Your Gender? A Friendly Guide to the Public Debate - a male philosopher writes at length on an issue he clearly doesn't understand

Justathought- yes I agree that a lot of the transgender ideology is based on articles of faith. It is very much like a religion in that respect where you have the soul which is separate from the body and the true self is that inner soul, not the body.

I agree Brian thinks that man and woman cannot be biologically defined and he might say that it is because people with transgender identities and intersex conditions exist.

But I think that is really narrow minded thinking. First of all identity is unique to every human being. There is no man gender identity or woman gender identity. To say there is such a thing is to invoke social,h constructed stereotypes and create a template of what a true woman’s identity should consist of. The whole premise of transgender is that everyone is transgender because gender is an ideal that no one can 100% match up to.

Secondly, on intersex. Every species has sexual dimorphism. Part and parcel of dimorphism within a species is that you have still have overlap between the two sexes biologically. So you will never ever find a hormone or physical attribute in men that is never in women or vice versa. The fact this overlap exists doesn’t mean that man and woman are not two biologically distinct beings. They are. It is the sum of all the biological factors that defines a man or woman, not any one factor. It’s the same between species. The same sex hormones of estrogen and testosterone are in chimpanzees, monkeys, dogs, mice. These animals also go through puberty, menstruate and menopause. But we’d not in a million years posit his argument that we cannot define a human versus a dog because both are on a bell curve of testosterone levels and both happen to have beards.

I think he thinks, like so many of these people, that because people with transgender identities and/or intersex conditions exist it's not possible to define men and women biologically

One, first of all, has to accept the absolute article of faith that it is possible to be 'born in the wrong body'....and this as an actual material reality, rather than a feeling, or a fantasy....and all else follows from there. And in order to accept this one has to suspend all critical thought or rigorous analysis....hence the flailing around and incoherence, and the resorting to arguments about inter-sex conditions.

The questions about 'existence' are the most crucial and the most interesting from a philosophical point of view. He is making some pretty big a priori leaps of faith here.

I'll leave you with my favourite quote from the article: "There isn't a fundamental ontological fact here. 'Man' or 'woman' are just sounds we make with our mouths." Yeah and "fuck off Brian" is also a sound that I'm making with my mouth right now.

Right! The thing is, every word we say is just a sound we make with our mouths, so what is he saying? Why is he talking at all? I don't think he is actually brave enough to take that particular approach, if he believes it he ought to be completely silent and go live in a barrel.

More seriously, how can someone doing work for a PhD in philosophy have never touched on the question of how words convey meaning?

There’s no “manness” written in my genes.

He's no biologist then.

As Brians go, I most definitely preferred Brian from Hull. He might have had some rather odd ideas about fanjos & what to do with them but at least he knew they belonged to women.

@WeeBisom
Oh God, I used to be in academic philosophy and this guy is everything that's wrong with the subject.

Me too (well, Critical Theory). 'Used to be' being the operative phrase. So glad I don't have to listen to this shit any more.

Oh God, I used to be in academic philosophy and this guy is everything that's wrong with the subject. It's full of dudes sanctimoniously explaining things and thinking they are geniuses. So much cringe. He even says at one point "I don't even know why we have separated bathrooms' but that doesn't stop him from giving his opinion anyway!

Why does he start off by imagining we are having a conversation in a bar, and I say 'Brian, what's your gender?" If by 'gender' he means 'sex ' - why would anyone ever ask that question? It's bloody obvious - he's called Brian, I just googled his picture and he has a beard!

Why oh why does he not define terms? Demonstrating his point with a fake conversation is all well and good but the conversation is just bizarre. No one would ever say anything like, for example, 'can you engage in penile-vaginal intercourse unassisted' (also what does that even mean, unassisted? "look pa, no hands"? No equipment?)

Brian, here's a question for you - "are you liable to drone on and on and bloviate for ages while being completely unaware of what a boring tit you are?" Anyway, I wouldn't be 'three drinks in 'with this guy - I would just ask him straight up. - "Brian, what's a woman?"

One thing that is quite nice is he does show his hand and reveals how utterly sexist this whole thing. For trans activists the dimension that is given the most weight for deciding whether someone is a woman is how the person relates to or is 'irresistibly drawn to things that are feminine in our culture." So he admits that trans activists think that woman= anyone who is strongly drawn to feminised aspects of our culture. Wow, Brian, this is so incredibly progressive! I guess I'm not a woman, then.

I'll leave you with my favourite quote from the article: "There isn't a fundamental ontological fact here. 'Man' or 'woman' are just sounds we make with our mouths." Yeah and "fuck off Brian" is also a sound that I'm making with my mouth right now.

I agree LadyQuarantine and I was thinking that these types of faux academics are actually knowledge anarchists in a way. I am struggling with the words to explain this. But you are exactly right, they take what should be the most basic fact and then go down irrelevant paths to try and confuse the listeners into thinking that oh, this is not a proven fact because there is a debate or controversy. If enough people are fooled, then the knowledge is erased, a fact no longer known.

It’s a type of anarchy to deliberately destroy knowledge. The attack on what is a man or woman is also an attack on basic things like the scientific method, and the laws of physics.

That's why, without fail, they always get their arses handed to them whenever they've decided to show up here. It doesn't work in a dialectical setting, it only has power when it's a lecture without opponents having a right of reply. That's why #NoDebate is a thing. Pure survival on their part.

YY. They have no power in the face of sceptical people being able to freely challenge their thinking. No arguments which stand up. And they all know it.

Meh - 'current' is supposed to be 'questioner', not sure how that happened.

He thinks he is cutting edge, avant garde, pushing traditional boundaries blah blah blah.

Like most people who think that way, it's got fuck all to do with the factual content, it's an ego grandstand. This is why you get irrelevant conditions brought into the topic and these deliberately obscurant responses to basic requests for definition.

It's trying to pass for intellectualism, when actually it's a barely veiled "I know you are, but what am I?" style of keeping attention as long as possible without having to produce anything of worth.

You really do notice it in these kinds of TRA 'analytics' - be they in article form, or the tedious YouTube videos of TED talks etc. They are not intended to assist understanding, they are designed to befuddle the reader/listener and create an impression that the author has authority and therefore the current will concede, step back, and acquiesce meekly.

That's why, without fail, they always get their arses handed to them whenever they've decided to show up here. It doesn't work in a dialectical setting, it only has power when it's a lecture without opponents having a right of reply. That's why #NoDebate is a thing. Pure survival on their part.

No science? But he wittered on about XY and XX chromosomes apparently not understanding that the Y is manness written in his genes.

I think he thinks, like so many of these people, that because people with transgender identities and/or intersex conditions exist it's not possible to define men and women biologically.

A lot of 20th century philosophy works that way, really. "We can't be sure about metaphysics, might as well act like it doesn't exist/matter, etc

Awful lecture. So he says he is going to discuss the question “What does it mean to be a man or a woman?” And then completely avoids answering this question by saying it’s impossible to answer, all we can know is that we are all people with properties and attributes such as an organ called a cliteropenis. Um...ok...let’s just make up nonexistent organs why don’t we.

That “man” or “woman” are only “social categories” and that there is “no science” because there is “no manness written in my genes” No science? But he wittered on about XY and XX chromosomes apparently not understanding that the Y is manness written in his genes. Is he so uneducated that he does not understand that chromosomes are part of our genes?

There is no way someone who wrote that should qualify for any sort of degree in philosophy.

I love that Monty Python song 'Aristotle Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle'

He's so not 'gender critical'. I read the whole thing.

I'm sure Philosophy For Planks or some such publication must have some handy cartoons on an early page about knowing the difference between an objective fact and a subjective belief.

Am now going to sing the Monty Python Philosophy Song:

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.....

What if he 's gender critical though? Will he expect cookies?

That would be fun

Is anyone else bored enough to hope he might venture into FWR to defend his work?

It'd while away a few minutes, wouldn't it?

First thing I thought of was Red Dwarf, Rimmer and C.L.I.T.O.R.I.S.

@ScarlettBlaize - brilliant anagrams, really rather poetic.