Actually, female is a biological category, and applies to all sexually reproductive species, including plants. Now do I have to ask my squash plants what they identify as before I plant? Or at some point? Do I need to stop showing my students how to identify male and female eastern red cedar trees? At least until they tell me their correct pronoun?
It is the gender identification garble that is not precise. We are able to define female for every other species, but certain humans seem to believe that there is one animal on the planet that is exempt from biology. They make no sense at all anymore, if they ever did.
Honestly? The very first clause is not technically wrong… I’ve yet to meet a medical or biological category (or chemical, or even apparently physical for that matter) that, when looked at closely enough, could really be called “precise”. Fuzzy edges all around. Doesn’t stop us from making use of them, for better or worse. You can acknowledge exceptions and overlap without throwing categorization and it’s utility out altogether.
It should be pointed out again and again that the sorites paradox explored the concept of fuzzy edges millennia ago. It is known and uncontroversial that a word-concept can have uncertain borders while still having useful meaning.
And the thing that gives the game away for me is that this ‘fuzzy borders’ complication – in addition to being a solved problem (millennia ago!) – is only being applied to a single concept, sex. And even then, only in a single species. Notice that PZ has no problem applying the concepts of sex to his spider studies, and no one is pestering biologists, vets, and botanists to drop the concept of sex for their areas of study.
This is transparently nothing more than an ad-hoc word game with no merit.
Notice that PZ has no problem applying the concepts of sex to his spider studies
But he says he only does so in the context of reproduction and nothing else, side-stepping the issue by changing the subject. By implication, then, he believes that biological sex in humans is only relevant in terms of reproduction, which means that trans women are not in every sense women and trans men are not in every sense men, which would appear to demolish his entire argument.
Don’t worry, though, he gets around this by pointing out that some men and women are unable to reproduce and that isn’t a basis on which to judge their sex…. Which seems to handily demolish his argument from the other direction as well.
Don’t worry, though, he gets around this by pointing out that some men and women are unable to reproduce and that isn’t a basis on which to judge their sex.
My partner is “unable to reproduce”, as four failed rounds of IVF showed. Doesn’t make her any less of a woman, nor any more of a man. Nor am I sure what pronouns she prefers, it hasn’t ever been an issue.
Well exactly. The argument is just a cloud of squid ink from PZ while he flits away under cover.
Mrs latsot is unable to reproduce too due to early menopause due to chemotherapy. We still call her “her”.
PZ’s argument is that on the one hand “biological sex” is relevant only in the context of reproduction but that on the other hand people who are unable to reproduce are still the sex they are. Unless they say they’re not.
Ah but latsot, sex is only relevant when he says it is, and ceases to be relevant otherwise… such as, when you use the concept to counter his argument!
Yeah, that seems to be the way it is. His recent post about sex being complicated deliberately misses the point that there are, as it happens, two sexes in humans. PZ lies outright when he says that the only way to insist on a sex binary is to pick one and only one criteria on which to determine sex. I know that it’s a lie rather than a slip because his entire thesis depends on it: lots of traits that typically vary between sexes don’t always do so. So sex is complicated. Which totally means that people are the sex they say they are, no questions asked or even allowed. That is the exact point in the argument at which the miracle is required.
That sex is fuzzy is not in dispute. That there are outlying cases is not controversial in the slightest. The idea that a compassionate and thoughtful response is needed for those people who are non-typical is a given and I know of no supposed TERF who has argued otherwise.
But it is all an ink cloud because, despite the complications, there are still quite obviously two sexes. That shouldn’t be in the least problematic. If it’s difficult to classify some people, that’s the same problem that exists with all classifications schemes there have ever been and ever will be, not a fundamental misunderstanding of sex.
As feminists (you know, the boring old ones) have been pointing out for decades, the problem is with expectations and their having been baked-into society.
I read an article the other day by a woman who, as a child, liked to climb trees, catch frogs and have short hair. As an adult she likes to wear dresses and be glamorous but not wear heels or paint her nails. The article was all about how thank goodness, after nearly 40 years, she now knows that she is genderqueer rather than a woman who likes to some but not all things traditionally not associated by society with the female sex. She didn’t say why it was such a tremendous relief to finally have an almost meaningless label with which to describe herself.
she now knows that she is genderqueer rather than a woman who likes to some but not all things traditionally not associated by society with the female sex.
What the TRAs refuse to admit is, when they say things like this (meaningless as they are), they are effectively saying if you don’t fit all the stereotypes, you are either gender neutral, non-binary, or genderqueer. So what makes her genderqueer when there are other women (such as myself) who do not fit the stereotype precisely, but do have some characteristics that fit the traditional female stereotype? Such as, I like math, but not sports. I like sweet wine and vegetables, but I don’t have a nurturing nature. I like wearing earrings but not make up. And so on, and so on…So, either I am genderqueer, non-binary, gender neutral, or some other bafflegab word, or it isn’t the case that liking things from both ends of the gender stereotype spectrum doesn’t mean anything about what gender you are. (Yes, only one data point. We could amass many.)
PZ seems to have no concept that his idea of gender fluidity actually argues against trans dogma. Gender fluidity is what the rad fems are arguing for, not the placing of people into these boxes, moving them from one box to another, and creating whole new gender identities for the 99.9% of people who do not fit precisely into one box or the other. Break the back of the stereotypes, and trans people could feel at home in whatever sex they are born, because their sex would not come with a predefined set of behaviors they are expected to follow. Everyone could play with the fun toys (however they define that); everyone could wear the fun clothes (however they define that); everyone could have whatever name they preferred; everyone could just be themselves…and we could still segregate sports and women’s shelters on the basis of sex, recognizing certain biological realities that are currently being ignored.
Sometimes I’m sad when I see what a greasy little echo chamber Pharyngula can be with respect to trans activism. Then I realise how few contributors there are, all patting each other on the back, and feel relieved.
The only posts I see on “TERFs” there represent them as espousing ideas I’ve never heard from an alleged TERF. You’re not permitted to point that out though. There’s no discussion to be had.
Very much exactly that, marinerachel. The comments of We Hunted the Mammoth are much the same. They read like the Monty Python Yorkshireman sketch with each contributer trying to outdo the last in piety.
They’re mostly well-meaning folks in both places. They all drank the Kool Aid early re: trans activism though out of sincere concern for the wellbeing of trans folks. God knows I did. When you’re emotionally invested in defending a group from perceived widespread abuse, you don’t view them critically. When you do start questioning, you’re too ashamed to verbalise those thoughts. You feel like the oppressor.
I had to slink out of a number of online communities quietly and spend a few years deprogramming and thinking critically outside of their influence. Otherwise, I’d still be immersed in them, believing I was the monster for having conflicting thoughts.
I think not having much in their lives contributes to a lot of people’s adherence to dumb beliefs like “A WOMAN IS ANYONE WHO SAYS THEY ARE”. If you have anything else going on and are even the slightest bit intelligent, once a group of people you hang out with start repeating a mantra that bizarre, you distance yourself from them. When you have nothing and no one else to spend your time with…
iknklast, you’re so right. Trans ideology is kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy in that sense – its strident forcing of people into stereotypes and (ever-multiplying) categories induces rather than reduces gender dysphoria. I’m kind of like you backwards – I’m a stay at home dad who loves taking care of his children, looks forward to cooking dinner every night more than anything, and would rather do laundry than watch sports. It doesn’t make me a woman. Or any of these bizarre word collisions. None of this requires categorization. I’m just a man who likes what I like. The trans cult is a serious threat to my kids’ ability to do the same.
Well now we have to think of something we all disagree VIOLENTLY on, lest we be another Pharyngula or We Hunted the Mammoth (or Shakesville hahahahahaha). What should it be? Rhubarb? The filmography of George Cukor? Philately? Cricket? Moldavia?
I wasn’t really familiar with all the drama associated with that site, especially when it took that weird “you MUST support the blog founder and acknowledge her as your leader!” turn.
I gotta take the pro-backpack-in-front side. I didn’t do it all the time but on my trip to Italy I found it way easier to maneuver in crowds plus it made taking photos (DSLR) easier (I took pictures of EVERYTHING I could I was in heaven). I haven’t seen Jamie Oliver in years, he was OK. With OB on avocados, I eat them right out of the skin with a spoon sometimes.
Avocados and guacamole are NOT the same thing. Whole avocado is slimy, squishy, and tastes like nothing — disgusting. Avocado mashed into guacamole with salt, lime juice, and pico de gallon, is creamy, flavorful, and delicious.
If “the only sense in which ‘biological sex’ is meaningful” is reproduction, that’s an argument for doing away with any and all sex distinctions anywhere — change rooms, prisons, sports, shelters, sexual orientations, all of it. Why segregate anywhere if sex only matters in terms of reproduction? But “sex” has other meanings besides biology, says PZ. Well, if the meaning of “sex” is not about biology but really about “varied and complicated” other stuff, how come no one can ever explain what that “varied and complicated” other stuff actually is, or why that other stuff matters enough to make meaningful distinctions by it? When we look closely at how trans activists are trying to define sex, it’s pretty clear that what they’re really saying is, yes, sex is real, we absolutely do distinguish between men and women, we want the categories of man and woman to remain intact, and we don’t even want the social norms around them to change. And we recognize that sex distinction is about biology for everyone else. What we want is for an exception to be made for ourselves, and only for ourselves, on the basis of our stated feelings.
Take sports: trans activists want “biological males” to be able to compete alongside “biological females” — that’s called desegregating sports. But they don’t actually want to desegregate sports, do they. They want “biological” males and females to compete separately, with only one exception: trans-identifying males. Everyone else’s sex is defined by their biology, and that’s fine, except for themselves, on the basis of their feelings.
Same goes for prisons: it’s ok to segregate by biology for everyone else. Just not for them. Because feelz.
Take sexual orientation: trans activists want homosexuals (and presumably heterosexuals too, but they’re suspiciously silent about them) to be open to both biologically male and biologically female sexual partners. That’s called declaring everyone bisexual. But they don’t declare that everyone is bisexual (or pansexual or whatever-sexual), do they? Tellingly, they don’t even identify themselves as bisexual most of the time. They identify as lesbians. It’s perfectly ok to be sexually oriented to only one biological sex — they themselves are only oriented to one biological sex — so long as you make an exception for them and only them, on the basis of their stated feelings.
On closer inspection, it turns out these “varied and complicated” other meanings of sex PZ is going on about are really just, men’s feelings.
latsot @ #10 – in the post you reference, Dr. Myers states that he has been a “biological male” only three times in his life – that is, the three times he engaged in sexual reproduction (he adds a few waffle words, but his point is that biological male and female means reproduction, and that’s all). Made me want to ask him if he’s ever peed standing up, or if he ever “crossed the streams” as a kid.
maddog @ 28 – nobody said avocados and guacamole are the same thing. (Yes! This is great! Not-Shakesville here we come!) That’s why I said add lime juice and salt. I don’t agree that avocados naked are slimy and disgusting, but I do agree lime juice and salt bring them out. Often when I eat a half right out of the skin I’ll eat the first chunk or two naked and then squeeze the lime. Naked is good, with lime is also good.
I enjoy avocado in a number of cooked dishes and salads. I probably prefer plain avocado to guacamole. I’ve not eaten avocado naked, nor in pajamas, as best as I can recall.
The comments of We Hunted the Mammoth are much the same. They read like the Monty Python Yorkshireman sketch with each contributer trying to outdo the last in piety.
I was well into my 20’s before I ‘got’ avocado. The few times I tried them earlier they just tasted like mashed peas. Now, strangely, I like both. Backpacks on front bad, Jamie Oliver cookery books ok, TV shows annoying. Rhubarb excellent with ginger. Who the hell is George Cukor? Philately is alright if you don’t have a life I guess. Cricket is acceptable only when we win. Moldavia? Who cares, we’ve always been at war with EastAsia!
Now, everyone take a position on the above and then Latsot can prepare a venn diagram. We can then classify ourselves into two or more groups with fuzzy boundaries.
Mano is one of the bright lights left at the other place, and we share a love of cricket. He did almost fall down the TRA rabbit hole, but seems to have withdrawn.
Also still worthwhile is Marcus Rannum (stderr) on anything to do with computer security, American Imperialism, and war in general. And don’t forget Reprobate Spreadsheet, the blog that goes out of its way to prove “There are three kinds of lies; Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.”
Ah well some Pharyngulites always did like telling people to kill themselves or die in some gruesome way. That’s one reason I stayed away from the comments most of the time.
I didn’t much like avocado at first either. It was one of the “exotic” foods my older sister introduced me to after she got married, along with eggplant and I forget what else. But then my prefrontal cortex developed…
The Philadelphia Story and The Women are great movies, really great, and I will firmly disagree with anyone who says otherwise! No porcupines involved.
Gilding the lilly and don’t you dare disagree with me, or I’ll take the bowl of guacamole and go home to watch a whole bunch of movies I seem to have missed.
I think it’s official. We are an echo chamber. I base this conclusion on the fact we have disparate views and likes about a range of topics but all agree that we can more or less rub shoulders to constructively discuss topics of common (dis)interest.
You’re all wrong about avocados, whichever way you them and whatever you do or do not wear to do so. Avocados are food like women have penises. Olives, too. Make perfectly good oil, of course, but how people can eat those vile little transgrapes – stuffed or not – is beyond me. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing people to eat avocados and olives. His next greatest was to repeat the trick with apricots and blackcurrants.
Philately gets you nowhere.
Jamie Oliver – that very posh young chef who suddenly became more ‘Mockney’ than all of Guy Ritchie’s movies combined – named one of his kids Honey Boo. Enough said.
Cricket: a spectator sport for those who find competitive knitting too exciting.
Slight echo, Ophelia, because I agree with you on Harry Potter and Rowling, but you like avocados so I’m starting to wonder if you are just as wrong about the little wizard. Maybe I need to look at Potter again…..
Well, avocados aren’t like say raspberries or oranges, that pretty much everyone likes. They’re kind of odd if you’re not used to them, and they’re very nasty once overripe. But I did get used to them and mmmmmmmm.
Olives – I don’t love them on their own, but chopped up in say a puttanesca sauce or with cheese and oil on pasta – yasss!
When it comes to blackcurrants, now, I will fight you, especially since they’re so hard to get over here. Cassis gelato??
I’m not fussed about Jamie Oliver because I get all my cook-watching needs from Lidia Bastianich. Oh and also, Guy Fieri is worse than Jamie Oliver any day.
Ophelia @50, you really don’t get how this works. When I lay down the law like that, you’re supposed to say “This is my blog and…” and then I’m supposed to say “Do you want a 5 minute argument or a ten minute argument?”
The only posts I see on “TERFs” there represent them as espousing ideas I’ve never heard from an alleged TERF. You’re not permitted to point that out though. There’s no discussion to be had.
I tried to get that through to one of the less hysterical denizens of Pharyngula (John Morales) by pointing out that his “Ophelia’s regular commenters believe ______” post was totally unrecognisable as a belief of mine. What ensued was a typical series of word games rather than any kind of admission that his summary was inaccurate. And the rest are even less reasonable than him!
Ahem. The whole world seems to have got the currant thing all wrong. It’s redcurrants that are nice and yet totally unobtainable, blackcurrants are awful.
And we haven’t addressed the big one: Cats or dogs?
Take sexual orientation: trans activists want homosexuals (and presumably heterosexuals too, but they’re suspiciously silent about them) to be open to both biologically male and biologically female sexual partners.
That would require them to take on a demographic that is simply too powerful for them to dream of overthrowing – the heterosexual male. Far easier for them to excoriate homosexual women as being too privileged and powerful, than the group with even more of both. Better still, they gain some of the privileged heterosexual males as woke allies in the quest to bully women some more.
Adding olives to a dish is like inviting the biggest arsehole at work to a party you are throwing. They ruin every dish are are added to. Other ingredients stop being happy when olives turn up. Avocados are bad, but olives are the anti-food.
Pineapples belong on pizza, as well as anchovies. At the same time, on the same pizza.
Myrmecia are the best ant genus, your local ants wish they were half as cool.
Eucalypts are just the greatest type of tree, especially when you can smell them after rain.
The Coorong is very pretty and I am slightly hurt that our resident wetlands ecologist / otter has never mentioned it. Living on a different continent is no excuse!
I reserve “literally” as exempt from normal linguistic change. If you want to use it in a sentence, think carefully, then think again, then just use ‘figuratively’ to be safe.
I would like to climb Ayers Rock / Uluru, even though the local aboriginal peoples would rather I don’t.
This one might actually be contentious: I still support prostitution in principle, with the caveat that in practice, it is very difficult to do safely.
Catwhispere, dogs every time. If I wanted a creature mooching around the house ignoring me unless it wants something I’d adopt a surly teenager. At least the teenager eventually stops being a teenager and becomes socialised; cats remain cats forever.
Holms, pineapple belongs on pizza like gravy belongs on rhubarb crumble.
Well, avocados aren’t like say raspberries or oranges, that pretty much everyone likes. They’re kind of odd if you’re not used to them, and they’re very nasty once overripe.
I guess liking avocados shows that someone is Fruit Woke. It allows the Woken one to distinguish themselves in refinement and Fruitiness against the run-of-the-mill “raspberries and oranges” cis-fruit crowd.
Bugger.
That’s not gonna work. I like avocados.
AND raspberries and oranges.
What camp do I fit into? I’m SO CONFUSED! SOMEBODY TELL WHAT GENDER I”M SUPPOSED TO BE!!!
That would require them to take on a demographic that is simply too powerful for them to dream of overthrowing – the heterosexual male. Far easier for them to excoriate homosexual women as being too privileged and powerful, than the group with even more of both. Better still, they gain some of the privileged heterosexual males as woke allies in the quest to bully women some more.
Yes, a much easier target. Why remain a man and do the hard work required to fight to extend the definition of “manliness” when you can take over the comparatively undefended neighbouring country of Womanhood and claim squatter’s rights to it? Why stay an unknown man in track, weightlifting and cycling, when you can own the women’s podium without nearly as much training as it would take to be nothing but a mediocre also-ran against fellow men?
Holms, if anyone puts pineapple on my pizza, I will personally decline to be friends with them ever again. And I love pineapple – in it’s place – which is not on pizza.
But I do have to agree about the Coorong…though I haven’t been there, so I’m only working from pictures. I’m trying to talk the spouse, who dislikes travelling, especially by plane, to consider Australia as a destination. But that has to be put on hold until I have gotten him to Norway. Fjords rule!
Avocados – yumm
Apricots – very yumm
Green beans? – inedible
Peanut butter? – how did anyone ever get the idea that could possibly be food?
Catwhisperer – absolutely cats. Who wants a needy, clinging beast that demands your attention every waking moment, and howls when you try to sleep? (Though I will admit, my husband’s dog is the only living being that likes my singing, and he is adorable).
And the Atlantic Ocean is a better ocean than the Pacific. So there.
Eucalyptus is (are?) fine in their place, but in Iberia they’re a major factor in forest fires.
As for all the rest, avocados, apricots, raspberries, rhubarb, pineapple on pizza, olives (but only by themselves), all are excellent foods. Call me a pan-foodist.
Peanuts I associate with potential sudden death, so I can’t be rational about them, but just the smell repels me.
Beets are the devil’s food (though if you sprinkle garlic on them and give them time to soak up the flavor, they’re not bad, but then why go through all that trouble if you can be eating guacamole?).
latsot, the Sargasso Sea is a fine spot for studying interesting life forms. I like the Sargasso Sea. But I wouldn’t want to try to navigate it in a wind-driven vessel.
Nobody seems to realise that the whole debate merely relies on an (un)original typo. It’s not TRANS. It’s TRAMS.
From start* it’s all about the reverse of smart.
And we should not yell “bigot”, but “boring”.
It all should have lasted no more than a few minutes of confusion. It was a bad joke. Nobody had to take it seriously, it was an April’s fool. Yet thanks to trams inactivists, we’re stuck in Mobile, with meme cis blues again.
* An even more ancient confusion got all that “start”. It wasn’t about “start” at first. It was all about “tarts”. It was a cook’s joke. Then it turned into a crook’s joke. It’s a never ending story**.
** I think everyones get it now. I’m stopping here but it could go on and on.
What a Maroon, if by ‘beets’ you are referring to the delightful beetroot, and are therefore stating that regurgitated avocado is superior to it, I suggest that you up the dose of whatever medication you are taking for your delusion.
If you are referring to a different type of beet, such as the sugar beet (which isn’t supposed to be eaten but processed into sugar), then forget the above.
Oi, AoS! A certain Mr. Teddy Bear would like to ‘ave a word wiff you, courtesy uv one Lady Mondegreen. ‘e’s a porcupine, see? And ‘e don’t take kindly to yer attitude, knawhamean?
Eucalypts are all right in their place i.e. Australia. Otherwise they are water and space stealing horrors of trees. Any European broadleaf is superior to those bark shedding freaks.
Cricket isn’t so much to be watched as glanced at in passing, as it gives white patches of interest to the eternal green of England.
Avocados really should be called armadillo pears, which matches their appearance. They look nothing like Italian lawyers.
Anyone who wears a backpack frontwards or backwards outside of the wilderness is a menace to society, and should pay double public transport fares.
Eucalypts are all right in their place i.e. Australia. Otherwise they are water and space stealing horrors of trees.
I have one in my English garden. It grows almost while you watch it and I have to cut huge chunks off it every couple of years so it doesn’t come down in a storm and crush the house next door into splinters.
Many of our avocados get partially rot, at least those that fell. (Early in the season, we can pick them and have perfect avocados, but quickly the number of fallen fruits outnumbers our eating capacity –that’s because we have five mature trees currently, three of them will be sacrificed to water sanitation plant next semester).
We still eat the edible bits, because it would actually be sacrilege to lose them for whatever reason, especially dissidents.
It’s currently probably around 30% of our diet, now and for the two next months, yet we seek to minimize loss.
Yep, transforming avocados into humans is what we do.
Yep, transforming avocados into humans is what we do.
Amen to that (if you can forgive the religious language).
No, I don’t want to throw avocados at AoS, because I like to eat them too much. But the price locally has been horrendous recently. But AoS, you can sit over there with my husband and discuss the evils of avocados. I’m sure he’d be glad for the company.
Actually, female is a biological category, and applies to all sexually reproductive species, including plants. Now do I have to ask my squash plants what they identify as before I plant? Or at some point? Do I need to stop showing my students how to identify male and female eastern red cedar trees? At least until they tell me their correct pronoun?
It is the gender identification garble that is not precise. We are able to define female for every other species, but certain humans seem to believe that there is one animal on the planet that is exempt from biology. They make no sense at all anymore, if they ever did.
Leaving the univariate fallacy aside–Frankenstein’s monster was stitched together out of body parts. I’m not sure they really want to go there.
Honestly? The very first clause is not technically wrong… I’ve yet to meet a medical or biological category (or chemical, or even apparently physical for that matter) that, when looked at closely enough, could really be called “precise”. Fuzzy edges all around. Doesn’t stop us from making use of them, for better or worse. You can acknowledge exceptions and overlap without throwing categorization and it’s utility out altogether.
The rest, though? Gobbledegook O.o
It should be pointed out again and again that the sorites paradox explored the concept of fuzzy edges millennia ago. It is known and uncontroversial that a word-concept can have uncertain borders while still having useful meaning.
And the thing that gives the game away for me is that this ‘fuzzy borders’ complication – in addition to being a solved problem (millennia ago!) – is only being applied to a single concept, sex. And even then, only in a single species. Notice that PZ has no problem applying the concepts of sex to his spider studies, and no one is pestering biologists, vets, and botanists to drop the concept of sex for their areas of study.
This is transparently nothing more than an ad-hoc word game with no merit.
@ Holms #4:
Telling: only applied to one subject — sex
More Telling: only applied to a single species — human beings
Blatantly Obvious Ludicrouness: only applied to one of the human sexes — women.
Quelle surprise
But he says he only does so in the context of reproduction and nothing else, side-stepping the issue by changing the subject. By implication, then, he believes that biological sex in humans is only relevant in terms of reproduction, which means that trans women are not in every sense women and trans men are not in every sense men, which would appear to demolish his entire argument.
Don’t worry, though, he gets around this by pointing out that some men and women are unable to reproduce and that isn’t a basis on which to judge their sex…. Which seems to handily demolish his argument from the other direction as well.
My partner is “unable to reproduce”, as four failed rounds of IVF showed. Doesn’t make her any less of a woman, nor any more of a man. Nor am I sure what pronouns she prefers, it hasn’t ever been an issue.
@Roj:
Well exactly. The argument is just a cloud of squid ink from PZ while he flits away under cover.
Mrs latsot is unable to reproduce too due to early menopause due to chemotherapy. We still call her “her”.
PZ’s argument is that on the one hand “biological sex” is relevant only in the context of reproduction but that on the other hand people who are unable to reproduce are still the sex they are. Unless they say they’re not.
What’s missing in his chain of ‘reason’ is this: https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4003/4633000725_8817dcedb9_b.jpg
Ah but latsot, sex is only relevant when he says it is, and ceases to be relevant otherwise… such as, when you use the concept to counter his argument!
@Holms:
Yeah, that seems to be the way it is. His recent post about sex being complicated deliberately misses the point that there are, as it happens, two sexes in humans. PZ lies outright when he says that the only way to insist on a sex binary is to pick one and only one criteria on which to determine sex. I know that it’s a lie rather than a slip because his entire thesis depends on it: lots of traits that typically vary between sexes don’t always do so. So sex is complicated. Which totally means that people are the sex they say they are, no questions asked or even allowed. That is the exact point in the argument at which the miracle is required.
That sex is fuzzy is not in dispute. That there are outlying cases is not controversial in the slightest. The idea that a compassionate and thoughtful response is needed for those people who are non-typical is a given and I know of no supposed TERF who has argued otherwise.
But it is all an ink cloud because, despite the complications, there are still quite obviously two sexes. That shouldn’t be in the least problematic. If it’s difficult to classify some people, that’s the same problem that exists with all classifications schemes there have ever been and ever will be, not a fundamental misunderstanding of sex.
As feminists (you know, the boring old ones) have been pointing out for decades, the problem is with expectations and their having been baked-into society.
I read an article the other day by a woman who, as a child, liked to climb trees, catch frogs and have short hair. As an adult she likes to wear dresses and be glamorous but not wear heels or paint her nails. The article was all about how thank goodness, after nearly 40 years, she now knows that she is genderqueer rather than a woman who likes to some but not all things traditionally not associated by society with the female sex. She didn’t say why it was such a tremendous relief to finally have an almost meaningless label with which to describe herself.
But I think we can probably guess.
What the TRAs refuse to admit is, when they say things like this (meaningless as they are), they are effectively saying if you don’t fit all the stereotypes, you are either gender neutral, non-binary, or genderqueer. So what makes her genderqueer when there are other women (such as myself) who do not fit the stereotype precisely, but do have some characteristics that fit the traditional female stereotype? Such as, I like math, but not sports. I like sweet wine and vegetables, but I don’t have a nurturing nature. I like wearing earrings but not make up. And so on, and so on…So, either I am genderqueer, non-binary, gender neutral, or some other bafflegab word, or it isn’t the case that liking things from both ends of the gender stereotype spectrum doesn’t mean anything about what gender you are. (Yes, only one data point. We could amass many.)
PZ seems to have no concept that his idea of gender fluidity actually argues against trans dogma. Gender fluidity is what the rad fems are arguing for, not the placing of people into these boxes, moving them from one box to another, and creating whole new gender identities for the 99.9% of people who do not fit precisely into one box or the other. Break the back of the stereotypes, and trans people could feel at home in whatever sex they are born, because their sex would not come with a predefined set of behaviors they are expected to follow. Everyone could play with the fun toys (however they define that); everyone could wear the fun clothes (however they define that); everyone could have whatever name they preferred; everyone could just be themselves…and we could still segregate sports and women’s shelters on the basis of sex, recognizing certain biological realities that are currently being ignored.
Well quite.
Sometimes I’m sad when I see what a greasy little echo chamber Pharyngula can be with respect to trans activism. Then I realise how few contributors there are, all patting each other on the back, and feel relieved.
The only posts I see on “TERFs” there represent them as espousing ideas I’ve never heard from an alleged TERF. You’re not permitted to point that out though. There’s no discussion to be had.
Very much exactly that, marinerachel. The comments of We Hunted the Mammoth are much the same. They read like the Monty Python Yorkshireman sketch with each contributer trying to outdo the last in piety.
That crew is also tiny, if I recall correctly.
They’re mostly well-meaning folks in both places. They all drank the Kool Aid early re: trans activism though out of sincere concern for the wellbeing of trans folks. God knows I did. When you’re emotionally invested in defending a group from perceived widespread abuse, you don’t view them critically. When you do start questioning, you’re too ashamed to verbalise those thoughts. You feel like the oppressor.
I had to slink out of a number of online communities quietly and spend a few years deprogramming and thinking critically outside of their influence. Otherwise, I’d still be immersed in them, believing I was the monster for having conflicting thoughts.
I think not having much in their lives contributes to a lot of people’s adherence to dumb beliefs like “A WOMAN IS ANYONE WHO SAYS THEY ARE”. If you have anything else going on and are even the slightest bit intelligent, once a group of people you hang out with start repeating a mantra that bizarre, you distance yourself from them. When you have nothing and no one else to spend your time with…
iknklast, you’re so right. Trans ideology is kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy in that sense – its strident forcing of people into stereotypes and (ever-multiplying) categories induces rather than reduces gender dysphoria. I’m kind of like you backwards – I’m a stay at home dad who loves taking care of his children, looks forward to cooking dinner every night more than anything, and would rather do laundry than watch sports. It doesn’t make me a woman. Or any of these bizarre word collisions. None of this requires categorization. I’m just a man who likes what I like. The trans cult is a serious threat to my kids’ ability to do the same.
Well now we have to think of something we all disagree VIOLENTLY on, lest we be another Pharyngula or We Hunted the Mammoth (or Shakesville hahahahahaha). What should it be? Rhubarb? The filmography of George Cukor? Philately? Cricket? Moldavia?
People who wear backpacks on their front and Jamie Oliver. I’m strongly against both and will fight to the death anyone who disagrees.
Jamie Oliver looks like he’s the sort of person who would wear a backpack on his front, come to think of it.
Avocados are not fit for human consumption.
latsot, the last time I saw somebody with a backpack on his front, I asked him if his baby had fallen out.
Avocados are DIVINE. Mash a ripe one up with lime juice (fresh obviously) and salt. Or slice and sprinkle with lime juice.
Fight me.
Ophelia @18,
Speaking of Shakesville, have you seen this article or the Bloggingheads discussion with the author?
I wasn’t really familiar with all the drama associated with that site, especially when it took that weird “you MUST support the blog founder and acknowledge her as your leader!” turn.
I gotta take the pro-backpack-in-front side. I didn’t do it all the time but on my trip to Italy I found it way easier to maneuver in crowds plus it made taking photos (DSLR) easier (I took pictures of EVERYTHING I could I was in heaven). I haven’t seen Jamie Oliver in years, he was OK. With OB on avocados, I eat them right out of the skin with a spoon sometimes.
I wear a backpack on Jamie Oliver.
Same here on the scooping avocados right out of their skin into my mouth thing.
Screechy – I have seen that article; it’s why Shakesville popped into my head. Good stuff.
Avocados and guacamole are NOT the same thing. Whole avocado is slimy, squishy, and tastes like nothing — disgusting. Avocado mashed into guacamole with salt, lime juice, and pico de gallon, is creamy, flavorful, and delicious.
That PZ Myers piece is bad.
If “the only sense in which ‘biological sex’ is meaningful” is reproduction, that’s an argument for doing away with any and all sex distinctions anywhere — change rooms, prisons, sports, shelters, sexual orientations, all of it. Why segregate anywhere if sex only matters in terms of reproduction? But “sex” has other meanings besides biology, says PZ. Well, if the meaning of “sex” is not about biology but really about “varied and complicated” other stuff, how come no one can ever explain what that “varied and complicated” other stuff actually is, or why that other stuff matters enough to make meaningful distinctions by it? When we look closely at how trans activists are trying to define sex, it’s pretty clear that what they’re really saying is, yes, sex is real, we absolutely do distinguish between men and women, we want the categories of man and woman to remain intact, and we don’t even want the social norms around them to change. And we recognize that sex distinction is about biology for everyone else. What we want is for an exception to be made for ourselves, and only for ourselves, on the basis of our stated feelings.
Take sports: trans activists want “biological males” to be able to compete alongside “biological females” — that’s called desegregating sports. But they don’t actually want to desegregate sports, do they. They want “biological” males and females to compete separately, with only one exception: trans-identifying males. Everyone else’s sex is defined by their biology, and that’s fine, except for themselves, on the basis of their feelings.
Same goes for prisons: it’s ok to segregate by biology for everyone else. Just not for them. Because feelz.
Take sexual orientation: trans activists want homosexuals (and presumably heterosexuals too, but they’re suspiciously silent about them) to be open to both biologically male and biologically female sexual partners. That’s called declaring everyone bisexual. But they don’t declare that everyone is bisexual (or pansexual or whatever-sexual), do they? Tellingly, they don’t even identify themselves as bisexual most of the time. They identify as lesbians. It’s perfectly ok to be sexually oriented to only one biological sex — they themselves are only oriented to one biological sex — so long as you make an exception for them and only them, on the basis of their stated feelings.
On closer inspection, it turns out these “varied and complicated” other meanings of sex PZ is going on about are really just, men’s feelings.
latsot @ #10 – in the post you reference, Dr. Myers states that he has been a “biological male” only three times in his life – that is, the three times he engaged in sexual reproduction (he adds a few waffle words, but his point is that biological male and female means reproduction, and that’s all). Made me want to ask him if he’s ever peed standing up, or if he ever “crossed the streams” as a kid.
maddog @ 28 – nobody said avocados and guacamole are the same thing. (Yes! This is great! Not-Shakesville here we come!) That’s why I said add lime juice and salt. I don’t agree that avocados naked are slimy and disgusting, but I do agree lime juice and salt bring them out. Often when I eat a half right out of the skin I’ll eat the first chunk or two naked and then squeeze the lime. Naked is good, with lime is also good.
Isn’t guacamole avocado slime with other delicious stuff?
I enjoy avocado in a number of cooked dishes and salads. I probably prefer plain avocado to guacamole. I’ve not eaten avocado naked, nor in pajamas, as best as I can recall.
latsot @ 14:
That is precisely why I stopped reading WHtM.
I was well into my 20’s before I ‘got’ avocado. The few times I tried them earlier they just tasted like mashed peas. Now, strangely, I like both. Backpacks on front bad, Jamie Oliver cookery books ok, TV shows annoying. Rhubarb excellent with ginger. Who the hell is George Cukor? Philately is alright if you don’t have a life I guess. Cricket is acceptable only when we win. Moldavia? Who cares, we’ve always been at war with EastAsia!
Now, everyone take a position on the above and then Latsot can prepare a venn diagram. We can then classify ourselves into two or more groups with fuzzy boundaries.
OB @ 18.
Incorrect spelling of cricket. It is croquet. :-)
Mano is one of the bright lights left at the other place, and we share a love of cricket. He did almost fall down the TRA rabbit hole, but seems to have withdrawn.
Also still worthwhile is Marcus Rannum (stderr) on anything to do with computer security, American Imperialism, and war in general. And don’t forget Reprobate Spreadsheet, the blog that goes out of its way to prove “There are three kinds of lies; Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.”
The Pharyngulites have progressed to telling those they perceive as TERFs to kill themselves. Right side of history!
I’m sure the defense is something about how those mean old TERFs want trans people dead so it’s OK.
The correct pronunciations are:
to-mah’-to
po-tay’-to
That is all.
Ah well some Pharyngulites always did like telling people to kill themselves or die in some gruesome way. That’s one reason I stayed away from the comments most of the time.
I didn’t much like avocado at first either. It was one of the “exotic” foods my older sister introduced me to after she got married, along with eggplant and I forget what else. But then my prefrontal cortex developed…
George Cukor – director of Dinner at Eight, Holiday,The Philadelphia Story, The Women, Gaslight, to name a few.
The Philadelphia Story and The Women are great movies, really great, and I will firmly disagree with anyone who says otherwise! No porcupines involved.
Ooooh. Another divide we can discuss. Those who think porcupines are justifiable and those who don’t.
Holiday is even better, in my view; a neglected classic. If you haven’t seen it, lose no time.
If we fight over porcupines should we also fight over raccoons? Or would that be gilding the lily.
Gilding the lilly and don’t you dare disagree with me, or I’ll take the bowl of guacamole and go home to watch a whole bunch of movies I seem to have missed.
I don’t like Game of Thrones.
Books or TV?
I haven’t even seen either one, and what’s more I don’t care.
Fight fight fight!
I think it’s official. We are an echo chamber. I base this conclusion on the fact we have disparate views and likes about a range of topics but all agree that we can more or less rub shoulders to constructively discuss topics of common (dis)interest.
Anyone who disagrees can leave now.
Ah well. I tried.
I don’t care to try the books. I don’t like the show. I’m not an adolescent boy. “Oooo, tits!” doesn’t qualify as entertainment for me.
I didn’t even like Harry Potter, so –
Oh there’s one. I didn’t like Harry Potter. Didn’t and don’t. I also don’t think J.K. Rowling writes well.
No echo here!
You’re all wrong about avocados, whichever way you them and whatever you do or do not wear to do so. Avocados are food like women have penises. Olives, too. Make perfectly good oil, of course, but how people can eat those vile little transgrapes – stuffed or not – is beyond me. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing people to eat avocados and olives. His next greatest was to repeat the trick with apricots and blackcurrants.
Philately gets you nowhere.
Jamie Oliver – that very posh young chef who suddenly became more ‘Mockney’ than all of Guy Ritchie’s movies combined – named one of his kids Honey Boo. Enough said.
Cricket: a spectator sport for those who find competitive knitting too exciting.
And you’re all still wrong about avocados.
Slight echo, Ophelia, because I agree with you on Harry Potter and Rowling, but you like avocados so I’m starting to wonder if you are just as wrong about the little wizard. Maybe I need to look at Potter again…..
Hahaha, I will not ever forget the huge kerfuffle I got into on facebook after saying Unacceptably Bad Things about Game of Thrones.
Did you all know that porcupines sound like cartoon animals? It’s true. (Warning: EXCESSIVE cuteness. View at your own risk):
https://youtu.be/UGz8jcbJjRw
Avacados are wonderful and so are George Cukor movies. Fight me.
Well, avocados aren’t like say raspberries or oranges, that pretty much everyone likes. They’re kind of odd if you’re not used to them, and they’re very nasty once overripe. But I did get used to them and mmmmmmmm.
Olives – I don’t love them on their own, but chopped up in say a puttanesca sauce or with cheese and oil on pasta – yasss!
When it comes to blackcurrants, now, I will fight you, especially since they’re so hard to get over here. Cassis gelato??
I’m not fussed about Jamie Oliver because I get all my cook-watching needs from Lidia Bastianich. Oh and also, Guy Fieri is worse than Jamie Oliver any day.
Behold our elegant variety!
Tell you what I don’t like: bananas. Don’t like them as such and HATE banana bread. Ugh.
Ophelia @50, you really don’t get how this works. When I lay down the law like that, you’re supposed to say “This is my blog and…” and then I’m supposed to say “Do you want a 5 minute argument or a ten minute argument?”
All very well but none of this is a real test. Skeletor can bring out the “This is my blog and…” in me without even trying!
LOL, true.
I tried to get that through to one of the less hysterical denizens of Pharyngula (John Morales) by pointing out that his “Ophelia’s regular commenters believe ______” post was totally unrecognisable as a belief of mine. What ensued was a typical series of word games rather than any kind of admission that his summary was inaccurate. And the rest are even less reasonable than him!
Oops, that comment was in reply to #13 by marinerachel.
Ahem. The whole world seems to have got the currant thing all wrong. It’s redcurrants that are nice and yet totally unobtainable, blackcurrants are awful.
And we haven’t addressed the big one: Cats or dogs?
artymorty #29
That would require them to take on a demographic that is simply too powerful for them to dream of overthrowing – the heterosexual male. Far easier for them to excoriate homosexual women as being too privileged and powerful, than the group with even more of both. Better still, they gain some of the privileged heterosexual males as woke allies in the quest to bully women some more.
Adding olives to a dish is like inviting the biggest arsehole at work to a party you are throwing. They ruin every dish are are added to. Other ingredients stop being happy when olives turn up. Avocados are bad, but olives are the anti-food.
Pineapples belong on pizza, as well as anchovies. At the same time, on the same pizza.
Myrmecia are the best ant genus, your local ants wish they were half as cool.
Eucalypts are just the greatest type of tree, especially when you can smell them after rain.
The Coorong is very pretty and I am slightly hurt that our resident wetlands ecologist / otter has never mentioned it. Living on a different continent is no excuse!
I reserve “literally” as exempt from normal linguistic change. If you want to use it in a sentence, think carefully, then think again, then just use ‘figuratively’ to be safe.
I would like to climb Ayers Rock / Uluru, even though the local aboriginal peoples would rather I don’t.
This one might actually be contentious: I still support prostitution in principle, with the caveat that in practice, it is very difficult to do safely.
Catwhispere, dogs every time. If I wanted a creature mooching around the house ignoring me unless it wants something I’d adopt a surly teenager. At least the teenager eventually stops being a teenager and becomes socialised; cats remain cats forever.
Holms, pineapple belongs on pizza like gravy belongs on rhubarb crumble.
I guess liking avocados shows that someone is Fruit Woke. It allows the Woken one to distinguish themselves in refinement and Fruitiness against the run-of-the-mill “raspberries and oranges” cis-fruit crowd.
Bugger.
That’s not gonna work. I like avocados.
AND raspberries and oranges.
What camp do I fit into? I’m SO CONFUSED! SOMEBODY TELL WHAT GENDER I”M SUPPOSED TO BE!!!
Yes, a much easier target. Why remain a man and do the hard work required to fight to extend the definition of “manliness” when you can take over the comparatively undefended neighbouring country of Womanhood and claim squatter’s rights to it? Why stay an unknown man in track, weightlifting and cycling, when you can own the women’s podium without nearly as much training as it would take to be nothing but a mediocre also-ran against fellow men?
Holms, if anyone puts pineapple on my pizza, I will personally decline to be friends with them ever again. And I love pineapple – in it’s place – which is not on pizza.
But I do have to agree about the Coorong…though I haven’t been there, so I’m only working from pictures. I’m trying to talk the spouse, who dislikes travelling, especially by plane, to consider Australia as a destination. But that has to be put on hold until I have gotten him to Norway. Fjords rule!
Avocados – yumm
Apricots – very yumm
Green beans? – inedible
Peanut butter? – how did anyone ever get the idea that could possibly be food?
Catwhisperer – absolutely cats. Who wants a needy, clinging beast that demands your attention every waking moment, and howls when you try to sleep? (Though I will admit, my husband’s dog is the only living being that likes my singing, and he is adorable).
And the Atlantic Ocean is a better ocean than the Pacific. So there.
I like gravy. I like rhubarb crumble. This could actually work!
Sargasso Sea.
Holms,
Eucalyptus is (are?) fine in their place, but in Iberia they’re a major factor in forest fires.
As for all the rest, avocados, apricots, raspberries, rhubarb, pineapple on pizza, olives (but only by themselves), all are excellent foods. Call me a pan-foodist.
Peanuts I associate with potential sudden death, so I can’t be rational about them, but just the smell repels me.
Beets are the devil’s food (though if you sprinkle garlic on them and give them time to soak up the flavor, they’re not bad, but then why go through all that trouble if you can be eating guacamole?).
latsot, the Sargasso Sea is a fine spot for studying interesting life forms. I like the Sargasso Sea. But I wouldn’t want to try to navigate it in a wind-driven vessel.
Also, I have a Trans backpack. I think that means it was assigned handbag at birth.
Nobody seems to realise that the whole debate merely relies on an (un)original typo. It’s not TRANS. It’s TRAMS.
From start* it’s all about the reverse of smart.
And we should not yell “bigot”, but “boring”.
It all should have lasted no more than a few minutes of confusion. It was a bad joke. Nobody had to take it seriously, it was an April’s fool. Yet thanks to trams inactivists, we’re stuck in Mobile, with meme cis blues again.
* An even more ancient confusion got all that “start”. It wasn’t about “start” at first. It was all about “tarts”. It was a cook’s joke. Then it turned into a crook’s joke. It’s a never ending story**.
** I think everyones get it now. I’m stopping here but it could go on and on.
With meme cis blues – that’s very good. Round of applause.
What a Maroon, if by ‘beets’ you are referring to the delightful beetroot, and are therefore stating that regurgitated avocado is superior to it, I suggest that you up the dose of whatever medication you are taking for your delusion.
If you are referring to a different type of beet, such as the sugar beet (which isn’t supposed to be eaten but processed into sugar), then forget the above.
REGURGITATED??
Swords at dawn.
Admins, please block AoS.
Oi, AoS! A certain Mr. Teddy Bear would like to ‘ave a word wiff you, courtesy uv one Lady Mondegreen. ‘e’s a porcupine, see? And ‘e don’t take kindly to yer attitude, knawhamean?
Avocado season is here.
I can hand over-ripe giveaways to throw at the dissidents!
Maybe avocados can be used in the suicides we terven are being told to commit. I can probs figure something out.
@marinerachel:
We could slit our hands open trying to get the stone out with a cleaver and bleed to death…
Iknklast:
It had me at “eels”.
To clear a few things up:-
Eucalypts are all right in their place i.e. Australia. Otherwise they are water and space stealing horrors of trees. Any European broadleaf is superior to those bark shedding freaks.
Cricket isn’t so much to be watched as glanced at in passing, as it gives white patches of interest to the eternal green of England.
Avocados really should be called armadillo pears, which matches their appearance. They look nothing like Italian lawyers.
Anyone who wears a backpack frontwards or backwards outside of the wilderness is a menace to society, and should pay double public transport fares.
I have one in my English garden. It grows almost while you watch it and I have to cut huge chunks off it every couple of years so it doesn’t come down in a storm and crush the house next door into splinters.
Pretty, but a nuisance.
Laurent
Despite being one of said dissidents I thoroughly approve of this message. Every avocado thrown is one less avocado that some poor bugger has to eat.
AoS @88:
Many of our avocados get partially rot, at least those that fell. (Early in the season, we can pick them and have perfect avocados, but quickly the number of fallen fruits outnumbers our eating capacity –that’s because we have five mature trees currently, three of them will be sacrificed to water sanitation plant next semester).
We still eat the edible bits, because it would actually be sacrilege to lose them for whatever reason, especially dissidents.
It’s currently probably around 30% of our diet, now and for the two next months, yet we seek to minimize loss.
Yep, transforming avocados into humans is what we do.
Amen to that (if you can forgive the religious language).
No, I don’t want to throw avocados at AoS, because I like to eat them too much. But the price locally has been horrendous recently. But AoS, you can sit over there with my husband and discuss the evils of avocados. I’m sure he’d be glad for the company.
Now that has to be the most devastatingly subtle insult I’ve ever received. Well played, iknklast, well played.