I can't believe Stathis is still quoting the "left-handedness" trope. Have a read of this that shows the full data where they cropped the left-handed meme from - just like climate science deniers they only show the part of the graph they want to manipulate you with.
Well-written and quite thorough essay. Though I'm sad to hear that many in your family were apparently rather unlucky in life's genetic lottery, but certainly glad that you dodged that bullet. Technology may not be a panacea, and may well be something of a mixed blessing, but things like gene replacement therapy may offer some hope to such individuals.
However, while there is little doubt that "gender" and "gender identity" is something of a toxic witches' brew, there's some reason to argue that part of the problem is largely quite unscientific definitions for both, along with a rather "obstinate" refusal by many to consider more tenable ones. And an additional confounding factor is the rather fraudulent "bait-and-switch" ploys by transgender activists to use "male" and "female" to denote both genders and gender identities. For examples, see Merriam-Webster's definitions, and a tweet by Matt Walsh thereon:
What is particularly risible there -- particularly if one has a predilection for gallows humour -- is that "female", as a gender identity, is circular since its definition of "having a gender identity that is the opposite of male" is "complemented" by a definition for "male" as "having a gender identity that is the opposite of female". Idiots. Cretins. Those responsible there at MW should be fired, if not tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. Figuratively speaking, of course ...
But if, to be charitable, obfuscation and equivocation wasn't their objectives, it is certainly an easy pit to fall into. Whatever "female" and "male" may consist of as genders and gender identities, it should be as clear as day that they're entirely different kettles of fish -- if not species from entirely different phyla -- from their definitions as sexes.
However, more to the point, there's a great deal of justification to DEFINE "gender" as being more or less synonymous with sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types. As an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP] does:
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."
And as did the late US Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia in a rather illuminating 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.”
But, given that more or less solid definition for "gender", it is then not much of a stretch to see "gender identity" as a variation on "personal identity", a fairly solid concept and a topic on which SEP also has an illuminating article. Paraphrasing it:
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."
A major contributing factor in the whole transgender clusterfuck is that virtually every last man, woman, and otherkin has an entirely different and quite antithetical set of definitions for both "sex" and "gender". No wonder then that the whole "debate" is such a dog's breakfast, that virtually everyone is riding madly off in all directions. As philosopher Will Durant put it in commenting on 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"
This is such an important piece - will it be published elsewhere too?
I can't believe Stathis is still quoting the "left-handedness" trope. Have a read of this that shows the full data where they cropped the left-handed meme from - just like climate science deniers they only show the part of the graph they want to manipulate you with.
https://www.voidifremoved.co.uk/p/the-left-hand-of-daftness
Well-written and quite thorough essay. Though I'm sad to hear that many in your family were apparently rather unlucky in life's genetic lottery, but certainly glad that you dodged that bullet. Technology may not be a panacea, and may well be something of a mixed blessing, but things like gene replacement therapy may offer some hope to such individuals.
However, while there is little doubt that "gender" and "gender identity" is something of a toxic witches' brew, there's some reason to argue that part of the problem is largely quite unscientific definitions for both, along with a rather "obstinate" refusal by many to consider more tenable ones. And an additional confounding factor is the rather fraudulent "bait-and-switch" ploys by transgender activists to use "male" and "female" to denote both genders and gender identities. For examples, see Merriam-Webster's definitions, and a tweet by Matt Walsh thereon:
https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1549382790952656899
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/male
What is particularly risible there -- particularly if one has a predilection for gallows humour -- is that "female", as a gender identity, is circular since its definition of "having a gender identity that is the opposite of male" is "complemented" by a definition for "male" as "having a gender identity that is the opposite of female". Idiots. Cretins. Those responsible there at MW should be fired, if not tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. Figuratively speaking, of course ...
But if, to be charitable, obfuscation and equivocation wasn't their objectives, it is certainly an easy pit to fall into. Whatever "female" and "male" may consist of as genders and gender identities, it should be as clear as day that they're entirely different kettles of fish -- if not species from entirely different phyla -- from their definitions as sexes.
However, more to the point, there's a great deal of justification to DEFINE "gender" as being more or less synonymous with sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types. As an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP] does:
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
And as did the late US Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia in a rather illuminating 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
But, given that more or less solid definition for "gender", it is then not much of a stretch to see "gender identity" as a variation on "personal identity", a fairly solid concept and a topic on which SEP also has an illuminating article. Paraphrasing it:
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
A major contributing factor in the whole transgender clusterfuck is that virtually every last man, woman, and otherkin has an entirely different and quite antithetical set of definitions for both "sex" and "gender". No wonder then that the whole "debate" is such a dog's breakfast, that virtually everyone is riding madly off in all directions. As philosopher Will Durant put it in commenting on 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