The Incoherence of Gender Ideology - Quillette

[WhatyoutalkingaboutWillis]

This really is the most succinct, coherent piece of writing on this subject I've come across.

Enjoy!

quillette.com/2021/08/04/the-incoherence-of-gender-ideology/?fbclid=IwAR3oLz0iaZ11-xDaNAKuz-GTfb-CdvxavRNhRFM2X8PtdNnxyqIU-vj-q9c

Thank you, looks interesting.

I reckon the author has been reading Mumsnet and has translated everything that has been said on here into philospher-speak

Yes I would say Barra Kerr's article was a bit more succinct But it does look interesting and I'll have another go once I'm super caffeined - thanks for the link.

Wow! So many thoughtful insights but I like this where he defines the trans ideology as:

nothing less than the legal sanctioning of a new priest class of magical people who speak all of reality into existence, and then the rest of society who must simply obey .

Agree good article, although I disagree with your definition of succinct...

There could be some discussion about this author's interpretation of Wittgenstein on private language. And there are those who might challenge his take on the analytic/synthetic distinction. But these are small matters in the grand scheme and can be easily fixed. Overall conclusions, spot on.

In particular, he gets this right: '... claims about “gender identity” don’t get off the ground to begin with, since such claims fail to rise to the level of being truth-apt or minimally coherent. Claims about transgender rights are therefore as intelligible and truth-apt as claims about “flipl-flopl” rights, or “Jabberwocky” rights, or “schmerkle” rights.'

It may seem strange to point out that transgender claims make no sense at all. But, indeed, anything based on the notion of 'gender identity' cannot even make sufficient sense to be argued against as false.

If being trans requires that 'gender identity' makes sense, there just is no such thing as being trans. Why? Because 'gender identity' makes no sense.

Of course there may be such a thing as being transgender if 'transgender' means something unconnected with claims about gender identity. 'A transwoman is a man who mistakenly thinks he is a woman' , for instance: if that is what a transwoman is if that is what 'transwoman' means, in other words then it makes sense to talk about such a person, his rights, treatment and so on. But that is a different matter.

The questions he asks are really pertinent, e.g.:

What does it mean for a speaker to report subjectively feeling “like a man” when the stipulated definition of the term “man” is determined wholly by the speaker?

If gender identity is wholly determined by the speaker’s subjective determination, then why would cosmetic surgery or arbitrary levels of hormone treatment have any bearing whatsoever on affecting or changing that person’s gender identity?

If gender identity is wholly determined by each person’s subjective state, then how can parents get to decide that their child is “non-binary” or “gender-fluid”?

If gender identity is wholly subjective and inaccessible to others’ knowledge, then how can so-called “trans” people know that they are actually standing in solidarity with real trans persons versus fake trans persons?

When it comes to Kant and the synthetic/analytic distinction, to quote Zaphod Beeblebrox, My heads hurts.

But it seems that we must all be philosophers now.

Off to dig out my copy of Zen and the Art of Motocycle Maintenance.

There could be some discussion about this author's interpretation of Wittgenstein on private language. And there are those who might challenge his take on the analytic/synthetic distinction. But these are small matters in the grand scheme and can be easily fixed. Overall conclusions, spot on.

I'm completely happy for you to expand on these. I have a general awareness of these terms and would be grateful for some informed commentary on something that I've read (this article).

I do like a well-written piece (I haven't written well in years - I blame the constriction of the reports that I continually read or write for warping my style).

Bookmarked to read later - thank you. Yes, it’s all incoherent - and purposely so sometimes. I periodically stop and re-assess my GCness in case I’m wrong or haven’t considered something. I read info from trans and ‘queer’ websites, particularly the definitions of words like genderqueer, etc etc. And none of them make sense. You start reading and you think “Ah ha, ok, it’s that and then you read on and find it’s also not that”.

Basically it boils down to “I’m whatever I say I am and if I don’t fit the definition of what I’ve just declared myself to be then some helpful people will just add as many bits on to that definition as needed so that I can be in it”

Any attempt to point this out or try to clarify the person’s identity can conveniently be parried with cries of ‘transphobia’.

I feel sorry for people with gender dysphoria who’ve had their struggles co-opted and appropriated.

I feel sorry for people with gender dysphoria who’ve had their struggles co-opted and appropriated.

May I ask if this includes the ones in Press for Change for whom this was always their battleplan and long term strategy? (Several threads recently have made me rethink my stance this group of 'true" GD and I'm still reformulating a number of thoughts.)

But, indeed, anything based on the notion of 'gender identity' cannot even make sufficient sense to be argued against as false.

More pithily expressed by the phrase "not even wrong".

Basically it boils down to “I’m whatever I say I am and if I don’t fit the definition of what I’ve just declared myself to be then some helpful people will just add as many bits on to that definition as needed so that I can be in it”

Yes, it is very odd. You often hear phrases like "nonbinary people are who they say they are". In every respect or just with regard to gender? And never mind the abolition of lying, is there no such thing as even being mistaken any more?

We've been saying on here for years that it's incoherent. The entire concept is incoherent. Not only is it inconsistent from one person to the next, the idea of having a feeling that makes you the opposite sex is demonstrably false.

However, in my legally protected opinion the incoherence focuses into something completely understandable, when you see it through the lens of AGP. It couldn't be more consistent. It couldn't be more conforming to a patriarchal society.

The real coup has been made by allotting it extra civil rights.

@JustSpeculation

But, indeed, anything based on the notion of 'gender identity' cannot even make sufficient sense to be argued against as false.

More pithily expressed by the phrase "not even wrong".

With apologies to Pauli, I have a fondness for the elaboration, it's not even wrong, it's fractally wrong

Oh, that's good.

This is interesting, thanks. I would also disagree that it is succinct though! I think the most important part is the section where the questions are laid out.

The thing is, gender ideologists never respond to coherent, logically though out arguments like this. They just cry bigot and run away with their hands over their ears (and brains).

I think a lot of that article actually rests on a faulty premise; that language is fixed and unevolving. Any linguist will tell you that is simply not the case and many words have had dramatic transformations in meaning over time- eg the word 'awful' - which for a long time was defined as 'inspiring' and now is used by more people to mean something like 'terrible'. This wasn't a private process, or if it was it clearly didn't stop there; it is now a publicly shared and understood definition.

Related processes such as attempts to determine truth rest on the understanding of language and definitions that is prevalent for the time.

Dictionaries are living documents that track language use of the public - words have no inherent, fixed meaning other than what we the people choose to ascribe to them at any given point in time. If enough people shift in attitude and come to consider that a word has a new meaning, or incorporates a different sense, then sure enough in time dictionaries change to reflect that new understanding.

I think a lot of that article actually rests on a faulty premise; that language is fixed and unevolving.

It seems you totally misunderstood it. Try again.

Usually, if someone says "I am (x)" then (x) is either an objective claim that can be tested ("I'm 39", "I'm 5'5"), or a subjective claim. But even in the case of subjective claims ("I'm a Christian", "I'm a socialist", "I'm angry"), we reserve the right to dispute whether the speaker should be considered a genuine Christian, a true socialist, whether the speaker is genuinely angry, etc. What is odd is to have a claim that is entirely individual-inner-subjective and beyond outside dispute, and then use that inner feeling as the basis for imposing obligations on other people (such as pronoun use).

Language does change, but not usually this quickly. Usually, what changes are the "open" word classes such as verbs, nouns, adjectives. So new nouns come into existence or add additional meanings. Usually, by contrast, a "closed" word class such as pronouns is very slow to change.

You can count me among those of us who didn't get the synthetic/analytic distinction, though I don't think it's essential to the argument:

An analytic proposition, such as “a bachelor is an unmarried man” or “a male is a creature with an XY chromosome pair,” is one whose truth depends wholly upon the meanings of its constituent terms. ... we can know the truth of analytic propositions merely by knowing the meanings of their constituent terms, whereas for synthetic propositions we have to look out into the objective world in order to determine whether or not they are true.

I can't see how you would go about evaluating the truth of “a male is a creature with an XY chromosome pair" without going into the objective world and checking what chromosome pairs males have (especially since the word "male" and its meaning long predate the known science about chromosomes). I believe that males do have XY chromosomes, but only because I've been told that - it isn't something I can work out based on knowing the word "male". I already knew what a male was before I did GCSE biology.

Words certainly change their meaning over time. 'Cowboy outfits' are not what they were in the 1950s.

The process of assigning meaning to words is one of agreement. Some countries (looking at you, France) attempt to impose an authorised vocabulary, but in the English-speaking world meaning is arrived at gradually by social consensus.

E.G, attempts a few years ago to stop using the term 'joy-riding' for twoccers because it was felt to encourage such behaviour (no evidence for this) were always doomed to failure.

What is remarkable about this whole sex/gender thing is how much it is a phenomenon of the Anglosphere, where gender, genus, genre and generic all have particular meanings.

This problem literally, literally literally, does not exist in France where they have le sexe and genre, and never the twain shall meet.

Language does change, but not usually this quickly.

A lot of this stuff requires language to change mid-sentence. Propositions are founded upon both old and new meanings co-existing.

If the new meanings were fully accepted and used consistently, the reasoning would collapse. That's a lot of the point of the piece.

@somethinginoffensive

Agree good article, although I disagree with your definition of succinct...

Was just going to say the same

@NecessaryScene

I think a lot of that article actually rests on a faulty premise; that language is fixed and unevolving.

It seems you totally misunderstood it. Try again.

I'm quite happy with my analysis thanks.

Here are 2 quotes from it:

"Since definitions within any language, like rules within a game, require fixity in order for the game to hang together at all"

"indexicals within a language, such as “he” or “she” indirectly connote and refer to fixed meanings deep within our overall shared network of public meanings and are not similarly revisable according to individual personal preference"

The article rests on the understanding that there are fixed meanings that any member of the public can independently verify, and that this is necessary to make sense of the world.

Superficially this sounds good and of course a dramatic, wholesale revision of word meanings would render the world incomprehensible, so it doesn't tend to happen in this fashion.

However, it is still a false premise and faulty logic, because language and definitions do change, and the public drive and accept new changes and this is reflected in new language usage over time.

However, it is still a false premise and faulty logic, because language and definitions do change, and the public drive and accept new changes and this is reflected in new language usage over time.

Yes, but you can't change them mid-logical argument. That's all they're saying.