity" as analogous to personal identity, a topic on which the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP] has an illuminating article giving weight to the idea. Paraphrasing them:
SEP [paraphrased]: "Outside of philosophy, [gender identity’] usually refers to [sexually dimorphic personality traits] to which we feel a special sense of attachment or ownership. Someone’s [gender identity] in this sense consists of those [feminine and masculine personality traits] she takes to 'define her as a person' or 'make her the person she is', and which distinguish her from others."
No doubt there's a great deal of "magical thinking" wrapped under the "bows" of "gender" and "gender identity". But don't think it helps at all that so many -- including Richard -- are so quick to dismiss more scientific, rational, logical, and philosophically sound conceptualizations of the terms.
Kinda think you're both barking up the wrong trees -- several of them at least, particularly relative to your "mass denial about the truth of gender". What "truth" might that be?
Richard in particular seems to waffle a lot, suggesting it's synonymous with sex, and other times that it refers merely to various "gender stereotypes". Where do the latter come from if not from the behaviours of individual people? Analogously, there is the stereotype of "introvert", but it only exists because many people are, in fact, introverted to one degree or another.
If people can't or won't define their terms then some reason to argue they're more a part of the problem than of the solution. As philosopher Will Durant put it relative to a quip of Voltaire's:
Durant: “ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
I don't think Dawkins' error here has much to do with definitions as the completely wrong mental attitude he has towards science. Transgenders want to live in a world where gender is not inextricably linked to sex, never mind the "objectivity" of the want. The question asked by Dawkins should not immediately be "what does natural law have to say about this?" because "natural law" is the exact thing these human beings are trying to surmount. In an ideal human order, in a world where human desire is achieved, we wouldn't be constrained by natural law. Science should help us achieve this order, not pontificate about how human beings should learn to be okay with their place in the natural order while making senile generalizations.
"Transgenders want to live in a world where gender is not inextricably linked to sex ..."
No doubt that IF we DEFINE "gender" as "sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types" THEN it's probably true that very few of them are joined at the hip with any given sex. But if they want to try denying statistical correlations and "heavily influenced by sex" then all I have to say is, " 'Rots of 'ruck". They might just as well try to square the circle. Or to "repeal" the "law" of gravity. Or to repudiate the fact that large gametes and small gametes have been around for a billion years or so, and that that has, in all probability, been part and parcel of sexual dimorphism in hundreds of traits, many of a psychological nature, in literally millions of species.
You might want to try doing some reading in biology:
But which "natural law" might it be that transgenders are "trying to surmount"? All that transwomen, in particular, seem to be trying, rather desperately, to "surmount" is the fact that no human producer of small gametes -- i.e., males -- will EVER produce large ones -- i.e., the defining trait of females.
I agree that denying basic scientific facts is self-defeating for trans people, but I deny this fiction that nature is more real or substantial than human desire is, which you haven’t claimed but have implied with all your ostentation over the facts of biology. Why enslave our minds to these facts? Humanity should pass through these facts and utilize them for higher human purposes, not passively accept their brute tyranny and sit around while thousands of our species buckle beneath their senseless weight. I deny the voiceless mechanisms of the natural universe any absolute authority over how we as humans should think and act (whatever relative authority it seems to have, it does not deserve). It has no wisdom; it has no teleological purpose or value from a genuine human standpoint; it would, in fact, look much different if humans were running the show. This isn’t square-circle logic either; the law of gravity may not be able to be “repealed”, but we can and have overcome its tyranny through scientific development (spacecraft). Why can’t the same be true for gender? Why can’t we at least attempt to kick the scaffolding of natural sexuality beneath the feet of gender once and for all with the iron foot of science?
Oodles of people, their name is legion if not infamous -- mostly various transactivists and their "useful/useless idiots", but many so-called biologists and philosophers do likewise. For a case of the former, though partly of the latter, see this post by transwoman and "biologist" Julia Serano, this bit in particular:
JS: "People tend to harbor essentialist beliefs about sex — that is, they presume that each sex category has an underlying 'essence' that makes them what they are. This is what leads people to assume that trans women remain 'biologically male' despite the fact that many of our sex characteristics are now female. However, there is no 'essence' underlying sex; it is simply a collection of sexually dimorphic traits."
He's clearly in the spectrumist camp, although he does have a point or two -- for example, there really is no intrinsic meaning to the terms "male" and "female". We can define those categories any way we wish -- pay the words extra. But the point is that standard biological definitions STIPULATE that, in effect, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless.
Though he's rather clueless about the nature of categories -- most "biologists" are: there's no "essence" to them, only "necessary and/or sufficient conditions" for category membership:
Analogously, there's no "essence" to "teenager" -- if we are 13 to 19 then we gets a membership card and if we aren't then we don't, or we get an existing one "revoked".
But for an elaboration on the latter group, see my post on the "Battle Royale" -- AKA Lilliputian civil war, Rape of the Lock (Part Deux) -- between the binarists, of various stripes, and the spectrumists:
Hakma: "... but we can and have overcome its tyranny through scientific development (spacecraft)."
Do let us all know when some transwoman replaces his testicles with functioning ovaries of his own. Then and only then will he qualify as a female (sex, not gender):
Hakma: "Why can’t the same be true for gender? Why can’t we kick the scaffolding of natural sexuality beneath the feet of gender once and for all with the iron foot of science?"
What, pray tell, do you MEAN by "gender"? Sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types? Which is the more credible definition, at least to first approximation. Or pink for girls & blue for boys?
The history of people trying to deny biological bedrock -- Marxism and much of feminism -- is not a happy one. As biologist and ant expert E.O. Wilson put it about the former:
Thank you for trying to paint the general picture of the issue for me. I completely agree with you... denying biology is nonsense and bound for trouble. I don't deny the facts, I deny the mental attitude towards the facts I think is shared by Dawkins and many other people. I don't like the attitude of passivity that he and others seem to express when they talk about this topic, or the inertia that I think is involved in the whole fight over objective definitions for "gender". I say this not as a scientist or a student of science, but as a socially concerned individual: it suffices for me (and people I know) to think of gender as a desired state of sexual expression rather than an objective biological or psychological state nature imposes on certain people.
I think trans-activists shoot themselves in the foot when they each attempt to prove that nature is in agreement with their internal dispositions, and I think people like Dawkins act silly when they insist that because there is no exact natural counterpart to the new ways gender is being defined, we should sit on our hands and be okay with the sexual biology nature gives us because acting discordant with it is irrational and unnatural while obeying it at every turn is natural and therefore good. I think the former causes the sort of error or fallacy you found in Serano's post. I think the latter, that we must accept nature as it comes and not desire to change it, when followed to its very last conclusion, necessarily would lead to view that the evils of slavery and cruelty and misery and injustice must exist because they do exist.
I don't like this whole tendency of treating nature as a judge for right and conventional behavior rather than as a consultant. We call people uncivilized because they are unable to overcome their natural instincts; we therefore don't see nature's laws as standard for how we behave in civilized communities. But tell me what you think.
Hakma: "Thank you for trying to paint the general picture ..."
De nada. 🙂 A rather complex issue, although I think it is far more so than is necessary. And that largely because virtually every last man, woman, and otherkin has entirely different and quite antithetical definitions for both "sex" and "gender". Largely why I harp on Voltaire's quip about defining our terms:
Hakma: "I deny the mental attitude towards the facts I think is shared by Dawkins and many other people ..."
Indeed. A lot of bias on the part of virtually everyone, many people being rather "emotionally attached" to quite unscientific and "most illogical" definitions for both of those terms.
Hakma: "... it suffices for me ... to think of gender as a desired state of sexual expression rather than an objective biological or psychological state nature imposes on certain people."
Yeah, well THAT -- the subjectivity apparently involved -- is a major part of the problem. Some transwoman claiming to be of the feminine gender really doesn't -- or shouldn't -- cut the mustard when society is granting certain rights on the basis of people being of the female sex. The former is entirely subjective -- there are no, or very few, objective correlates and criteria to qualify an individual for membership in the category of gender -- whereas the latter is, at least to a first approximation, quite objective -- there are tangible and readily quantifiable criteria to qualify people for membership in the sex categories. You are apparently still, in effect, claiming that "internal dispositions" should trump more objective and easily quantifiable ones; methinks you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
You might wish to try reading an old Quillette essay by UK/US lawyer/philosopher Elizabeth Finne on "The Tyranny of the Subjective", this bit in particular:
EF: "The primacy of subjectivity is by no means limited to politics. It now permeates the framework through which we have traditionally mediated our competing narratives. Journalism, academia, science, and law are all affected. In short, any institution that exists to accommodate competing perspectives is being undermined by a new paradigm that privileges the subjective ‘lived experience.’ And, in the process, the meta-values which have traditionally enabled us to transcend our differing subjective experiences suffer. Foundational principles such as 'audi alteram partem' (listen to the other side), the presumption of innocence, proportionality, empiricism, and even the rule of law now must bow before the sovereignty of the subjective."
Whence the justification for DEFINING "gender" as "sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types", at least to a first approximation. There are no "internal dispositions" involved at all -- there is solid and ubiquitous evidence that there ARE any number -- tens if not hundreds -- of those clearly quantifiable traits. You might also try reading a very good article, paying particular attention to the included graphs, on "No Child is Born in the Wrong Body … and other thoughts on the concept of gender identity":
Hakma: "... when followed to its very last conclusion, necessarily would lead to view that the evils of slavery and cruelty and misery and injustice must exist because they do exist.
I don't like this whole tendency of treating nature as a judge for right and conventional behavior rather than as a consultant. ..."
You may not know of the "Is–ought problem" which is something of a famous though "thorny" one in philosophy:
That a particular type of behaviour is typical OR atypical is no justification for concluding, much less insisting that it is to be "normalized" -- touted as the greatest thing since sliced bread -- or that it is to be anathematized. Rather decent elaboration on that theme by lesbian Eva Kurilova in her "Denigrating Normativity Vs. Punishing Differences: Thoughts on the Backlash", this bit in particular:
EK: "Maybe society itself is doomed to endlessly turn the wheel between two extremes. I don’t know if a happy middle ground—a balance between accepting that most people are normal and that’s okay, and some people are different and that’s okay too—can ever be reached. .... I hate to be a total cynic: I feel like we did have that for a while and I still very much have that among friends, family, and acquaintances in my personal life. But it does feel like it may be starting to slip away. One side went way too far in one direction, and the other is beginning to pick up steam in the opposite direction."
I dispute several facits of the discussion. Regarding sexuality there is the indisputable fact of having a Y chromosome or not, but also the broad spectrum of hormonal balance that affects how each individual identifies sexually. It appears consideration of such matters was not part of the conversation.
Second it appears that there is too much generalization going on vis a vis religion. I started my evolution to athiesm at age 10 and never felt inclined toward any substitute.
Finally if anyone has the impression that physics is going to put the last nail in the coffin of religion, they are due to be disappointed. We are progressing back to the Planck time, infinitessimally close to the zero of the big bang, but will progress no further in the realm of physics unless our theoretical framework is fundamentally and profoundly flawed. One distinction between physics an philosophy is that we physicists focus on the how, leaving the why to others. When we stray, as Einstein did with his philosophical objections to quantum mechanics, we are heading toward trouble.
"Regarding sexuality there is the indisputable fact of having a Y chromosome or not ..."
Sure. But chromosomes aren't any part of the standard biological definitions for the sexes for the very good reason that many species don't use X & Y chromosomes to produce males and females. By those definitions, ALL that it means to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless. For example, see the Glossary in an article in the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction [MHR]:
MHR:
“Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes"
And likewise more conventional dictionaries, though again from Oxford:
Oxford Dictionaries:
"female (adjective): Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
"male (adjective): Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring."
As I've argued earlier here and elsewhere including my own Substack, there's a great deal of justification for DEFINING sex and gender as two entirely different kettles of fish, the former based on transitory reproductive abilities, the latter on sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types:
And it makes a lot of sense to define the sexes on the difference of the gametes! This difference is not only a trait that allows to unambiguously attribute members of sexually reproductive species to either one of the two groups -male or female-, but what is, by the way, also the evolutionary reason for two different genders: with the female egg always being much larger (for some species millionfold) than the male spermatozoa, fundamentally different strategies for investment in the offspring followed. And with the emergence of social behavior of the human species, these different strategies evolved into what we‘re now calling genders. It’s just that because our modern civilization took from us the struggle to fight for survival we are not forced to fulfill these evolutionary shaped gender strategies anymore, thus, giving us the freedom to choose a different gender and even develop completely new gender roles or, arguably, a whole bunch of new „genders“.
Totally agree! To me it’s utterly incomprehensible why there’s so much discussion around this topic when the biological facts are actually that clear! Moreover, the English language makes it so easy to differentiate between the two aspects that probably cause all the confusion if mixed together: sex and gender. In other languages like German, for example, there’s only one word for both: „Geschlecht“. So, you would need to talk about „sexuelles Geschlecht“ and „soziales Geschlecht“ to make the difference clear.
What’s indeed a much more interesting question, is how malleable a gender really is and to what extent gender is genetically rooted. Just like animal behavior is genetically programmed, there may be much more genetically inherited basis for male and female genders than many proponents of the „woke“ ideology would like to be.
On the other hand, it’s also very clear that the connection between sex and gender is not necessarily a straight one... even if the gender was completely genetically determined, still, it would be possible that a male gender develops in a female body (determined by the female gamete) and vice versa.
Interesting point about there being one word for both sex and gender in German yet the English speaking world can't pin down the distinction between the two terms to everyone's satisfaction. As someone who raises goats and other kinds of animals on a small farm, I often muse that anyone who thinks gender is socially constructed should meet my buck.
Though I wonder what, precisely, you would take as a definition for "gender". Would you accept, say, "gender is defined as sets of sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types"?
Some feminists, apparently the more rational ones, seem to do so. See this article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP]:
SEP: "2.2 Gender as feminine and masculine personality ... Instead, she holds that gender is a matter of having feminine and masculine personalities that develop in early infancy as responses to prevalent parenting practices."
If so then some pretty solid evidence that such personalities are most certainly not entirely "socially constructed". Though some traits -- pink for girls and blue for boys, for example -- clearly do qualify as such.
Pays to be precise. Arguably the only way off the horns of the dilemma created by the transgender clusterfuck -- excuse my French. As philosopher Will Durant said about a quip by Voltaire:
Durant: “ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
But easy enough to do as Substack's formatting adds a bit of confusion.
Andreas: "On the other hand, it’s also very clear that the connection between sex and gender is not necessarily a straight one... even if the gender was completely genetically determined ..."
Agreed. Generally only a statistical correlation between sex -- i.e., reproductive abilities -- and gender -- i.e., sexually dimorphic personality traits and stereotypes. Apropos of which and as a case-in-point, you might have some interest in this joint probability distribution by sex and "agreeableness", arguably one dimension in the multi-dimensional gender spectrum:
By that graph, females are, on average, more agreeable than men -- about 4.1 versus 3.8 respectively. But some females are atypical, they have agreeableness factors more typical of males. One might say that IF agreeableness is one dimension of that multi-dimensional gender spectrum THEN those atypical females with agreeableness measures substantially below 3.8 have a masculine gender (agreeableness).
But I would deprecate phrases like "male gender" in favour of "masculine gender", not least because it gives a pretext for bait-and-switch frauds by various grifters and political opportunists, though more because it underlines a fundamental dichotomy between psychology and biology. Something which the late US Supreme Court Justice Scalia underlined with a cogent analogy:
Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
That's very interesting! As if Scalia had forseen the future... according to his remarks, an "effeminate" man would not have been covered by the anti-discrimination law because it prohibits discrimination only on the basis of sex, not gender.
And his characterization of how gender relates to sex, like feminine/masculine relates to male/female, really hits the spot! In this regard, the English language is quite helpful!
So, we obviously completely agree that the biological sex needs to be defined solely on the gametes (big or small in comparison). But I'd like to know your opinion on my dissent to your definition of gender...
If you include "personality" in the definition, it thereby invokes human sociology or psychology, as personality is nothing you could define biologically. But, IMHO, it would be quite reasonable to define gender as: "all sexually dimorphic, anatomical and behavioral traits of an anisogamous species besides the gametes".
By that, you could apply gender also to animals... all the typical courtship behavior would then constitute to the gender of an animal.
In this regard, animal gender behavior is probably completely genetically determined. Animals will display their specific courtship behavior even if they were raised totally isolated, so that they could not have learned it from somewhere else. For humans, things get more complicated as our behaviour is largely based on imitation and learning and not genetically determined. And obviously you cannot (at least nowadays) raise a human in total isolation to study which behavior is genetically determined.
So, I'd argue that for humans there is plenty of sexually dimorphic behavior that's not based on genetics but culturally inherited (based on memetics). This cultural inheritance is often very firmly established but not as strict as it is for genetically inherited behavior.
Btw., it is very interesting and revealing that in quite many animal species transgender proclivities naturally evolved:
"We tend to think of gender expression, and especially gender non-conformity, as uniquely human. However, many other species gain distinct advantages by projecting an appearance that doesn’t “match” their biological sex. Snakes, lizards, beetles, fish, and birds, to name a few, all exhibit “transgender” behaviors in which males imitate females to gain advantages, including reduced competition, better access to territory, and improved mating opportunities."
In conclusion, I think the main problem with the ongoing debate about gender identity is first the frequent confusion between sex and gender and the belief that the sex of a person could be changed and second the assumption that gender is something digital, that is, either masculine or feminine, when in reality, it's a floating continuum of very many traits that lean to be more masculine or more feminine. As Richard Dawkins has put it so wonderfully witty in The tyranny of the discontinuous mind:
"People evidently feel strongly about such questions they often turn out to be splitting hairs. Indeed, they resemble theological questions, which I suppose gives a clue to why they arouse such passionate disagreements. The obsession with discrete names is an example of what I call the tyranny of the discontinuous mind."
Andreas: "As if Scalia had foreseen the future. ... "
Indeed. And in 1993 too ... 🙂. Though, as you suggested, at that time I doubt there was any laws on the books about gender discrimination. Moot whether there should be.
Andreas: "But I'd like to know your opinion on my dissent to your definition of gender... "
I think it was largely because of your suggestion that gender was malleable: "... giving us the freedom to choose a different gender". IF -- as I'm arguing -- gender is DEFINED as at least encompassing various sexually dimorphic personalities THEN some reason to argue that SOME of it at least is "bred in the bone". Not easily or at all changeable. Particularly true if we include traits like heights as another dimension in that multi-dimensional gender spectrum.
Andreas: "... quite reasonable to define gender as: 'all sexually dimorphic, anatomical and behavioral traits of an anisogamous species besides the gametes'. ...."
Agree. Largely in any case. 🙂 Good part of the reason why I'm arguing in favour of gender as that multi-dimensional spectrum. Some quite tall "girly" woman is therefore of a masculine gender (height) -- men are, on average, some 4 inches taller than women -- but of a feminine gender (behaviour). Moot exactly where and why we should draw the lines to encompass which traits but, as you suggest, at first blush we might say that virtually any trait at all -- apart from gametes -- qualifies as another dimension of gender, at least as long as it shows any differential correlation with "sex". You may wish to take a gander at my Welcome post, particularly the section on rationalizing gender, although I've had a few second thoughts on "gender identity":
Andreas: "... plenty of sexually dimorphic behavior that's not based on genetics but culturally inherited ..."
Agreed. Probably some reason to clearly differentiate between those different "dimensions" -- some are driven by cultural and fashion -- blue for boys & pink for girls -- but others -- like personality traits -- have solid roots in biology, even if the connections are rather obscure at best. Not sure if I mentioned it here before or not, but a fairly solid exposition on the evidence for the latter here:
Of particular note therefrom is the joint probability distribution for a set of personality traits, and a passage thereon that underlines my previous points:
4thWave: "In fact, due to the significant overlap of personality traits between males and females, the personality traits of some females will be more “masculine” than those exhibited by some, or even most males, and vice versa."
Pretty much everyone is masculine in some traits, feminine in others, and to a greater or lesser extent than is typical of our sex or of the other one -- or of neither ... 😉🙂
Andreas: "... I think the main problem with the ongoing debate about gender identity is first the frequent confusion between sex and gender ..."
Amen to that. 🙂 Largely why I'm pushing for more precise and scientifically justified definitions for both.
Andreas: "... the tyranny of the discontinuous mind ..."
Interesting post and cogent arguments, an essay I'll have to re-read:
Though I may have a bone or two to pick with Richard on various principles of categorization -- arguably, the crux of the whole transgender clusterfuck. You might also have some interest in my post on the "debate" between the binarists & the spectrumists which basically boils down into the question of monothetic versus polythetic categories -- a rather important if not profound concept with far-reaching effects:
Andreas: "And it makes a lot of sense to define the sexes on the difference of the gametes! ..."
Indeed. It's probably the one trait that is shared by literally millions of species for the last billion years or so. Interesting overview on the principle involved:
Wikipedia: "In biology, taxonomy (from Ancient Greek τάξις (taxis) 'arrangement', and -νομία (-nomia) 'method') is the scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on SHARED characteristics."
And it is absolutely essential to reproduction -- no gametes of two different types, no reproduction. At least in all of those anisogamous species. Well justifies those biological definitions.
Though can't say that I've read all of that MHR article -- some heavy-going -- but interesting bit from the Abstract which underlines the "hypothesis" that that dimorphism in gamete sizes has more or less driven every last bit of sexual dimorphism on the planet in many other traits:
MHR: "The ancestral divergence and maintenance of gamete sizes subsequently led to many other differences we now observe between the two sexes, sowing the seeds for what we have become."
Though not sure I'd entirely agree that those genders, those sexually dimorphic traits, are as malleable as you're apparently suggesting. No doubt many of them are, in part, "socially constructed". But many of them -- particular those sexually dimorphic personality traits -- at least start off from two very different types of "bedrock" -- not easily, or wisely, repudiated, obviated, or swept under the carpet.
Apropos of which, you might have some interest in some studies on personality differences by sex:
"Global sex differences in personality: Replication with an open online dataset":
"Finally if anyone has the impression that physics is going to put the last nail in the coffin of religion, they are due to be disappointed. We are progressing back to the Planck time, infinitessimally close to the zero of the big bang"
But physics has surely put the last nail in the coffin of theism, which accounts for the majority of religious believers around the world. With "the god of the gaps" squeezed out all the way back to the Planck time, there's nowhere for a theistic god to hide anymore, zero evidence for one, and zero reason to invoke the possible existence of one.
That leaves either (a) no god, ever or (b) a deistic god who set the initial conditions of the universe, pressed "play" to kick off the Big Bang, and has no role whatsoever in what happens after that.
Peter Boghossian's question about how to prevent the next phase of irrationality--to anticipate what that might be--is the question of "how do we prevent human beings from being irrational?" Can we do that? Change human nature? I think we can return to a higher degree of rationality, one in which it's safe for me, in a classroom or a social situation, to actually say what I think. But better than that?
Why are so many people interested in Dawkin's perspectives on religion? Or critical thinking for that matter?
Atheism is not a product of critical thinking. It's just another faith based belief system which competes with religious faith. There's nothing wrong atheism, and to each their own of course. But in the hands of the more ardent atheist ideologists such as Dawkin's the relentless superiority claims just sound ridiculous. And given that Dawkins is clearly a very intelligent person with a high degree of education, it just sounds so odd to have him endlessly chanting these dogmas.
Religions are typically built upon the chosen authority of some holy book. The largest claims of such holy books can't be proven, and so most religious people are honest enough to agree that they are operating largely on faith.
Atheism is built upon the chosen authority of human reason. Where is it proven that something as small as human reason is qualified to come to credible conclusions regarding the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, typically the scope of religion's largest claims? We don't even know what "everything everywhere" refers to!
Why is it superior critical thinking to demand proof of the qualifications of religion's chosen authority, and NOT demand proof of the qualifications of atheism's chosen authority? Where is the intellectual honesty???
Dawkin's has reason and ideology confused. Reason doesn't care who wins, ideology cares about little else. Dawkins isn't teaching us anything useful about reason and critical thinking, he's just selling his ideology, as is his right of course.
If I understand correctly, Dawkins is a well respected expert on biology. Ok, great, I'm sure he knows more about that than the rest of us, and could be a good teacher to us on that subject.
Stick to your knitting Dr. Dawkins, stick to what you're actually expert at. When it comes to religion, you're in way over your head.
By the way, for what it's worth, I'm not religious.
Is there a definition of 'woke' that we can use to see if it is a religion or rational?
For example, I do not believe that being born white is to be born into sin, original or otherwise. However, being born white does mean a much more favorable set of circumstances, expectations and outcomes. This is a rational observation. White people benefit from the actions of previous generations of white people. That is not a sin, it's not their fault, but it is a true and rational statement.
For counter example, a man simply declaring himself to be a woman is clearly delusional. While I'm happy for him to wear dresses and be his Best Possible Self, the statement 'I am a woman' can be tested with a simple blood test, and the answer 'Oh no you're not!' is not fascism, transphobia or any such.
My working definition of 'woke' is that it applies to people who can empathize with other people, and who can put themselves in other people's shoes. Not all the conclusions these people come to are rational, but some -and probably most- are.
Of course substitution exists, whether in the realm of superstition, organized religion, law, medicine, and even science. How can two highly educated grown men NOT be aware of this; how do they know nothing of society or history? How was the question even posed, as if they were the first people to contemplate such a thing?
For some, organized religion has been replaced with anodyne "spirituality", while for others there's an entire wellness and me-time industry.
Of course there's a moral dimension to science, a moral dimension to evidence! Science doesn't live in a political, social, and economic vacuum. Science is only and always of its time, and its lack of purity no doubt holds us back in all fields. The ethical and moral dimensions of evidence and science are the only arguments worth having. The morality of science is already a continual debate in the public discourse. A resort to positing inherent good, or poetics, neither of which are accepted by billions of people, isn't useful. I can't decide if Dawkins was being disingenuous or just stubborn.
I wonder, with all the talk of biology and genetics in these past few podcasts, why isn’t gender and identity spoken about as the spectrum that it is? That also considers hormonal and quantum effects on gender identity?
Virtually nothing in the universe is an absolute, either, or!
Consider a color spectrum.
First, note that black and white is the wrong analogy for sex because those are the absence of color and all color, respectively. The right analogy is any actual color.
There is a distinct, absolute red and blue. But there are also reds and blues. Many blues are indistinguishable from absolute blue. There are also blues that include red but are still mostly blue. Statistically speaking, they’d still be blue. If that statistic determined the color of offspring during fertilization, isn’t it fair to assume that the result will not be purely blue or red? That is, the offspring could be on a spectrum, despite it resulting in a blue-ish offspring.
Now, consider this: the quantum world is based on statistical outcomes. To me, this implies we have free will because outcomes can result in outliers. And, while our subconscious is working on decisions well before we’re conscious of them, who we are, on a quantum level, is responsible evaluating the possibilities statistically. Which literally means, we, specifically, how our brains are structured and connected, are concluding outcomes that do not always have to abide by a yes or no answer.
So while there are genetic differences between male and female, those differences arise from biological factors as mentioned above. For those not squarely on the extreme ends of masculine/feminine spectrum, free-will means those on the spectrum are free to choose the gender association with which they are more comfortable. This doesn’t mean they’re somehow being coerced from youth to adhere to a gender-norm. This also does not imply that they are free to participate in activities of a different sex. Such participation is almost exactly the same as reproductive roles. That is, reproductive roles can not be changed. But reproductive roles do not entirely dictate hormonal states nor free-will so must not be used to mandate gender identity.
I think the Substitution Hypothesis could be improved considerably if we clarify if we are speaking of individuals or populations. If I convince a Southern Baptist that god may not be real, that individual is unlikely to take up Gender Studies instead. There does seem to be a persistent percentage of a population that is prone to irrational beliefs. But when collective beliefs change, its not likely the same individuals involved. It is more likely different people, in new generations, at distant locations. This problem also occurs when we personify The Woke or the The Far RIght as though they are a single person rather than attempts to categorize populations.
I hadn’t heard of the substitution hypothesis but sounds similar conceptually to what Nietzsche talked about with the death of God but that the affect would be substituting one delusion for another instead of resulting in moral atrophy.
This made me wonder if perhaps mass delusion is simply a human constant and what changes are belief systems and that things have always been this way more or less throughout human societies and we are just better enabled by technology and surveillance to see the craziness of our world unfold in real time. I’ve always wondered what an iPhone would capture if we could travel back in time...
When you read a book like ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,’ and then peruse social media and see what most of us give our time and money to in this life that is the impression you walk away with-that we are sadly light years away from humans collectively reaching a more ideal rational and compassionate world that people like Dawkins and Sagan have poetically argued their whole lives for.
The „Woke Mind Virus“ (WOMIV20 ;)) infects only people who‘s minds are not strong enough to think for themselves. The fact that „woke“ has become such a successful memeplex, unfortunately, is evidence that mindfulness and free thinking is on the decline in Western societies. Is this an inevitability, or can it be reversed?
“not strong enough to think for themselves”?! <- Dunning-Kruger? Or those who think they are strong thinkers are simply critical of others with whom they disagree. Assuming you’re better than someone else is simply a tactic to discredit ideas that differ from your own.
It’s rather that „As long as you’re part of the delusion, you‘ll never be able to recognize it“ seems to apply to you.
Besides that, you’re just giving a good example of the prevailing strategy of the „liberal“, woke leftist: always accuse your opponents of the exact things you’re arguing or doing by yourself.
Transgenderism is clearly a religion. Jesus rose from the dead. A man can become a woman. Both are examples of a kind of magical thinking protected in the US by the First Amendment as is my belief as an atheist that they are religious nonsense.
"Transgenderism is clearly a religion."
Not entirely. No doubt there's a great deal of unscientific claptrap and outright woo that comes under that rubric -- a "merging of science, magic, and religion" in the view of Canadian cultural anthropologist Sahar Sadjadi:
https://journal.culanth.org/index.php/ca/article/view/3728/430
But many reputable people and sources -- like, for starters, the British Medical Journal [BMJ], Canada's Statistics department, the late Justice Scalia, and many of the more rational feminists -- more or less DEFINE gender as synonymous with sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types:
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/concepts/consult-variables/gender#a12
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/feminism-gender/#GenFemMasPer
Even if they're all rather rough around the edges, being charitable.
But given the premise that "gender" is roughly analogous to those sexually dimorphic personalities AND personality types, it is not a major stretch to see "gender identity" as analogous to personal identity, a topic on which the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP] has an illuminating article giving weight to the idea. Paraphrasing them:
SEP [paraphrased]: "Outside of philosophy, [gender identity’] usually refers to [sexually dimorphic personality traits] to which we feel a special sense of attachment or ownership. Someone’s [gender identity] in this sense consists of those [feminine and masculine personality traits] she takes to 'define her as a person' or 'make her the person she is', and which distinguish her from others."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/#ProPerIde
No doubt there's a great deal of "magical thinking" wrapped under the "bows" of "gender" and "gender identity". But don't think it helps at all that so many -- including Richard -- are so quick to dismiss more scientific, rational, logical, and philosophically sound conceptualizations of the terms.
Kinda think you're both barking up the wrong trees -- several of them at least, particularly relative to your "mass denial about the truth of gender". What "truth" might that be?
Richard in particular seems to waffle a lot, suggesting it's synonymous with sex, and other times that it refers merely to various "gender stereotypes". Where do the latter come from if not from the behaviours of individual people? Analogously, there is the stereotype of "introvert", but it only exists because many people are, in fact, introverted to one degree or another.
If people can't or won't define their terms then some reason to argue they're more a part of the problem than of the solution. As philosopher Will Durant put it relative to a quip of Voltaire's:
Durant: “ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a
I don't think Dawkins' error here has much to do with definitions as the completely wrong mental attitude he has towards science. Transgenders want to live in a world where gender is not inextricably linked to sex, never mind the "objectivity" of the want. The question asked by Dawkins should not immediately be "what does natural law have to say about this?" because "natural law" is the exact thing these human beings are trying to surmount. In an ideal human order, in a world where human desire is achieved, we wouldn't be constrained by natural law. Science should help us achieve this order, not pontificate about how human beings should learn to be okay with their place in the natural order while making senile generalizations.
"Transgenders want to live in a world where gender is not inextricably linked to sex ..."
No doubt that IF we DEFINE "gender" as "sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types" THEN it's probably true that very few of them are joined at the hip with any given sex. But if they want to try denying statistical correlations and "heavily influenced by sex" then all I have to say is, " 'Rots of 'ruck". They might just as well try to square the circle. Or to "repeal" the "law" of gravity. Or to repudiate the fact that large gametes and small gametes have been around for a billion years or so, and that that has, in all probability, been part and parcel of sexual dimorphism in hundreds of traits, many of a psychological nature, in literally millions of species.
You might want to try doing some reading in biology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisogamy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
But which "natural law" might it be that transgenders are "trying to surmount"? All that transwomen, in particular, seem to be trying, rather desperately, to "surmount" is the fact that no human producer of small gametes -- i.e., males -- will EVER produce large ones -- i.e., the defining trait of females.
I agree that denying basic scientific facts is self-defeating for trans people, but I deny this fiction that nature is more real or substantial than human desire is, which you haven’t claimed but have implied with all your ostentation over the facts of biology. Why enslave our minds to these facts? Humanity should pass through these facts and utilize them for higher human purposes, not passively accept their brute tyranny and sit around while thousands of our species buckle beneath their senseless weight. I deny the voiceless mechanisms of the natural universe any absolute authority over how we as humans should think and act (whatever relative authority it seems to have, it does not deserve). It has no wisdom; it has no teleological purpose or value from a genuine human standpoint; it would, in fact, look much different if humans were running the show. This isn’t square-circle logic either; the law of gravity may not be able to be “repealed”, but we can and have overcome its tyranny through scientific development (spacecraft). Why can’t the same be true for gender? Why can’t we at least attempt to kick the scaffolding of natural sexuality beneath the feet of gender once and for all with the iron foot of science?
Hakma: "Who denies these facts?"
Oodles of people, their name is legion if not infamous -- mostly various transactivists and their "useful/useless idiots", but many so-called biologists and philosophers do likewise. For a case of the former, though partly of the latter, see this post by transwoman and "biologist" Julia Serano, this bit in particular:
JS: "People tend to harbor essentialist beliefs about sex — that is, they presume that each sex category has an underlying 'essence' that makes them what they are. This is what leads people to assume that trans women remain 'biologically male' despite the fact that many of our sex characteristics are now female. However, there is no 'essence' underlying sex; it is simply a collection of sexually dimorphic traits."
https://web.archive.org/web/20190606021105/https://medium.com/@juliaserano/transgender-people-and-biological-sex-myths-c2a9bcdb4f4a
He's clearly in the spectrumist camp, although he does have a point or two -- for example, there really is no intrinsic meaning to the terms "male" and "female". We can define those categories any way we wish -- pay the words extra. But the point is that standard biological definitions STIPULATE that, in effect, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless.
Though he's rather clueless about the nature of categories -- most "biologists" are: there's no "essence" to them, only "necessary and/or sufficient conditions" for category membership:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
Analogously, there's no "essence" to "teenager" -- if we are 13 to 19 then we gets a membership card and if we aren't then we don't, or we get an existing one "revoked".
But for an elaboration on the latter group, see my post on the "Battle Royale" -- AKA Lilliputian civil war, Rape of the Lock (Part Deux) -- between the binarists, of various stripes, and the spectrumists:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
Hakma: "... but we can and have overcome its tyranny through scientific development (spacecraft)."
Do let us all know when some transwoman replaces his testicles with functioning ovaries of his own. Then and only then will he qualify as a female (sex, not gender):
https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1240781010800979968
Hakma: "Why can’t the same be true for gender? Why can’t we kick the scaffolding of natural sexuality beneath the feet of gender once and for all with the iron foot of science?"
What, pray tell, do you MEAN by "gender"? Sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types? Which is the more credible definition, at least to first approximation. Or pink for girls & blue for boys?
The history of people trying to deny biological bedrock -- Marxism and much of feminism -- is not a happy one. As biologist and ant expert E.O. Wilson put it about the former:
"Wonderful theory, wrong species."
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/04/14/species/
Thank you for trying to paint the general picture of the issue for me. I completely agree with you... denying biology is nonsense and bound for trouble. I don't deny the facts, I deny the mental attitude towards the facts I think is shared by Dawkins and many other people. I don't like the attitude of passivity that he and others seem to express when they talk about this topic, or the inertia that I think is involved in the whole fight over objective definitions for "gender". I say this not as a scientist or a student of science, but as a socially concerned individual: it suffices for me (and people I know) to think of gender as a desired state of sexual expression rather than an objective biological or psychological state nature imposes on certain people.
I think trans-activists shoot themselves in the foot when they each attempt to prove that nature is in agreement with their internal dispositions, and I think people like Dawkins act silly when they insist that because there is no exact natural counterpart to the new ways gender is being defined, we should sit on our hands and be okay with the sexual biology nature gives us because acting discordant with it is irrational and unnatural while obeying it at every turn is natural and therefore good. I think the former causes the sort of error or fallacy you found in Serano's post. I think the latter, that we must accept nature as it comes and not desire to change it, when followed to its very last conclusion, necessarily would lead to view that the evils of slavery and cruelty and misery and injustice must exist because they do exist.
I don't like this whole tendency of treating nature as a judge for right and conventional behavior rather than as a consultant. We call people uncivilized because they are unable to overcome their natural instincts; we therefore don't see nature's laws as standard for how we behave in civilized communities. But tell me what you think.
Hakma: "Thank you for trying to paint the general picture ..."
De nada. 🙂 A rather complex issue, although I think it is far more so than is necessary. And that largely because virtually every last man, woman, and otherkin has entirely different and quite antithetical definitions for both "sex" and "gender". Largely why I harp on Voltaire's quip about defining our terms:
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a
Hakma: "I deny the mental attitude towards the facts I think is shared by Dawkins and many other people ..."
Indeed. A lot of bias on the part of virtually everyone, many people being rather "emotionally attached" to quite unscientific and "most illogical" definitions for both of those terms.
Hakma: "... it suffices for me ... to think of gender as a desired state of sexual expression rather than an objective biological or psychological state nature imposes on certain people."
Yeah, well THAT -- the subjectivity apparently involved -- is a major part of the problem. Some transwoman claiming to be of the feminine gender really doesn't -- or shouldn't -- cut the mustard when society is granting certain rights on the basis of people being of the female sex. The former is entirely subjective -- there are no, or very few, objective correlates and criteria to qualify an individual for membership in the category of gender -- whereas the latter is, at least to a first approximation, quite objective -- there are tangible and readily quantifiable criteria to qualify people for membership in the sex categories. You are apparently still, in effect, claiming that "internal dispositions" should trump more objective and easily quantifiable ones; methinks you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
You might wish to try reading an old Quillette essay by UK/US lawyer/philosopher Elizabeth Finne on "The Tyranny of the Subjective", this bit in particular:
EF: "The primacy of subjectivity is by no means limited to politics. It now permeates the framework through which we have traditionally mediated our competing narratives. Journalism, academia, science, and law are all affected. In short, any institution that exists to accommodate competing perspectives is being undermined by a new paradigm that privileges the subjective ‘lived experience.’ And, in the process, the meta-values which have traditionally enabled us to transcend our differing subjective experiences suffer. Foundational principles such as 'audi alteram partem' (listen to the other side), the presumption of innocence, proportionality, empiricism, and even the rule of law now must bow before the sovereignty of the subjective."
https://archive.ph/3sdwg
http://quillette.com/2018/03/19/the-tyranny-of-the-subjective/
Whence the justification for DEFINING "gender" as "sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types", at least to a first approximation. There are no "internal dispositions" involved at all -- there is solid and ubiquitous evidence that there ARE any number -- tens if not hundreds -- of those clearly quantifiable traits. You might also try reading a very good article, paying particular attention to the included graphs, on "No Child is Born in the Wrong Body … and other thoughts on the concept of gender identity":
https://4thwavenow.com/2019/08/19/no-child-is-born-in-the-wrong-body-and-other-thoughts-on-the-concept-of-gender-identity/
Hakma: "... when followed to its very last conclusion, necessarily would lead to view that the evils of slavery and cruelty and misery and injustice must exist because they do exist.
I don't like this whole tendency of treating nature as a judge for right and conventional behavior rather than as a consultant. ..."
You may not know of the "Is–ought problem" which is something of a famous though "thorny" one in philosophy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
That a particular type of behaviour is typical OR atypical is no justification for concluding, much less insisting that it is to be "normalized" -- touted as the greatest thing since sliced bread -- or that it is to be anathematized. Rather decent elaboration on that theme by lesbian Eva Kurilova in her "Denigrating Normativity Vs. Punishing Differences: Thoughts on the Backlash", this bit in particular:
EK: "Maybe society itself is doomed to endlessly turn the wheel between two extremes. I don’t know if a happy middle ground—a balance between accepting that most people are normal and that’s okay, and some people are different and that’s okay too—can ever be reached. .... I hate to be a total cynic: I feel like we did have that for a while and I still very much have that among friends, family, and acquaintances in my personal life. But it does feel like it may be starting to slip away. One side went way too far in one direction, and the other is beginning to pick up steam in the opposite direction."
https://www.evakurilova.com/p/denigrating-normativity-vs-punishing
Houston, we have a problem ...
I dispute several facits of the discussion. Regarding sexuality there is the indisputable fact of having a Y chromosome or not, but also the broad spectrum of hormonal balance that affects how each individual identifies sexually. It appears consideration of such matters was not part of the conversation.
Second it appears that there is too much generalization going on vis a vis religion. I started my evolution to athiesm at age 10 and never felt inclined toward any substitute.
Finally if anyone has the impression that physics is going to put the last nail in the coffin of religion, they are due to be disappointed. We are progressing back to the Planck time, infinitessimally close to the zero of the big bang, but will progress no further in the realm of physics unless our theoretical framework is fundamentally and profoundly flawed. One distinction between physics an philosophy is that we physicists focus on the how, leaving the why to others. When we stray, as Einstein did with his philosophical objections to quantum mechanics, we are heading toward trouble.
"Regarding sexuality there is the indisputable fact of having a Y chromosome or not ..."
Sure. But chromosomes aren't any part of the standard biological definitions for the sexes for the very good reason that many species don't use X & Y chromosomes to produce males and females. By those definitions, ALL that it means to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless. For example, see the Glossary in an article in the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction [MHR]:
MHR:
“Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes"
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
And according to this oldish tweet, the Oxford Dictionary of Biology says the same thing:
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
And likewise more conventional dictionaries, though again from Oxford:
Oxford Dictionaries:
"female (adjective): Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
"male (adjective): Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring."
https://web.archive.org/web/20170902010637/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
As I've argued earlier here and elsewhere including my own Substack, there's a great deal of justification for DEFINING sex and gender as two entirely different kettles of fish, the former based on transitory reproductive abilities, the latter on sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types:
https://richarddawkins.substack.com/p/is-religion-inevitable-richard-dawkins/comment/21935745
And it makes a lot of sense to define the sexes on the difference of the gametes! This difference is not only a trait that allows to unambiguously attribute members of sexually reproductive species to either one of the two groups -male or female-, but what is, by the way, also the evolutionary reason for two different genders: with the female egg always being much larger (for some species millionfold) than the male spermatozoa, fundamentally different strategies for investment in the offspring followed. And with the emergence of social behavior of the human species, these different strategies evolved into what we‘re now calling genders. It’s just that because our modern civilization took from us the struggle to fight for survival we are not forced to fulfill these evolutionary shaped gender strategies anymore, thus, giving us the freedom to choose a different gender and even develop completely new gender roles or, arguably, a whole bunch of new „genders“.
Totally agree! To me it’s utterly incomprehensible why there’s so much discussion around this topic when the biological facts are actually that clear! Moreover, the English language makes it so easy to differentiate between the two aspects that probably cause all the confusion if mixed together: sex and gender. In other languages like German, for example, there’s only one word for both: „Geschlecht“. So, you would need to talk about „sexuelles Geschlecht“ and „soziales Geschlecht“ to make the difference clear.
What’s indeed a much more interesting question, is how malleable a gender really is and to what extent gender is genetically rooted. Just like animal behavior is genetically programmed, there may be much more genetically inherited basis for male and female genders than many proponents of the „woke“ ideology would like to be.
On the other hand, it’s also very clear that the connection between sex and gender is not necessarily a straight one... even if the gender was completely genetically determined, still, it would be possible that a male gender develops in a female body (determined by the female gamete) and vice versa.
Interesting point about there being one word for both sex and gender in German yet the English speaking world can't pin down the distinction between the two terms to everyone's satisfaction. As someone who raises goats and other kinds of animals on a small farm, I often muse that anyone who thinks gender is socially constructed should meet my buck.
Indeed.
Though I wonder what, precisely, you would take as a definition for "gender". Would you accept, say, "gender is defined as sets of sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types"?
Some feminists, apparently the more rational ones, seem to do so. See this article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP]:
SEP: "2.2 Gender as feminine and masculine personality ... Instead, she holds that gender is a matter of having feminine and masculine personalities that develop in early infancy as responses to prevalent parenting practices."
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/feminism-gender/#GenFemMasPer
If so then some pretty solid evidence that such personalities are most certainly not entirely "socially constructed". Though some traits -- pink for girls and blue for boys, for example -- clearly do qualify as such.
Pays to be precise. Arguably the only way off the horns of the dilemma created by the transgender clusterfuck -- excuse my French. As philosopher Will Durant said about a quip by Voltaire:
Durant: “ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a
Andreas: "Totally agree!"
👍🙂 Though I think you responded to your own comment rather to my own which is what I think you're referring to:
https://richarddawkins.substack.com/p/is-religion-inevitable-richard-dawkins/comment/21939772
But easy enough to do as Substack's formatting adds a bit of confusion.
Andreas: "On the other hand, it’s also very clear that the connection between sex and gender is not necessarily a straight one... even if the gender was completely genetically determined ..."
Agreed. Generally only a statistical correlation between sex -- i.e., reproductive abilities -- and gender -- i.e., sexually dimorphic personality traits and stereotypes. Apropos of which and as a case-in-point, you might have some interest in this joint probability distribution by sex and "agreeableness", arguably one dimension in the multi-dimensional gender spectrum:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joint_probability_distribution_by_sex_and_agreeablenes.jpg
By that graph, females are, on average, more agreeable than men -- about 4.1 versus 3.8 respectively. But some females are atypical, they have agreeableness factors more typical of males. One might say that IF agreeableness is one dimension of that multi-dimensional gender spectrum THEN those atypical females with agreeableness measures substantially below 3.8 have a masculine gender (agreeableness).
But I would deprecate phrases like "male gender" in favour of "masculine gender", not least because it gives a pretext for bait-and-switch frauds by various grifters and political opportunists, though more because it underlines a fundamental dichotomy between psychology and biology. Something which the late US Supreme Court Justice Scalia underlined with a cogent analogy:
Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
That's very interesting! As if Scalia had forseen the future... according to his remarks, an "effeminate" man would not have been covered by the anti-discrimination law because it prohibits discrimination only on the basis of sex, not gender.
And his characterization of how gender relates to sex, like feminine/masculine relates to male/female, really hits the spot! In this regard, the English language is quite helpful!
So, we obviously completely agree that the biological sex needs to be defined solely on the gametes (big or small in comparison). But I'd like to know your opinion on my dissent to your definition of gender...
If you include "personality" in the definition, it thereby invokes human sociology or psychology, as personality is nothing you could define biologically. But, IMHO, it would be quite reasonable to define gender as: "all sexually dimorphic, anatomical and behavioral traits of an anisogamous species besides the gametes".
By that, you could apply gender also to animals... all the typical courtship behavior would then constitute to the gender of an animal.
In this regard, animal gender behavior is probably completely genetically determined. Animals will display their specific courtship behavior even if they were raised totally isolated, so that they could not have learned it from somewhere else. For humans, things get more complicated as our behaviour is largely based on imitation and learning and not genetically determined. And obviously you cannot (at least nowadays) raise a human in total isolation to study which behavior is genetically determined.
So, I'd argue that for humans there is plenty of sexually dimorphic behavior that's not based on genetics but culturally inherited (based on memetics). This cultural inheritance is often very firmly established but not as strict as it is for genetically inherited behavior.
Btw., it is very interesting and revealing that in quite many animal species transgender proclivities naturally evolved:
"We tend to think of gender expression, and especially gender non-conformity, as uniquely human. However, many other species gain distinct advantages by projecting an appearance that doesn’t “match” their biological sex. Snakes, lizards, beetles, fish, and birds, to name a few, all exhibit “transgender” behaviors in which males imitate females to gain advantages, including reduced competition, better access to territory, and improved mating opportunities."
(https://daily.jstor.org/transgender-proclivities-in-animals/)
In conclusion, I think the main problem with the ongoing debate about gender identity is first the frequent confusion between sex and gender and the belief that the sex of a person could be changed and second the assumption that gender is something digital, that is, either masculine or feminine, when in reality, it's a floating continuum of very many traits that lean to be more masculine or more feminine. As Richard Dawkins has put it so wonderfully witty in The tyranny of the discontinuous mind:
"People evidently feel strongly about such questions they often turn out to be splitting hairs. Indeed, they resemble theological questions, which I suppose gives a clue to why they arouse such passionate disagreements. The obsession with discrete names is an example of what I call the tyranny of the discontinuous mind."
Andreas: "As if Scalia had foreseen the future. ... "
Indeed. And in 1993 too ... 🙂. Though, as you suggested, at that time I doubt there was any laws on the books about gender discrimination. Moot whether there should be.
Andreas: "But I'd like to know your opinion on my dissent to your definition of gender... "
I think it was largely because of your suggestion that gender was malleable: "... giving us the freedom to choose a different gender". IF -- as I'm arguing -- gender is DEFINED as at least encompassing various sexually dimorphic personalities THEN some reason to argue that SOME of it at least is "bred in the bone". Not easily or at all changeable. Particularly true if we include traits like heights as another dimension in that multi-dimensional gender spectrum.
Andreas: "... quite reasonable to define gender as: 'all sexually dimorphic, anatomical and behavioral traits of an anisogamous species besides the gametes'. ...."
Agree. Largely in any case. 🙂 Good part of the reason why I'm arguing in favour of gender as that multi-dimensional spectrum. Some quite tall "girly" woman is therefore of a masculine gender (height) -- men are, on average, some 4 inches taller than women -- but of a feminine gender (behaviour). Moot exactly where and why we should draw the lines to encompass which traits but, as you suggest, at first blush we might say that virtually any trait at all -- apart from gametes -- qualifies as another dimension of gender, at least as long as it shows any differential correlation with "sex". You may wish to take a gander at my Welcome post, particularly the section on rationalizing gender, although I've had a few second thoughts on "gender identity":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/i/64264079/rationalized-gender
Andreas: "... plenty of sexually dimorphic behavior that's not based on genetics but culturally inherited ..."
Agreed. Probably some reason to clearly differentiate between those different "dimensions" -- some are driven by cultural and fashion -- blue for boys & pink for girls -- but others -- like personality traits -- have solid roots in biology, even if the connections are rather obscure at best. Not sure if I mentioned it here before or not, but a fairly solid exposition on the evidence for the latter here:
https://4thwavenow.com/2019/08/19/no-child-is-born-in-the-wrong-body-and-other-thoughts-on-the-concept-of-gender-identity/
Of particular note therefrom is the joint probability distribution for a set of personality traits, and a passage thereon that underlines my previous points:
4thWave: "In fact, due to the significant overlap of personality traits between males and females, the personality traits of some females will be more “masculine” than those exhibited by some, or even most males, and vice versa."
Pretty much everyone is masculine in some traits, feminine in others, and to a greater or lesser extent than is typical of our sex or of the other one -- or of neither ... 😉🙂
Andreas: "... I think the main problem with the ongoing debate about gender identity is first the frequent confusion between sex and gender ..."
Amen to that. 🙂 Largely why I'm pushing for more precise and scientifically justified definitions for both.
Andreas: "... the tyranny of the discontinuous mind ..."
Interesting post and cogent arguments, an essay I'll have to re-read:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/12/issue-essay-line-dawkins
Archive: https://archive.li/qm6CH
Though I may have a bone or two to pick with Richard on various principles of categorization -- arguably, the crux of the whole transgender clusterfuck. You might also have some interest in my post on the "debate" between the binarists & the spectrumists which basically boils down into the question of monothetic versus polythetic categories -- a rather important if not profound concept with far-reaching effects:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
Andreas: "And it makes a lot of sense to define the sexes on the difference of the gametes! ..."
Indeed. It's probably the one trait that is shared by literally millions of species for the last billion years or so. Interesting overview on the principle involved:
Wikipedia: "In biology, taxonomy (from Ancient Greek τάξις (taxis) 'arrangement', and -νομία (-nomia) 'method') is the scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on SHARED characteristics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)
And it is absolutely essential to reproduction -- no gametes of two different types, no reproduction. At least in all of those anisogamous species. Well justifies those biological definitions.
Though can't say that I've read all of that MHR article -- some heavy-going -- but interesting bit from the Abstract which underlines the "hypothesis" that that dimorphism in gamete sizes has more or less driven every last bit of sexual dimorphism on the planet in many other traits:
MHR: "The ancestral divergence and maintenance of gamete sizes subsequently led to many other differences we now observe between the two sexes, sowing the seeds for what we have become."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Though not sure I'd entirely agree that those genders, those sexually dimorphic traits, are as malleable as you're apparently suggesting. No doubt many of them are, in part, "socially constructed". But many of them -- particular those sexually dimorphic personality traits -- at least start off from two very different types of "bedrock" -- not easily, or wisely, repudiated, obviated, or swept under the carpet.
Apropos of which, you might have some interest in some studies on personality differences by sex:
"Global sex differences in personality: Replication with an open online dataset":
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jopy.12500
"Personality and gender differences in global perspective":
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijop.12265
"Finally if anyone has the impression that physics is going to put the last nail in the coffin of religion, they are due to be disappointed. We are progressing back to the Planck time, infinitessimally close to the zero of the big bang"
But physics has surely put the last nail in the coffin of theism, which accounts for the majority of religious believers around the world. With "the god of the gaps" squeezed out all the way back to the Planck time, there's nowhere for a theistic god to hide anymore, zero evidence for one, and zero reason to invoke the possible existence of one.
That leaves either (a) no god, ever or (b) a deistic god who set the initial conditions of the universe, pressed "play" to kick off the Big Bang, and has no role whatsoever in what happens after that.
Peter Boghossian's question about how to prevent the next phase of irrationality--to anticipate what that might be--is the question of "how do we prevent human beings from being irrational?" Can we do that? Change human nature? I think we can return to a higher degree of rationality, one in which it's safe for me, in a classroom or a social situation, to actually say what I think. But better than that?
Man I’m loving your stuff
I fundamentally disagree with your opinion but I value it nonetheless
If only more people could appreciate conversations, without agreeing with the content.
if only more people were open to courageous conversations...
https://opentochange.substack.com
Why are so many people interested in Dawkin's perspectives on religion? Or critical thinking for that matter?
Atheism is not a product of critical thinking. It's just another faith based belief system which competes with religious faith. There's nothing wrong atheism, and to each their own of course. But in the hands of the more ardent atheist ideologists such as Dawkin's the relentless superiority claims just sound ridiculous. And given that Dawkins is clearly a very intelligent person with a high degree of education, it just sounds so odd to have him endlessly chanting these dogmas.
Religions are typically built upon the chosen authority of some holy book. The largest claims of such holy books can't be proven, and so most religious people are honest enough to agree that they are operating largely on faith.
Atheism is built upon the chosen authority of human reason. Where is it proven that something as small as human reason is qualified to come to credible conclusions regarding the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, typically the scope of religion's largest claims? We don't even know what "everything everywhere" refers to!
Why is it superior critical thinking to demand proof of the qualifications of religion's chosen authority, and NOT demand proof of the qualifications of atheism's chosen authority? Where is the intellectual honesty???
Dawkin's has reason and ideology confused. Reason doesn't care who wins, ideology cares about little else. Dawkins isn't teaching us anything useful about reason and critical thinking, he's just selling his ideology, as is his right of course.
If I understand correctly, Dawkins is a well respected expert on biology. Ok, great, I'm sure he knows more about that than the rest of us, and could be a good teacher to us on that subject.
Stick to your knitting Dr. Dawkins, stick to what you're actually expert at. When it comes to religion, you're in way over your head.
By the way, for what it's worth, I'm not religious.
Is there a definition of 'woke' that we can use to see if it is a religion or rational?
For example, I do not believe that being born white is to be born into sin, original or otherwise. However, being born white does mean a much more favorable set of circumstances, expectations and outcomes. This is a rational observation. White people benefit from the actions of previous generations of white people. That is not a sin, it's not their fault, but it is a true and rational statement.
For counter example, a man simply declaring himself to be a woman is clearly delusional. While I'm happy for him to wear dresses and be his Best Possible Self, the statement 'I am a woman' can be tested with a simple blood test, and the answer 'Oh no you're not!' is not fascism, transphobia or any such.
My working definition of 'woke' is that it applies to people who can empathize with other people, and who can put themselves in other people's shoes. Not all the conclusions these people come to are rational, but some -and probably most- are.
Of course substitution exists, whether in the realm of superstition, organized religion, law, medicine, and even science. How can two highly educated grown men NOT be aware of this; how do they know nothing of society or history? How was the question even posed, as if they were the first people to contemplate such a thing?
For some, organized religion has been replaced with anodyne "spirituality", while for others there's an entire wellness and me-time industry.
Of course there's a moral dimension to science, a moral dimension to evidence! Science doesn't live in a political, social, and economic vacuum. Science is only and always of its time, and its lack of purity no doubt holds us back in all fields. The ethical and moral dimensions of evidence and science are the only arguments worth having. The morality of science is already a continual debate in the public discourse. A resort to positing inherent good, or poetics, neither of which are accepted by billions of people, isn't useful. I can't decide if Dawkins was being disingenuous or just stubborn.
I wonder, with all the talk of biology and genetics in these past few podcasts, why isn’t gender and identity spoken about as the spectrum that it is? That also considers hormonal and quantum effects on gender identity?
Virtually nothing in the universe is an absolute, either, or!
Consider a color spectrum.
First, note that black and white is the wrong analogy for sex because those are the absence of color and all color, respectively. The right analogy is any actual color.
There is a distinct, absolute red and blue. But there are also reds and blues. Many blues are indistinguishable from absolute blue. There are also blues that include red but are still mostly blue. Statistically speaking, they’d still be blue. If that statistic determined the color of offspring during fertilization, isn’t it fair to assume that the result will not be purely blue or red? That is, the offspring could be on a spectrum, despite it resulting in a blue-ish offspring.
Now, consider this: the quantum world is based on statistical outcomes. To me, this implies we have free will because outcomes can result in outliers. And, while our subconscious is working on decisions well before we’re conscious of them, who we are, on a quantum level, is responsible evaluating the possibilities statistically. Which literally means, we, specifically, how our brains are structured and connected, are concluding outcomes that do not always have to abide by a yes or no answer.
So while there are genetic differences between male and female, those differences arise from biological factors as mentioned above. For those not squarely on the extreme ends of masculine/feminine spectrum, free-will means those on the spectrum are free to choose the gender association with which they are more comfortable. This doesn’t mean they’re somehow being coerced from youth to adhere to a gender-norm. This also does not imply that they are free to participate in activities of a different sex. Such participation is almost exactly the same as reproductive roles. That is, reproductive roles can not be changed. But reproductive roles do not entirely dictate hormonal states nor free-will so must not be used to mandate gender identity.
thanks for the courageous conversation, Richard & Peter 🙏🏼
in the spirit of Carl Sagan, we should all be more open to change.
https://opentochange.substack.com
I think the Substitution Hypothesis could be improved considerably if we clarify if we are speaking of individuals or populations. If I convince a Southern Baptist that god may not be real, that individual is unlikely to take up Gender Studies instead. There does seem to be a persistent percentage of a population that is prone to irrational beliefs. But when collective beliefs change, its not likely the same individuals involved. It is more likely different people, in new generations, at distant locations. This problem also occurs when we personify The Woke or the The Far RIght as though they are a single person rather than attempts to categorize populations.
Two lost individuals; they are looking for the truth but have not yet found it