Clever people believing silly things

I think it helps to be autistic. We’re not nearly so susceptible to “group think” or peer pressure - we’re stubborn, literal, factual, and perfectly used to not fitting in!
I find it difficult to understand how any woman would want to throw away women’s safety, rights, privacy, language and dignity, in order to support a tiny minority of aggressive trans activists instead. Especially when those activists are celebrating women’s “erasure” in a feast of hate filled misogyny, and demanding that convicted rapists be housed in women’s prisons.

I don't understand where their critical thinking has gone.

Absolutely & this is such an important question.

I'm a lawyer and some of the "cleverest" people I know, very experienced lawyers with huge brains, believe that TWAW and have (what is, to my mind) an incorrect understanding of the law.

I don't understand where their critical thinking has gone.

Recent article by Tricia Frasman 'Science Facts not Science Fiction':

'Do intersex women have penises?'
(extract)
"Among the greatest proponents of the “Sex Spectrum” idea are Transgender Activists who insist that the existence of Intersex conditions “prove” that sex is mutable. There are many wonderful people on Twitter who are striving hard to promote a scientific understanding of sex, and defending the rights of Intersex people. One of these is the wonderful mrkhtake2.
With her permission, I have put together one of her threads in which she explains that Intersex people do not have both sets of genitalia. The original thread can be found here.
Do intersex women have penises?
I’m seeing this thrown around a lot, so let’s address it. Firstly, as ever, let’s all remember that intersex =/= trans, and he conflation is harmful and ignorant. Now let’s get on with some science… "(continues)

sciencefactnotfiction.wordpress.com/2018/09/16/do-intersex-women-have-penises/

Group think is a pretty common thing, in cog sci terms. No-one is immune to it. Questioning your beliefs and why you have them is always helpful, especially if it's a bit uncomfortable.

How do various pressures affect our beliefs. What are those pressures; social, fear, financial, perceived threats.

Do people really believe the statements they make, or are they virtue signalling. Why do we behave this way?

Such an interesting discussion to be had, lets not reduce it to conflict based thinking; side A vs side B.

*Peer group think > logic, facts, reasoning.

Logic, reason, facts > peer group think*

Good summary. Not everyone sticks to one camp all the time, but properly intelligent people would at least be aware of the pitfalls.

What pineapple said.

Pick your side, then your facts
Vs
Test the facts, discover your 'side'

When intelligence is within Vs when intelligence is without.

Some people express their intelligence with a demonstration of what they can learn by rote and repeat, and they cannot independently reason with facts that disrupt their learned narrative. Their position is arrived at by choosing a peer group and then adopting that group's position wholesale.
Peer group think > logic, facts, reasoning.

Others arrive at their position through an internal logic and reasoning process. Facts that challenge their narrative are beaten to within an inch of their life to see if they can still stand up. Facts that survive strengthen the position, facts that crumble result in a change of position. If internal reasoning is robust, the position will stand the test even if the entire peer group rejects that position, and the individual who holds it is the only one left.
Logic, reason, facts > peer group think

If my entire peer group thinks something at odds to me, I feel discomfort, but it makes me want to analyse my own reasoning more. It doesn't result in me abandoning my position, but in testing it harder. If I am committing a logical fallacy, I want to find it and change my position.

The person in the OP who argued that a woman who has given birth 'might be XXY' has failed to reason intelligently. Facts instantly demonstrate their position is false. And this appears not to disturb them at all.
This is not actual intelligence.

I apologise if you disagree with the perceived framing Upstart, but I can tell you I framed it in no particular way deliberately. How else would you prefer I framed it when the point of the discussion seems to be that some very clever, logical people follow an argument they come to conclusion A, and when others do the same they come to a conclusion B, which is incompatible with A? And that were they to debate their two positions they would be on opposite "sides"?

I don't really understand the root of your issues with the "framing", or indeed your proposed alternative.

Precisely, Crow. Pick your side, then your facts.

And already you;ve tried to frame this as being about sides.

Oh, I believe you NameChange! But wouldn't those people exist on both sides of the debate, both in academia and elsewhere?

I can't speak about the example given in the OP, but don't you ever think if people you know to be clever and logical can reason through an argument and come to a different conclusion to yourselves that theirs might be a perfectly valid logical conclusion to come to? Even if it's not the same conclusion you come to? It's not like that never happens, it really is completely possible.

I completely agree. But, it’s true to say that there are some people in academia now who simply won’t critically appraise evidence, and will run straight to their dogma, and refuse to discuss other points of view. A couple of years ago I’d have never thought this possible. But I’ve come across several examples in the last six months.

Personally for me Pineapple there is absolutely no benefit to me in holding the opinions I do on the subject, far less any material benefit to me. It is simply to position I come to when I consider all the facts in line with my principles and worldview. And by worldview I don't just mean my point of view, I mean what I see as being for the good and bad of other people whose points of you I am trying to empathise with. I have no other motivation.

I can't speak about the example given in the OP, but don't you ever think if people you know to be clever and logical can reason through an argument and come to a different conclusion to yourselves that theirs might be a perfectly valid logical conclusion to come to? Even if it's not the same conclusion you come to? It's not like that never happens, it really is completely possible.

I would say that's a tad bit more likely than them having some sort of religious-like unquestioning belief in some "right-on" dogma, wouldn't you? Like they might actually not be total idiots (and in fact you know full well they're not) so maybe - just maybe - there's more than one rational and intelligent way of looking at things?

For me personally, when I argue for trans-inclusive feminism on here all I'm looking to achieve is to show people that you can hold the opinions that I hold not because you're a completely unthinking brainless cult member but because it is a completely reasonable position; as, for the most part, are the positions of those I argue against. I don't expect to change your minds - we fundamentally disagree - but I don't think you're all stupid, and I know I'm not either.

I think the main message that keeps coming through in these anecdotes is that people are believing silly things for money. They may have been educated to understand the facts, but if the motivation is to ignore them and run with the fantasy because that's what gets you paid then they'll do it.

I have a friend, science degree from Cambridge, makes money reading people's energies, and will not counter any questions about gender critical feminism, just labelling it all as TERF transphobia.

Awayfromitall, perhaps you need to get in touch with academics who've come out — Katherine Stock et al — and have some support lined up for the moment when you're asked to define 'woman' and say 'adult human female'. Because if you go along with anything but that you're no better, really, than the colleague in your OP. Sorry if that sounds harsh but I think you must already realise that this isn't something you can avoid forever. It won't stop until we stop it.

Materialist - I hear you! Friends of mine have a son with Kleinfelter's. Their biggest worry/hope is whether he will eventually manage to talk, how they will set in place care plans for him when they're too old to look after him. (Admittedly he is at the extreme end of Kleinfelter's - most boys with the condition are not so severely affected).

As you say - appropriating serious medical conditions as if they were some sort of fashion accessory.

I know a scientist who believes in homeopathy. Trying to watch her explain why was painful and embarrassing.

I saw a historian I know on Twitter trot out that invidious misreading of de Beauvoir about becoming a woman. I was completely shocked that someone who examines texts for a living could be so taken in. But she has blue hair, so I guess I should have known . ..

Not more intersex appropriation! If you've been pregnant (and you're human) you're female. There is a remote possibility that you have an undiagnosed intersex condition, but that doesn't change the fact that you are female, because people with intersex conditions are either male or female just like everyone else, not (to quote the marvellous mrkhtake2) some mythical third sex.