As a philosopher i have to note that while the proper use of words like "chair" is a issue of language while that of "human", "turtle" "mammal," is a issue about reality, reality itself has no firm boundaries. Darwin realized this implication of his theory. On a superficial level species A evolves into species B and anomalous B's are still B's, but at a deeper level there will be thousands of indivuals that have enough accumulated anomalies (mutations) that are enough that they aren't really quite A's anymore, but not enough to really be B's. In fact, there were entire genuses that were in between reptile and mammal. That however does not mean the distinction between the two isn't useful or that a third, and hence a fourth, fifth.... millionth category, will get us any closer to the underlying changing reality. And of course males aren't evolving into females for vice versa even if sex as a biological category did evolve.
I mean… maybe it’s because my parents both have a background in biological sciences this seems blatantly obvious to me. Your point about the language confusion is spot on, and there’s more to that story.
Gender is originally a linguistic construct which assigned nouns as ‘masculine’, ‘feminine’ or ‘neutral’ most commonly in Romance languages (but not English with its hybrid Germanic/French structure). The assignment of gender to words doesn’t necessarily have significant meaning. (Eg, in Italian, a table (tavolo) is masculine and a chair (sedia) is feminine, unless you’re a French deconstructionist of the late 19th to early 20th century. These philosophers who were deconstructing a Romance language that was subject to a high level of bureaucratic management and regulation were well and truly out of fashion by the time the American academy picked them up via translation in the 1960s. Since they didn’t have anything like the French government ‘official French’ they had to deconstruct of culture, politics and social relations, including between the sexes. By the 1970s you’ve got a full blown post-modernist theory of ‘gender’ in the academy and it has leaked out into the real world where a variety of bastardised versions run riot under the veneer of ‘academic theory’.
So yes, the linguistic confusion is really what this is. When you combine this with the fact that ‘grammar’ hasn’t been taught systematically in the English speaking world (at least it hasn’t in Australia) since the 1970s and a steep decline in learning foreign languages in high school, you have multiple generations of people who don’t know how language actually works and are able to be taken in by a cynical pop po-mo version that is the philosophical and political air today.
Thank you for this very insightful comment. As an academic, I appreciate your comments regarding the failure of schools to teach language arts. You are correct, indeed. And, it is very true that now multiple generations don't understand how language works. Oh, well…
This is fantastic. Perfect pitch, powerful message. The sophistry that's entangling us all over sex and gender is exhausting and seemingly driving us off a societal cliff. So now I'm annoyed: I just today published a piece, partly on the problem of sophistry within the gender debate, and if I'd read this even 12 hours ago I absolutely would have linked it within my essay. Your framing is brilliant and clear, too good to be missed. In fact, I might just sneak it in anyway...
How kind of you, Leah. I think I just commented on the piece to which you're referring... It was absolutely wonderful. I completely agree with you that this debate has become exhausting. If you think a dog is a cat, no amount of me badgering you with data will get you to change your mind.... And, I think that everything that can be said has been said. I think this whole discussion needs a different tact if it is ever to be tractable. I really have absolutely no vested interest in telling other (adult) people what to do with their lives or their bodies. (Nor do I want to be told what to do.) And, as far as I know, nobody who is on the side of "biology" has any animosity, ill feelings, or pejorative opinions about anyone in the opposite camp. That is, we disagree with the bad behavior, but I've never read any ad hominem comments. That said, it amazes me that what should be grown adults doing whatever they want to do in their private lives has become a socio-political movement that is infiltrating and damaging so much of our social fabric.... I empathize with the women who are being disparaged and displaced, and my heart breaks for the children.
Yes, it would take another essay, but it's a good idea. In general — if the person does not have androgen insensitivity — if there's a Y, they are phenotypically male, otherwise female. In the meantime, Wikipedia is a good source for general information on this topic. Thanks a lot for your comment !
You are confusing micro- with macro evolutionary processes. Replying to Vijay.
As a philosopher i have to note that while the proper use of words like "chair" is a issue of language while that of "human", "turtle" "mammal," is a issue about reality, reality itself has no firm boundaries. Darwin realized this implication of his theory. On a superficial level species A evolves into species B and anomalous B's are still B's, but at a deeper level there will be thousands of indivuals that have enough accumulated anomalies (mutations) that are enough that they aren't really quite A's anymore, but not enough to really be B's. In fact, there were entire genuses that were in between reptile and mammal. That however does not mean the distinction between the two isn't useful or that a third, and hence a fourth, fifth.... millionth category, will get us any closer to the underlying changing reality. And of course males aren't evolving into females for vice versa even if sex as a biological category did evolve.
Regarding macro (this occurs in geological time), not differentiating between cladistic and anagenic evolutionary processes.
I absolutely agree with you! Thank you very much for the comment.
I mean… maybe it’s because my parents both have a background in biological sciences this seems blatantly obvious to me. Your point about the language confusion is spot on, and there’s more to that story.
Gender is originally a linguistic construct which assigned nouns as ‘masculine’, ‘feminine’ or ‘neutral’ most commonly in Romance languages (but not English with its hybrid Germanic/French structure). The assignment of gender to words doesn’t necessarily have significant meaning. (Eg, in Italian, a table (tavolo) is masculine and a chair (sedia) is feminine, unless you’re a French deconstructionist of the late 19th to early 20th century. These philosophers who were deconstructing a Romance language that was subject to a high level of bureaucratic management and regulation were well and truly out of fashion by the time the American academy picked them up via translation in the 1960s. Since they didn’t have anything like the French government ‘official French’ they had to deconstruct of culture, politics and social relations, including between the sexes. By the 1970s you’ve got a full blown post-modernist theory of ‘gender’ in the academy and it has leaked out into the real world where a variety of bastardised versions run riot under the veneer of ‘academic theory’.
So yes, the linguistic confusion is really what this is. When you combine this with the fact that ‘grammar’ hasn’t been taught systematically in the English speaking world (at least it hasn’t in Australia) since the 1970s and a steep decline in learning foreign languages in high school, you have multiple generations of people who don’t know how language actually works and are able to be taken in by a cynical pop po-mo version that is the philosophical and political air today.
Thank you for this very insightful comment. As an academic, I appreciate your comments regarding the failure of schools to teach language arts. You are correct, indeed. And, it is very true that now multiple generations don't understand how language works. Oh, well…
This is fantastic. Perfect pitch, powerful message. The sophistry that's entangling us all over sex and gender is exhausting and seemingly driving us off a societal cliff. So now I'm annoyed: I just today published a piece, partly on the problem of sophistry within the gender debate, and if I'd read this even 12 hours ago I absolutely would have linked it within my essay. Your framing is brilliant and clear, too good to be missed. In fact, I might just sneak it in anyway...
How kind of you, Leah. I think I just commented on the piece to which you're referring... It was absolutely wonderful. I completely agree with you that this debate has become exhausting. If you think a dog is a cat, no amount of me badgering you with data will get you to change your mind.... And, I think that everything that can be said has been said. I think this whole discussion needs a different tact if it is ever to be tractable. I really have absolutely no vested interest in telling other (adult) people what to do with their lives or their bodies. (Nor do I want to be told what to do.) And, as far as I know, nobody who is on the side of "biology" has any animosity, ill feelings, or pejorative opinions about anyone in the opposite camp. That is, we disagree with the bad behavior, but I've never read any ad hominem comments. That said, it amazes me that what should be grown adults doing whatever they want to do in their private lives has become a socio-political movement that is infiltrating and damaging so much of our social fabric.... I empathize with the women who are being disparaged and displaced, and my heart breaks for the children.
Yes, it would take another essay, but it's a good idea. In general — if the person does not have androgen insensitivity — if there's a Y, they are phenotypically male, otherwise female. In the meantime, Wikipedia is a good source for general information on this topic. Thanks a lot for your comment !