GC British guy debating US sceptic.

An attempt to restate some of SantaClawsServiette's great point.

The modern sceptic community tends to have the view that every question can be approached by purely logical analysis and the methods of empirical (evidence-based) science. This is a very incomplete view, but has historically been very successful for them in winning arguments on questions such as evolution-vs-creationism and whether vaccination causes autism.

But here the central questions are not amenable to this kind of analysis, since they are about justice and fairness, and how to handle two groups who want conflicting things. So the American guy is applying the tools he's used to using in debates against pseudo-science - such as demanding reliable evidence and querying unsourced statistics - without recognizing that he's fundamentally missing the point of this particular debate.

Sorry, SantaClawsServiette I was abrupt.

By ‘jargon’ I meant phrases and terms that can’t easily be understood by the ‘lay reader’ who is unfamiliar with the subject matter. (Not bollocks or slang!). I appreciate that jargon is everywhere!

Some of the terms in your posts that I don’t understand are below. Not understanding them is making it difficult for me to understand your points, which I’m interested in as I hadn’t heard of this ‘movement’ and you seem knowledgeable about it and to be critiquing it. (The info from Truthlikeness from Wikipedia is useful but also uses some jargon).

I THINK what you’re saying is that the ‘skeptics’ have a ‘blind spot’ with respect to uncritically accepting lobbyists idea about ‘gender’ and assertions that ‘transwomen are women’?

Terms:

Popular scepticism / sceptic movement / popular scientific scepticism.
scientism.
epistemology.
scientific empiricism
[things that] can't be dealt with empirically
discipline of the philosophy of science.
‘foundational trust…in science and empiricism’
questions about epistemology and science.

‘medical topics from an evidence based perspective’

metaphysics
Logical positivists
self-refuting.

Last phrase:

Guilt by association - rather than exposing flaws in an argument, calling attention to disreputable people that are sympathetic to it,

yes we see that one.

And I thought the final para useful:

We can all promote reason by changing the mores of intellectual discussion, so people treat their beliefs as hypotheses to be tested rather than slogans to be defended.

We've talked a lot about straw men arguments before here, this article (point 3) from the bbc really struck me:

Sorry I can't copy the relevant bits onto here for some reason.

Three ways to be more rational this year www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59740588

Thank you so much for your explanation Truth and Santa.

I think I get the basics and now need to read about the positive logical etc stuff.

Bonkers they don't get it isn't it?!

Actually, my examples are not slang. Just shorthand and jargon. I could provide IT industry and further business industry and self-ID or simply “yoof” slang as examples, but hope y’all get my gist.

From the standpoint of philosophy, scientific skeptisism is maybe an ok approach within science, but skeptics involved don't see it that way, which is why they try and engage with things like metaphysics. But they are essentially logical positivists, which is no longer really a live position in philosophy. Not least because it's self-refuting.

I didn’t read it as jargon, per se. I read it and thought I really need to look further into metaphysics, the skeptic (sceptic) movement, and logical positivism. Plus philosophy.

To me, jargon is shorthand (or bollocks) within an industry, such as “we’re doing menagerie” or “blue sky thinking”. Slang, really. Codified expressions that are understood, mostly, in certain sectors or groups (thinking Marvel fandom right now, in which my daughter is interested) as well as businesses and, frankly, Mumsnet.

Don’t understand any of your post, SantaClawsServiette. Lots of jargon.

‘……first see if we agree that trans persons should have their gender respected in all the other areas of society where competitive advantage isn’t at issue’.

By ‘have their gender respected’ assume he actually means self ID for boys and men to have access to facilities, jobs, sports, prizes and funding previously available only to girls and women.

Assume skeptics have scepticism about the concept of ‘gender’.

If you read their stuff on midwifery care, it's really awful as well, their "expert" on the topic is as biased in her own way as their stuff on gender affirming care.

From the standpoint of philosophy, scientific skeptisism is maybe an ok approach within science, but skeptics involved don't see it that way, which is why they try and engage with things like metaphysics. But they are essentially logical positivists, which is no longer really a live position in philosophy. Not least because it's self-refuting.

The only way for them to deal with that in their discourse is to remove people who don't obey the rules, and it gives them a real blind-spot.

I think Le Canard Noir (the GC British guy in the OP) is banned from commenting on that site after he criticised the various stuff they have platformed on trans issues, many with dubious credentials.

Here's an article people might find interesting - it's from "Science-Based Medicine" which is a website that operates from the perspective of scientific skepticism and presents medical topics from an evidence based perspective. This particular page is a review of Abigail Shrier's book. You can see, reading it, that they don't seem to have much ability to differentiate or evaluate different perspectives. I think that's really inherent in scientific skepticism.
sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-transgender-treatment/

It's worth pointing out that it's a pop movement. It's not science as such, it would naturally fall under the philosophy of science, but it's not actually part of academic philosophy or the discipline of the philosophy of science at all.

One of the characteristics of this kind of popular scientific skepticism is that it has a foundational trust, to really an extreme degree, in science and empiricism. It is not skeptical of the latter especially and it tends to be a little naive about how to deal with problems in the sciences. It does fine with true pseudo-science but then really runs into trouble when talking about more serious questions about epistemology and science.

That may account for some of their problems with gender. It was and in some places like the US or Canada still is presented as being accepted by scientists and medical authorities.

To borrow from Wikipedia.. "The skeptical movement (British spelling: sceptical movement) is a modern social movement based on the idea of scientific skepticism. The movement has the goal of investigating claims made on fringe topics and determining whether they are supported by empirical research and are reproducible, as part of a methodological norm pursuing "the extension of certified knowledge".

They largely address issues like religion (particularly in the US), pseudoscience, paranormal etc - effectively trying to prove there is no evidence for these things. Some notable skeptics you may have heard of are James Randi, Penn and Teller, Derren Brown (magicians know how various tricks are pulled off), Brian Cox, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman, Tim Minchin, Sam Harris. Apologies those are all men - there are female skeptics but they tend to be less well known. Make of that what you will.

The skeptic movement largely seems to have unquestioningly swallowed the idea that someone can have a gender soul different to the their physical body. It's quite mystifying.

I was initially a bit sceptical of what could be seen as a parlour-game type approach here, with two men airily debating an issue that has very real ramifications for women, but I had a look at the letters as I've seen some good stuff from Canard Noir on Twitter. The contrast between the two is really quite astonishing. Reasoned arguments and evidence on one side (and a very good job of highlighting that the UK is very different to the US; I find the constant "you're just like the religious right" argument with this whole issue particularly galling), and on the other side... an absolute howling mess. Totally bizarre to say we should leave sport out of the debate as it might become a 'wedge issue' when in fact the issues that cause the unfairness in sport (ie male strength and size) are largely the same issues that make it a problem to have males in women's spaces. It's all interrelated - it's impossible to hive off one area and say it's not up for debate. They just want sport to be put aside as it's the most obvious manifestation of the problems inherent in the gender ideology. Looking forward to seeing the next response from Canard Noir, but there's almost no point in trying to debate someone whose main line seems to be 'yes it probably is unfair but just don't discuss it and be kind, and also the numbers look slightly different to what you said'

Sorry bold error in first para, quoting bishopha

He's saying that any increase in FTM referrals can be explained by greater social acceptance and legal support for trans people.

He needs to read some of Littman's research and also bare in mind that Bowers (jazz Jennings TW surgeon) has stated that there's an issue with SM and young teen girls, and an exponential rise that are definitely not all trans.

I feel I should know this but I don't; what in a nutshell, is the skeptic movement?

Read a few comments and first tweet saying let's do this!

It's two men.

Who are going to have a look how clever i am competition involving lots of chin rubbing and long long articulations around how open they are to the other blokes opinions, how rational they are, how deeply they think, with a lot of. Yes you're very clever same as me! Look how awesome we are! Approaching this topic without bias, emotional interference, just superior male application of intellect.

And scene has been set that they avoid anything around the tricky things that are the whole point of the topic.

...

AND INSTEAD enjoy discussing cleverly the question that has been of huge interest to men since at least the ancient Greeks..

What is a woman?

Will have a read Twitter and see...

4 'letters' so far.
He's saying that any increase in FTM referrals can be explained by greater social acceptance and legal support for trans people.

Yet, of course, provides no argument as to what data one might even expect to evidence this, let alone the actual data.

He hasn't been able to explain what he means by gender. I don't understand why it's so difficult to set that out at the start - isn't that essential to know what you're talking about?

Watching with interest.

I can't say I'm impressed with the US chap.

As pp's have noted "putting aside sport" demonstrates an unwillingness to debate in good faith.

Surprise! Surprise! Rabinowitz is quibbling about Andy mentioning a 4000% increase for girls presenting at gender clinics. Rabinowitz says he can only find 2500% increase.

He doesn’t get it!! He is NOT curious about the increase. He is arguing about the data.

While admitting he is perplexed why people are pointing out how ridiculous it is to ‘put aside’ the science for sport.

twitter.com/etvpod/status/1477344829726150659?s=12