Many people thought multiple personalities were real; many people thought recovered memories were real; the Nobel prize committee awarded a prize to a man who believed mutilation of brains was a solution to uppity women. The Catholic Church believes that schizophrenia is actually demonic possession.
Many people thought multiple personalities were real; many people thought recovered memories were real; the Nobel prize committee awarded a prize to a man who believed mutilation of brains was a solution to uppity women. The Catholic Church believes that schizophrenia is actually demonic possession.
The beauty of science is that once an idea is shown to be false, it eventually is discarded as an explanation of reality. Astrology, physiognomy, gender, humours, race, pseudo-science all. I’m waiting for IQ to be abandoned.
You know what I will say, as I’ve said it before. Gender is a linguistic attribute, not a human attribute. The collection of sex-linked behaviors in humans is a collection of sex-linked behaviors, attributing them to a pseudoscientific term guarantees perpetually indefinite meaning as the term’s immeasurable meaning fluctuates day-to-day, use-to-use.
Animals have a sex, they don’t have a gender. Humans are animals. We have a sex, not a gender.
We use gender to render grammatically consistent language.
Sufeitzy: "Many people thought multiple personalities were real ..."
So what? Do you seriously think that the results of the studies in that 4th Wave article which Colin co-authored, the ones that show substantial degrees of variation on personality traits by sex, were all bogus? Made up? Fudged? Cut from whole cloth?
I wonder if you ever looked at the graph therein or understood it if you did -- I've certainly posted it often enough for you to have seen it. But you seem to think that if a personality trait is found, say, in males then it can't possibly be found in females. And vice versa. That graph shows quite explicitly that that is not at all the case.
That is largely what "gender", at best, encapsulates or describes: some traits are more typical of females and are CALLED "feminine", and some traits are more typical of males and are CALLED "masculine". But they are, in general, NOT exclusive to either sex.
Sufeitzy: "Gender is a linguistic attribute, not a human attribute."
Sure -- "linguistic attribute" is ONE use of "gender". But it's NOT the only one. Just because it may have had that use historically does not mean it can't be pressed into use for other applications. Hardly an uncommon or untenable phenomenon.
For example, "male" and "female" are conventionally used to denote the presence of gonads (functional or otherwise) of either of two types. But at least since the 1660s those terms have also been used to denote convex and concave mating surfaces -- a clear analogue to human genitalia:
Do you seriously think that we should stop using "male" and "female" for electrical connectors because of their use as sexes? Seems that that is basically what you're arguing for in excluding "gender" from denoting sexually dimorphic personality traits.
Sufeitzy: "Humans are animals. We have a sex, not a gender."
By some more or less recent stipulative definitions, we have both: sex -- defined as the presence of either of two types of gonads (functional or not) -- AND genders -- defined as various personality traits that tend to be more typical of one sex than the other.
Recognizing that dichotomy is what I expect would do "more" in the way of a "world of good".
Many people thought multiple personalities were real; many people thought recovered memories were real; the Nobel prize committee awarded a prize to a man who believed mutilation of brains was a solution to uppity women. The Catholic Church believes that schizophrenia is actually demonic possession.
The beauty of science is that once an idea is shown to be false, it eventually is discarded as an explanation of reality. Astrology, physiognomy, gender, humours, race, pseudo-science all. I’m waiting for IQ to be abandoned.
You know what I will say, as I’ve said it before. Gender is a linguistic attribute, not a human attribute. The collection of sex-linked behaviors in humans is a collection of sex-linked behaviors, attributing them to a pseudoscientific term guarantees perpetually indefinite meaning as the term’s immeasurable meaning fluctuates day-to-day, use-to-use.
Animals have a sex, they don’t have a gender. Humans are animals. We have a sex, not a gender.
We use gender to render grammatically consistent language.
Understanding that would do a world of good.
Sufeitzy: "Many people thought multiple personalities were real ..."
So what? Do you seriously think that the results of the studies in that 4th Wave article which Colin co-authored, the ones that show substantial degrees of variation on personality traits by sex, were all bogus? Made up? Fudged? Cut from whole cloth?
https://4thwavenow.com/2019/08/19/no-child-is-born-in-the-wrong-body-and-other-thoughts-on-the-concept-of-gender-identity/
I wonder if you ever looked at the graph therein or understood it if you did -- I've certainly posted it often enough for you to have seen it. But you seem to think that if a personality trait is found, say, in males then it can't possibly be found in females. And vice versa. That graph shows quite explicitly that that is not at all the case.
That is largely what "gender", at best, encapsulates or describes: some traits are more typical of females and are CALLED "feminine", and some traits are more typical of males and are CALLED "masculine". But they are, in general, NOT exclusive to either sex.
Sufeitzy: "Gender is a linguistic attribute, not a human attribute."
Sure -- "linguistic attribute" is ONE use of "gender". But it's NOT the only one. Just because it may have had that use historically does not mean it can't be pressed into use for other applications. Hardly an uncommon or untenable phenomenon.
For example, "male" and "female" are conventionally used to denote the presence of gonads (functional or otherwise) of either of two types. But at least since the 1660s those terms have also been used to denote convex and concave mating surfaces -- a clear analogue to human genitalia:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/male#etymonline_v_6731
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners
Do you seriously think that we should stop using "male" and "female" for electrical connectors because of their use as sexes? Seems that that is basically what you're arguing for in excluding "gender" from denoting sexually dimorphic personality traits.
Sufeitzy: "Humans are animals. We have a sex, not a gender."
By some more or less recent stipulative definitions, we have both: sex -- defined as the presence of either of two types of gonads (functional or not) -- AND genders -- defined as various personality traits that tend to be more typical of one sex than the other.
Recognizing that dichotomy is what I expect would do "more" in the way of a "world of good".