I heard about the bee/fish thing. As you say, makes no sense from a taxonomic perspective, but plenty of sense from a pragmatic let’s-save-the-bees-using-available-tools perspective.
I wonder if there’s a part 3 to be had here? In this Part 2, you wrote, “Whether or not we can know what’s going on in another organism’s “mind” is an unanswerable philosophical question...” In these essays, you’re talking about whether humans can understand the inner workings of the mind of another species. But can we ever really know what’s going on even in another human’s mind? This is one of my counterarguments to the whole gender identity thing. I don’t claim to know what it means to “feel like” (or think like) a woman. I only know what it feels like to be me. So to hear people insist they “are” of the opposite sex to their biology because that’s how they “feel” -- how does that even make sense? How can they know what it “feels like” to be something they are not? (Of course, it becomes tautological, which is why such arguments are rarely satisfying. Once they deny biological reality -- how dare we assume someone’s sex/gender based on their anatomy -- it’s all downhill from there.)
Your comment is both insightful and profound. As I'm sure you know, it touched on a fundamental philosophical/psychological/neuroscientific problem. Although rooted in antiquity, it's best known in contemporary philosophical circles through Nagel's 1974 article "What Is It like to Be a Bat?"
Fundamentally, you are absolutely correct. You only know what it's like to be you, and you can't know what it's like to be someone else. I’ve been thinking about this a lot after I read your comment, especially as it applies to the transgender issue. However, that issue has become so politicized and so strongly driven by activists with little (or no) understanding of the biology or intellectual history behind it that productive discussion seems impossible.
I brought up the issue of subjective mental states by drawing an analogy between Happy the elephant and bees in order to point out that the way we attribute characteristics to other organisms says more about us than it does about them. I think it’s the same in the transgender domain. Parents report that many of their trans children act like the opposite sex by engaging in exaggerated, pseudo-stereotypical behaviors. For instance, they talk about their transitioning daughters assuming rude, slovenly, verbally aggressive demeanors because they think that’s the way “men” act. Likewise, drag queens or trans women activists often create outrageous personae that are very different from the way “women” normally act. These behaviors say more about the person doing the acting than they do about the “gender” the actor has assumed. (I don’t know any women who act like drag queens, and none of my male friends burp or fart out loud at the dinner table.)
I’m still wrestling intellectually with some of these issues as they apply to transgenderism. There’s a complex interaction going on between psychology, biology, and social forces that is driving this phenomenon. I haven’t got it sorted out in my mind as yet. (Sometimes I envy the peaceful life of Happy the elephant.)
I think much of the impetus behind the trans movement comes from the transhumanist agenda and its unholy alliance with techno-capitalists and Pharma. The strategy seems to be the deliberate fostering—and then exploiting—of the human instinct to escape pain and discomfort. The messaging is all focused on how intolerable and unfair any experience of suffering is, be it physical, emotional, or psychological, and the "cure" is to escape the limitations of the body and to reimagine the life it is centered in. It offers a happily ever after fairytale to anyone willing to eschew reality in pursuit of a false utopia. I think I've mentioned Jennifer Bilek's work to you, her documenting of the money trail behind the trans movement. It really tells the story, IMO.
Thanks for the reply! I do agree with you. I did read Bilek as you suggested. I think this is a factor driving the ideology. However, I think your assessment about people thinking there is a cure for discomfort, or a "happily ever after" condition is equally important.
This is a wonderful comment. I am in DC this week in a conference. I’d like to write a longer response to you when I get back. Thank you for contributing!
Sure, you can quote me anonymously. (As the author of this Substack, do you have access to your subscribers' email addresses? For personal/professional reasons, I'm not really looking to have my views publicized.) Or I'm also perfectly ok with you building off my ideas without attribution.
Of course, I would only refer to you anonymously. I only know you by PhDBiologistMom. I've been working on a short essay (for my Substack) through which I'm trying to understand the relationship between the points you brought up and people's perceptions of themselves. (I write not to give advice to other people but as a mechanism by which I can think through difficult questions.) I think the trans-identification issue is more complex and nuanced than either side is recognizing. That's usually the case in all things biological. However, I'm also not sure that most people are prepared (or ever will be prepared) to have thoughtful discussions about the topic. Like so many things, it's become too polarizing.
The first time I heard the trans argument, that was my first thought: How could anyone ever know what it feels like to be anyone other than who they are, much less what it "feels like" to be the opposite sex? Literally a nonsensical claim.
I heard about the bee/fish thing. As you say, makes no sense from a taxonomic perspective, but plenty of sense from a pragmatic let’s-save-the-bees-using-available-tools perspective.
I wonder if there’s a part 3 to be had here? In this Part 2, you wrote, “Whether or not we can know what’s going on in another organism’s “mind” is an unanswerable philosophical question...” In these essays, you’re talking about whether humans can understand the inner workings of the mind of another species. But can we ever really know what’s going on even in another human’s mind? This is one of my counterarguments to the whole gender identity thing. I don’t claim to know what it means to “feel like” (or think like) a woman. I only know what it feels like to be me. So to hear people insist they “are” of the opposite sex to their biology because that’s how they “feel” -- how does that even make sense? How can they know what it “feels like” to be something they are not? (Of course, it becomes tautological, which is why such arguments are rarely satisfying. Once they deny biological reality -- how dare we assume someone’s sex/gender based on their anatomy -- it’s all downhill from there.)
Your comment is both insightful and profound. As I'm sure you know, it touched on a fundamental philosophical/psychological/neuroscientific problem. Although rooted in antiquity, it's best known in contemporary philosophical circles through Nagel's 1974 article "What Is It like to Be a Bat?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F#Thesis
Fundamentally, you are absolutely correct. You only know what it's like to be you, and you can't know what it's like to be someone else. I’ve been thinking about this a lot after I read your comment, especially as it applies to the transgender issue. However, that issue has become so politicized and so strongly driven by activists with little (or no) understanding of the biology or intellectual history behind it that productive discussion seems impossible.
I brought up the issue of subjective mental states by drawing an analogy between Happy the elephant and bees in order to point out that the way we attribute characteristics to other organisms says more about us than it does about them. I think it’s the same in the transgender domain. Parents report that many of their trans children act like the opposite sex by engaging in exaggerated, pseudo-stereotypical behaviors. For instance, they talk about their transitioning daughters assuming rude, slovenly, verbally aggressive demeanors because they think that’s the way “men” act. Likewise, drag queens or trans women activists often create outrageous personae that are very different from the way “women” normally act. These behaviors say more about the person doing the acting than they do about the “gender” the actor has assumed. (I don’t know any women who act like drag queens, and none of my male friends burp or fart out loud at the dinner table.)
I’m still wrestling intellectually with some of these issues as they apply to transgenderism. There’s a complex interaction going on between psychology, biology, and social forces that is driving this phenomenon. I haven’t got it sorted out in my mind as yet. (Sometimes I envy the peaceful life of Happy the elephant.)
Do you have any thoughts?
I think much of the impetus behind the trans movement comes from the transhumanist agenda and its unholy alliance with techno-capitalists and Pharma. The strategy seems to be the deliberate fostering—and then exploiting—of the human instinct to escape pain and discomfort. The messaging is all focused on how intolerable and unfair any experience of suffering is, be it physical, emotional, or psychological, and the "cure" is to escape the limitations of the body and to reimagine the life it is centered in. It offers a happily ever after fairytale to anyone willing to eschew reality in pursuit of a false utopia. I think I've mentioned Jennifer Bilek's work to you, her documenting of the money trail behind the trans movement. It really tells the story, IMO.
https://www.the11thhourblog.com/
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/billionaire-family-pushing-synthetic-sex-identities-ssi-pritzkers
Thanks for the reply! I do agree with you. I did read Bilek as you suggested. I think this is a factor driving the ideology. However, I think your assessment about people thinking there is a cure for discomfort, or a "happily ever after" condition is equally important.
This is a wonderful comment. I am in DC this week in a conference. I’d like to write a longer response to you when I get back. Thank you for contributing!
I was in DC too! -- though probably at a different meeting. Thanks for the lengthier response, to which I do plan to respond as well. :-)
Great... I was at the FRIENDS convention (National Association of Young People Who Stutter.)
Also, I am writing a brief essay on the points we discussed... mind if I quote you?
Frederick
Sure, you can quote me anonymously. (As the author of this Substack, do you have access to your subscribers' email addresses? For personal/professional reasons, I'm not really looking to have my views publicized.) Or I'm also perfectly ok with you building off my ideas without attribution.
Of course, I would only refer to you anonymously. I only know you by PhDBiologistMom. I've been working on a short essay (for my Substack) through which I'm trying to understand the relationship between the points you brought up and people's perceptions of themselves. (I write not to give advice to other people but as a mechanism by which I can think through difficult questions.) I think the trans-identification issue is more complex and nuanced than either side is recognizing. That's usually the case in all things biological. However, I'm also not sure that most people are prepared (or ever will be prepared) to have thoughtful discussions about the topic. Like so many things, it's become too polarizing.
The first time I heard the trans argument, that was my first thought: How could anyone ever know what it feels like to be anyone other than who they are, much less what it "feels like" to be the opposite sex? Literally a nonsensical claim.
Leah, I posted a response to the previous comment. I would be interested in any thoughts that you have.
Thank you very much. This is a very good thought that’s giving me a lot to think about in terms of how I approach that particular problem.