Guest post: A small asterisk

Written by

Ophelia Benson

in

Originally a comment by Artymorty on Could completely reframe.

Not to sound too contrarian, but I’d like to put a small asterisk next to the charge of naturalistic fallacy here.

The naturalistic fallacy is the mistake of applying moral justification to a belief or action based on finding examples of it in “nature”.

But “natural” also has a real meaning, as in the philosophical term, natural kinds: these are categories that have a basis in material reality rather than subjective human thought.

The gender-critical argument relies heavily on the argument that the biological sexes are natural kinds — objective, material categories of humans (and all other mammals) with a very clean division between them. Gender activists could just as well throw the charge of naturalistic fallacy at us for making the argument that transgender ideology is bogus because the sexes are natural, “real” categories while “gender identities” are not.

With enough drilling down, one finds that virtually all moral arguments eventually ground themselves in claims about the material world, about the nature of reality. Every ought is ultimately anchored to an is. This can lead to what I like to call the naturalistic fallacy fallacy: argue about anything long enough and it will start to look like it rests on the naturalistic fallacy.

For both gay rights and women’s rights, I believe that nature is in fact our friend, not our foe: the material basis of our differences has come to matter more and more in the battle to protect our freedom and dignity.

Take, for example, the moral argument for banning gay “conversion therapy”. It’s one thing to say, “there’s nothing wrong with being gay, so people shouldn’t be forced to get therapy to un-gay themselves.” But that only gets us up to justifying a ban on forced conversion therapy. The moral argument that homsexuality is harmless justifies gay people’s right to not be forced into therapy to “cure” ourselves of it. Ok. So far, so good, no obvious naturalistic fallacy here. But then: what about gays who want to be straight? There are countless homosexuals who wish they weren’t (Elliot Page probably being one example). Why would we ban them from seeking therapy to at least try to straighten themselves out? Here, the argument suddenly draws upon material reality — nature: science has recently identified homosexuality as an inborn trait that is as-yet not modifiable. The moral argument for banning people from undergoing gay conversion therapy even if they truly want it is that homosexuality is natural, and it’s clinically proven to be harmful to even try to change it with the technology we have today. Now, imagine if doctors get better at brain surgery: it’s not entirely unfathomable that some day soon we will have the technology to modify people’s sexual orientations. Well, guess what? Homosexuals would be even more dependent on the argument that homosexuality is natural to defend ourselves then, wouldn’t we. It’s a tricky bind we could very well end up in.

So we ought not dismiss the appeal to the “natural” so quickly. It’s becoming more imporant all the time, as technology restructures our civilization.

Which brings us back to sex, “transgender”, and the medical technology used to modify the cosmetic appearance of people’s sex, like Elliot Page.

I don’t fault Elliot Page for trying to prove that she’s changed sex by reaching for examples in nature. In fact, I think she’s on the right track to look to nature for answers: by that I mean she should be grounding her facts and her morals in the material world — in reality, which is… nature.

It’s just that she’s done a terrible job doing that. Cherry-picking things that have nothing to do with material reality as it applies to her specifically. In her case, she really has stumbled into the naturalistic fallacy. Rather than looking at nature and finding comfort in the fact that she is exactly what she is — a female ape, with her own unique personality and attributes, and there’s nothing “wrong” with that — she wandered around the zoo looking for “natural” things that might back up her misguided idea that mammalian sexes aren’t natural categories at all.

Ironically, she’s at once fallen for the naturalistic fallacy and something of an anti-naturalistic fallacy: she seems to have looked to nature to prove that her sex isn’t natural.

Leave it to trans to make an illogical pretzel out of everything it touches…

Comments

16 responses to “Guest post: A small asterisk”

  1. Mike B Avatar
    Mike B

    I’ve always considered the Argument from Nature moot when it comes to homosexuality: Well over 250 species of mammal exhibit homosexual sex or same-gender pairings. Homosexuality is rare but widespread in the natural world, which includes the human world.

    There is not a single mammalian species that changes sex.

  2. Axxyaan Avatar
    Axxyaan

    I don’t think it is correct to say the gender critical position relies heavily on the argument that the biological sexes are natural kinds. The gender critical position is that the biological sexes are natural kinds. There is no natural fallacy here.

    IMO you can’t ground an ought on an is. Just assume that we find out that pedosexuality is natural and that it is harmful for the individual to even try to change it. Would that be an acceptable argument to allow and even tolerate it? I would think not. But then why would we think this is a useful argument to tolerate homosexuality.

    People can look at the natural for inspiration at what ought to be. But I don’t think you can escape the subjective when you are talking morals.

  3. iknklast Avatar
    iknklast

    I understand why LGB use the argument that it’s natural; they are countering the argument that it is unnatural. But I wish it would be more like this:

    Let’s say we find out tomorrow that same sex orientation is a choice (not that I think we will; that’s just a hypothetical for the main argument). So what? We have the right to choose our own sexual partners based on whatever preferences we have. Some of those may be wealth, some may be good looks, some may be compatibility in love for theatre, but the sex of the individual is usually a component. What if it was a choice? There is no reason to deny some people the right to choose their sexual partners while others have that right.

    Again, I understand the need to use the ‘natural’ argument. I just think we should always follow it up with the so what argument. Choice doesn’t…or shouldn’t…nullify the right.

  4. Artymorty Avatar
    Artymorty

    The so-what argument for gay rights is good, but it’s not quite as strong as the it’s-natural argument.

    Under the logic of so-what, if homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality, and so is a homosexual’s right to not want to be homosexual, and to attempt to become heterosexual. The problem there is that such wants are inevitably tied up in social coercion. How do you determine which candidates for conversion are motivated by homophobia and which candidates have benign motives? Maybe some people would just prefer to be straight; maybe others are under societal pressure to change their… natural inclinations.

    It’s particularly important because the majority of homosexuals experience real distress over their atypical sexuality as they grow up. Gays will always be a small minority of social outliers, and the fact is, it comes with unavoidable disadvantages that can’t truly be eliminated. A vastly smaller dating pool, for one thing. (Only one in 50 men are gay. That means 49 out of every 50 men I ever meet in my entire life will have written me off immediately, based on my sex alone.) The appeal to nature adds much-needed heft to the argument that, despite the fact that homosexuality is seen by many as an un-optimal condition, it should still not be optional to filter it out.

    The same goes for sex, but even more so. A lot of girls are finding that girlhood feels like an un-optimal condition that they want to opt out of. The logic of free choice versus the logic of it’s-natural plays quite a large part in the transgeder debate, if you ask me.

  5. iknklast Avatar
    iknklast

    Oh, I understand all that…in the situation, the ‘natural’ argument is needed, and vitally important. I just wish it weren’t, that we could be okay, so gays and lesbians have the same rights as everyone else. Of course they do.

    Women have to face that unnatural argument, too, and it’s harder (though not impossible) to find examples in the natural world. Maybe that’s one reason why I dislike the natural argument. ;-)

  6. Deep Thinking Avatar
    Deep Thinking

    Doesn’t conversion therapy presuppose that it’s something that one can’t simply decide for oneself i.e. not a choice?

  7. Artymorty Avatar
    Artymorty

    Proponents of conversion therapy call it “unwanted attraction”. They don’t believe homosexuality is entirely a conscious choice; I guess they believe it’s akin to a behavioural disorder that can be treated and modified. Not entirely a choice but not entirely set in stone, either.

    Problem is, it is set in stone, or more accurately, it’s set in the fundamental lower reaches of the brain. There are other aspects of sexual attraction that are also more-or-less set in stone, ones that aren’t necessarily as benign as homosexuality (such as autogynephilia), and even ones that it would be outright morally unjustified to ever act upon (such as pedophilia). So there’s legitimate neuroscience research being done to treat those other kinds of undesirable sexual attraction, and that work will inevitably also lead to the ability to “treat” homosexuality, too. It’s only a matter of time before such advances are discovered. It’s thorny stuff.

  8. Deep Thinking Avatar
    Deep Thinking

    That’s what Axxyaan was getting at; that an aspect of sexual attraction is natural, in the sense of being innate and immutible, isn’t a defense of that sexual attraction – homosexuality must be illegitimate to treat on account of some other reason (“benign” hints at what that might be).

  9. Artymorty Avatar
    Artymorty

    The it’s-natural defence isn’t an all-powerful veto, no. But it’s not nothing. It adds to the moral defence of homosexuality, though it doesn’t justify it entirely, all by itself. And it’s relevant to the defence of our rights in other ways, too.

    It’s why I’m justified in having gay-male-only bars and clubs in my city, for example. Homosexuality being benign is justification for allowing gay bars to exist; homosexuality being more than just benign — also innate, natural, and unchangeable — is what justifies us *excluding* straights and females in certain circumstances. You can’t freely identify into being a gay man, so you can’t freely invite yourself into our spaces. Homosexuality is a material condition, and that gives us the right to maintain our boundaries based on that material condition.

    Same goes for female-only spaces. The fact that the sexes are material, natural kinds is really the backbone of the rule that women-only spaces aren’t free for anyone to “identify” into.

  10. Lady Mondegreen Avatar
    Lady Mondegreen

    The gender-critical argument relies heavily on the argument that the biological sexes are natural kinds — objective, material categories of humans (and all other mammals) with a very clean division between them. Gender activists could just as well throw the charge of naturalistic fallacy at us for making the argument that transgender ideology is bogus because the sexes are natural, “real” categories while “gender identities” are not.

    That’s not the gender critical argument, though. It’s not, “sex categories are natural, therefore good; gender identities are unnatural, therefore bad.” That would be the naturalistic fallacy.

    What gender critics do is point to the reality of human sexual dimorphism and say, you can’t wish this away. Nor can you entirely medicalize it away, though you can make some superficial changes.

    Human sexual dimorphism means that male humans are, at the population level, far more likely to sexually assault others than female humans are. They are also bigger and stronger than female humans.

    It follows from these facts that it’s wrong to prioritize “gender identity” over sex in law and social policy — because doing so degrades safeguarding measures and leads to harm.

    (Another piece of the GC argument is that “gender identity” as hypothesized by genderists happens to be bullshit. That’s another conversation, but, again, the problem with it isn’t that it’s “unnatural.”)

  11. Artymorty Avatar
    Artymorty

    Alas, gender-criticals are seen by many of their (our) opponents as misguided adherents to the naturalistic fallacy. Many trans activists don’t entirely dispute the fact of human dimorphism; they dispute what they see as our moral argument that people of the opposite sex *shoudn’t* be treated as the sex they only *wish* they were.

    Many (maybe even a majority) of gender activists aren’t saying sex isn’t real (though the hardcore zealots are indeed saying that); they are saying that people *should* make exceptions.

    They see themselves as making a moral decision based on compassion and they see us making a moral decision based on the “natural” scientific dividing line of the sexes. Sadly, they very much do think we’re all a bunch of naturalistic fallacy worshippers.

    There are both oughts and is’es at play on both sides of the gender debate. My version of the gender critical position is that the “is” of sex dimorphism justifies the “ought” of strict sex segregation because the sexes are innately detectable and because our brains naturally react differently to the sexes. My version of the gender-critical argument relies strongly on both the material fact of sexual dimorphism and the material fact that humans fundamentally categorize each other according to it, on an instinctual level, that cannot be unlearned or filtered out. It’s not women’s fault that they can tell a man in disguise apart from a fellow woman and that they react differently to them based on their actual sex, and it’s not something to obligate women to pretend they can’t do. It’s not like, say, racism, as it’s often compared to by gender activists.

  12. Axxyaan Avatar
    Axxyaan

    Artymorty, IMO your argument doesn’t work because applied consistenly it would mean segregating the sexes everywhere. Segregated schools, segegregated work places etc. So we need some goal or purpose to motivate the segregation. The dimorphism is only an issue because it can interfere with our goal/purpose.

    But starting with goals and then looking at nature on how best to reach those goals can in that way rely strongly on the material fact of sexual dimorphism without sexual dimorpism being the ground of the goals. So there is no natural falacy here.

  13. Artymorty Avatar
    Artymorty

    @Axxyaan,

    No, I don’t think sex should be segregated everywhere. Segregation is only for cases where segregation has demonstrated itself to be necessary to maintain equality. Males and females are always different, yes. But those differences only officially matter sometimes, in some circumstances. (Anywhere with female nudity or vulnerability, for starters. Anything where sexuality comes into play. Anything involving physical exertion at an elite level, like sports, or, say, firefighting…)

  14. Axxyaan Avatar
    Axxyaan

    @Artymorty, Sure you don’t think sex should be segregated everywhere. But that is what you will end up with if you start, as you did, with: sex dimorphism justifies the “ought” of strict sex segregation. That those differences only matter sometimes, is my point.

    There is a difference between what you want to use the argument for and what the argument actually leads to.

  15. Artymorty Avatar
    Artymorty

    Sex is always visible. It’s not always relevant. This isn’t difficult. I meant “strict sex segregation” only in the places where sex segregation is already established as relevant. Not everywhere. That’s just silly.

    We can always tell each others’ sex. But it’s only sometimes relevant.

    Mostly when we’re getting naked. Not so much when we’re, say, filing our taxes or grabbing a Slushee at the corner Seven-11.

  16. Axxyaan Avatar
    Axxyaan

    Sure, that is what you meant. But I find that what you meant and what you wrote were different enought to be annoyed by it. How you wrote it made the principle seem far more general that it actually is. Orthodox muslims may very well agree when they read that the ought of strict sex segregation is justified.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts