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

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).

That's very nicely put. (And genuinely succinct.)

Thanks for posting this article WhatyoutalkingaboutWillis, it was a really interesting read.

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.

True. But can you provide an alternative definition of 'woman' to 'adult human female'?

The incoherence the author is referencing is not about the evolving meaning of words, be it organically over time or imposed by fiat by an ideology.

It's about using a term to mean several different things depending on what is most useful.to the argument at any given moment.

I get a little about articles like this which have clearly benefitted from mining the discussion here over the years, tbh, but my pragmarism will out.

I think it might have been @terryleather who posted a list of all the internal contradictions in transactivist/genderist arguments. It's a complete chameleon in character- if it serves to be the tinest group of people, then transwomen will be statistically rarer than hen's teeth and you probably have never even spoken to one. If it serves to be ubiquitous, transwomen will have been just about everywhere you've been and you've interacted with them loads and never even noticed.

The incoherence isn't a bug, it's a useful feature because the intent is not to clarify or make a fair case, which is is precisely why #NoDebate was a thing, the intent is to enforce submission and compliance. The TRAs who employ these tactics lack one very important thing, and I suspect it might their undoing in the long term - integrity.

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:

I’m not a philosopher or a mathematician but I think it makes more if you think of it in terms of maths.

Pythagoras’s theorem would be an analytic statement. But once you apply Pythagoras’s theorem in the world to calculate “the church clock tower is 30m high” then that’s a synthetic statement.

The analytic statement is just symbols referencing other symbols, that’s why the examples he’s given there are definitions. Once you allow the symbols to actually point to something outside of the symbolic language itself then you’re making synthetic statements.

(It’s always been very striking to me that TRAs don’t seem to admit that there is any kind of objective reality that their words should map on to, but I don’t know if that’s a mutant descendent of an actual philosophical position or if it’s simply incoherent thinking.)

(Correct me if I’m wrong, people who actually know what they’re talking about!)

The article is clear on the ascent into law that compelled speech has had. Using the ‘correct’ pronouns started as a courtesy and then becoming law in Canada and is creeping towards legislation in the US.
I think that the article lacks nuance though as it fails to describe the sexism of the trans movement, although he lists some of the problems of self ID- men in women’s prisons etc. there is no mention that the brunt of the threats and sacking & cancellations & barbed wire decorated baseball bats are mainly directed towards women.

Very interesting piece!

A single line of code, buried within millions or even billions of lines of code, can turn any computer program, no matter how sophisticated, completely inoperable or completely upside down. Such is the case with the present discussion and legislation surrounding so-called “transgender rights.” As we have noted here, despite the utterance of the sound “rights,” it turns out that no matter how much one subjectively feels that he or she is being disrespected, attacked, or oppressed, one simply does not have a legitimate rights claim that the objective world is what he or she says it is. Rather, it turns out that the objective world just pushes back.

My bold. So true.

think it might have been @terryleather who posted a list of all the internal contradictions in transactivist/genderist arguments. It's a complete chameleon in character- if it serves to be the tinest group of people, then transwomen will be statistically rarer than hen's teeth and you probably have never even spoken to one. If it serves to be ubiquitous, transwomen will have been just about everywhere you've been and you've interacted with them loads and never even noticed.

The incoherence isn't a bug, it's a useful feature because the intent is not to clarify or make a fair case, which is is precisely why #NoDebate was a thing, the intent is to enforce submission and compliance. The TRAs who employ these tactics lack one very important thing, and I suspect it might their undoing in the long term - integrity.

YY, exactly Floral. The reason it's got even more authoritarian and unhinged recently is because they no longer have the ability to impose a prohibition on debate, because the wider public is more aware.

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 these changes in meaning are not in any way universally accepted. Not in the way you are trying to claim. People accept that there is such a thing as a trans person. A transsexual. But the TWAW mantra means that literally any male who declares a woman identity must be accepted as a woman by everyone. The whole thing falls apart at the slightest challenge.

I don't know if anyone else feels like this but much as I admire the effort the author has put into rebutting this ideology, it feels like an unnecessary effort. It's like writing a few thousand words on why the earth isn't flat, or astrology makes no sense, or why the moon landings weren't faked. Anyone with a functioning brain knows it's nonsense.

Quillette are a rancid organisation who mostly spend their time demonising feminism

Thank you, allmywhat.

BrozTito, I don't know whether that is true (although I know that some feminists contribute to Quillette, e.g. quillette.com/author/julie-bindel/ ), but it is an ad hominem argument. The arguments made in the article must be judged on their merits, not on one's opinion of the website they chose to publish them on.

Quillette did a great podcast with Milli Hill recently and didn’t demonise her at all.

I wonder if there are some men on the right who are rethinking some of their prejudices and positions more widely due to the proliferation of queer theory just as many left wing women are.

It has really made me question everything. I listen to many more varied perspectives as a result.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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 these changes in meaning are not in any way universally accepted. Not in the way you are trying to claim. People accept that there is such a thing as a trans person. A transsexual. But the TWAW mantra means that literally any male who declares a woman identity must be accepted as a woman by everyone. The whole thing falls apart at the slightest challenge.

I'm not trying to claim changes in meaning are universally accepted. For eg, I'd imagine there are possibly some people who use the word 'awful' to mean 'inspiring awe', in line with it's original meaning. And I don't think there has to be universal acceptance for a new meaning for there to be a broad shift in understanding.

Evolution of language can happen in sudden starts (eg as new words are created to define new technologies) or over many decades or centuries as public understanding and application of language shifts.

And of course within the evolution and application of language there are different features - there can be a broader understanding by many about how language is used by others, but an unhappiness with the particular application all the same.

For eg. The pronoun 'she' has been used to identify human adult males both in the past and present - it has been used by gay men at times and drag queens. Many others will recognise this usage but disagree with the application, both within these communities and in the broader public discourse.

This present point in time doesn't represent the end point in the evolving use of language.

This present point in time doesn't represent the end point in the evolving use of language.

No one said it did. But for most people, women are adult human females, except for a small group males who they feel a bit sorry for and well, they can be honorary women, can't they? I mean, no one really knows whether souls exist, do they? What's the harm?

Yeah....succinct may not have been the best description....it was early, what can I say . Good article though!

@FloralBunting

The incoherence the author is referencing is not about the evolving meaning of words, be it organically over time or imposed by fiat by an ideology.

It's about using a term to mean several different things depending on what is most useful.to the argument at any given moment.

I get a little about articles like this which have clearly benefitted from mining the discussion here over the years, tbh, but my pragmarism will out.

I think it might have been @terryleather who posted a list of all the internal contradictions in transactivist/genderist arguments. It's a complete chameleon in character- if it serves to be the tinest group of people, then transwomen will be statistically rarer than hen's teeth and you probably have never even spoken to one. If it serves to be ubiquitous, transwomen will have been just about everywhere you've been and you've interacted with them loads and never even noticed.

The incoherence isn't a bug, it's a useful feature because the intent is not to clarify or make a fair case, which is is precisely why #NoDebate was a thing, the intent is to enforce submission and compliance. The TRAs who employ these tactics lack one very important thing, and I suspect it might their undoing in the long term - integrity.

But there are internal contradictions and logic failures on both sides aren't there? Certainly with the confusion with how to deal with the words 'sex' and 'gender'.

For eg. according to many gender critical feminists on these boards - for trans - related issues, especially those situations where a person is considering transitioning, then sex is the only thing that is relevant to GC feminists - because gendered behaviour is not really a thing - after all, what is it to be a man or a woman - either sex is perfectly capable of any characteristics and stereotypically feminine or masculine behaviour? Which is why GC feminists consider there is such a problem with identifying as the opposite sex or transitioning - because what's the point in swapping genitals when there absolutely nothing else that distinguishes a sense of what it is to be a man or a woman?

However, when it comes to things like access to spaces, GC feminists on these boards DO believe in gender over and above sex and whatever is between the legs, because they note that there IS more to it than genitals actually; there are characteristics and behaviours that seem to be associated with particular sexes, and it is important to recognise that and maintain separate spaces and treatment at times. A behaviour associated along sex lines is to do with gender.

So the use /application of language by GC feminists has to shift according to which issue of concern they are dealing with and there is a resultant logic failure.

Think ill judge things on the company they keep. How many times does it need to be said, the right is not GC, they just hate minorities. Good luck coming back when when they're holding back abortion law, sex education, womens rights.

Qillette is a billionaire owned org. Whos purpose is purely to push Trumpist, Christian right nuttery. One of hundreds here. quillette.com/2019/10/08/how-feminism-has-constrained-our-understanding-of-gender/

"The" Right is no more one coherent thing than "The" Left.

The Truth is always the truth, whoever says it.

Thanks. That article made a lot of sense.

[quote BrozTito]Qillette is a billionaire owned org. Whos purpose is purely to push Trumpist, Christian right nuttery. One of hundreds here. quillette.com/2019/10/08/how-feminism-has-constrained-our-understanding-of-gender/[/quote]
Is there something in the article you disagree with?

"Is there something in the article you disagree with?"

I mean the Michael Robillard article!

For eg. according to many gender critical feminists on these boards - for trans - related issues, especially those situations where a person is considering transitioning, then sex is the only thing that is relevant to GC feminists - because gendered behaviour is not really a thing - after all, what is it to be a man or a woman - either sex is perfectly capable of any characteristics and stereotypically feminine or masculine behaviour? Which is why GC feminists consider there is such a problem with identifying as the opposite sex or transitioning - because what's the point in swapping genitals when there absolutely nothing else that distinguishes a sense of what it is to be a man or a woman?

I think you're a bit confused about what "gender critical" means or what feminist objections to trans ideology are. Many of us believe gender is an unhelpful social construct that oppresses everyone, but overwhelmingly the female sex. No more, no less.

We don't disbelieve that this social construct exists.

never mind the abolition of lying, is there no such thing as even being mistaken any more?

You get this a lot with religions. I've been watching a show where theists call in to debate with atheists and one really consistent theme is that the theists are constantly on the defensive about being accused of lying. They call in with claims of having spoken to God, met angels, seen heaven, been healed by prayer etc etc, and when questioned on the mechanics of how what they believe can possibly be true they often start saying "are you calling me a liar?" Well no, I'm sure you believe what you're claiming is true, but that's not the same as it actually being true. You can be sincere and also wrong. There's an area of Christian apologetics dedicated to whether the things jesus said were true, and it's often analysed by theists using the phrase "liar, lunatic, or Lord" - either he was lying, he was insane, or he really was the son of God. Then of course they argue for why he can't be lying or crazy (interestingly the arguments against him being a liar often take the shape of "no one would go to so much trouble/ maintain such a difficult lie for so long"). The idea that he might just have been sincere but wrong is almost never considered. There really are almost innumerable parallels between theism and gender identity ideology but this is one that seems to come up again and again.