This presumes that gender is a biological construct. Feminism holds that gender is a social construct, created by the social hierarchy between people assigned as men and people assigned as women (which includes people who are genetically “male”).
And if feminism happens to be factually false in that particular respect? Even partly false, so that gender is 90% a social construct, and 10% a result of biology?
The existence of gender identity dysphoria indicates that people can have “genders” which they were not assigned to socially—the dysphoria arising from the discrepancy between their “real” genders, and their societally assigned genders.
I’ve not studied if/how feminism (as you describe it) can be reconciled in this respect with pro-transgender thought—do you have any thoughts on the subject?
I support the position that all social roles that are totally uncorrelated with physical facts should be re-examined (and probably eliminated).
Where to draw the line between physical difference and pure social construct is a difficult empirical question. Ev. Psych asks the right questions, but I don’t trust its answers.
I know that gender != sex, but people are societally assigned the gender corresponding to their biological sex (or more accurately the gender corresponding to their genitalia). So if gender is a wholly social construct, there would probably not exist such a thing as gender identity dysphoria.
I don’t trust the particular answers of Ev. Psych either, but I also mistrust any claim of psychological equality in biologically different groups. It smacks of a mind-body duality that doesn’t exist: The brain is a physical organ like any other; psychology is a biological function—culture and society shape it, but so does biology.
Therefore there’s no physical law requiring its average characteristics to be completely the same between males and females. That would be privileging the theory we would prefer to be true as egalitarians.
There are historical ideologies that seem to repeatedly be wrong for essentially the same reasons.
Mind-body dualism.
Essentialist “scientific” theories to explain then existing social norms.
Which is more powerful in this case? Hopefully we can find out.
As for gender identity dysphoria, I don’t doubt there is a phenomena out there. But for it to support your position seems to require that the DSM-IV cut the world at its joints. I think we agree that this is a laughable assertion.
In particular, I distrust the current descriptions because I suspect that the distinction between gender and sex is not being sufficiently respected by those making the diagnostic definitions. Lots of mental illness is defined explicitly or implicitly in terms of fit into current social norms.
As for gender identity dysphoria, I don’t doubt there is a phenomena out there. But for it to support your position seems to require that the DSM-IV cut the world at its joints. I think we agree that this is a laughable assertion.
This is a package-deal fallacy — the DSM can get a lot of things wrong about gender dysphoria without weakening AK’s position.
I support the position that all social roles that are totally uncorrelated with physical facts should be re-examined (and probably eliminated).
This leaves open a line a very traditional line of reasoning that I would have expected you to be hostile to. We can determine a physical fact about a child with high accuracy, and at a glance: whether or not they will have a chance to become pregnant as adults (1). Many people believe this physical fact should inform the way the kid is raised, including the kind of social roles they are prepared for. I assume you don’t accept this kind of argument, but I’d be interested in hearing your “true rejection.”
(1) In case my meaning is not clear, the way I would put it in a less abstract conversation is “girls and not boys can get pregnant.” But in this case I understand there are high stakes attached to the words “girl” and boy.”
Many people believe this physical fact should inform the way the kid is raised, including the kind of social roles they are prepared for.
Those beliefs are not really facts about the baby. Where did the beliefs come from? Isn’t there a counter-factual history where (1) society works, (2) no one has those beliefs?
You should counter that “society works” just assumes the conclusion. I could respond by pointing to societies that actually existed in other places and times. And I’m sure that there are further responses on both sides.
Ultimately, the problem is that our differences in terminal values affect what sorts of things we consider good evidence. Or, if one were a moral realist, this would be evidence that one of us is so defective that they can’t perceive moral truths.
This has traditionally been a very divisive point within radical feminism, and it typically divides the discussion into transphobic social-constructionist radical feminists (like the source of my original infographic) and neo-essentialist post-feminists.
Personally, I came to radical (pro-)feminism from the feminism mainstream within anarchist culture, which is more pro-transgenderism (and therefore essentialist), and I haven’t fully came to a conclusion on this specific issue. It doesn’t help that neither of the two sides really care much for empiricism (outside of horrible “look at this fMRI” type stuff).
A comrade of mine told me that these are good articles on this topic, and while I haven’t yet read them, I know the author to be very good at getting that comrade (who is more tumblr-feminist third-wave-y) and I to agree, so they probably would clarify my position on this and maybe yours:
Edit: It’s annoying that less wrong’s reddit instance doesn’t hyperlink raw links, but I dislike hiding what I’m linking to, so… sorry if you’re too lazy to cut and paste, I suppose.
This has traditionally been a very divisive point within radical feminism, and it typically divides the discussion into transphobic social-constructionist radical feminists (like the source of my original infographic) and neo-essentialist post-feminists.
“This has traditionally been a very divisive point within radical feminism, and it typically divides the discussion into transphobic social-constructionist radical feminists and neo-essentialist post-feminists.”
I’m just wondering would you mind reading Moldbug? I want to see the resulting philosophy for the lulz.
It’s annoying that less wrong’s reddit instance doesn’t hyperlink raw links, but I dislike hiding what I’m linking to, so… sorry if you’re too lazy to cut and paste, I suppose.
That’s easily fixed—just write the link like [url](url).
So, if gender is a social construct, I’m presuming you advocate absolute equality of opportunity, and absolute social blindness to biological sex? So one physical entry requirement into the armed forces and police? And generally no positive discrimination anywhere?
This presumes that gender is a biological construct. Feminism holds that gender is a social construct, created by the social hierarchy between people assigned as men and people assigned as women (which includes people who are genetically “male”).
And if feminism happens to be factually false in that particular respect? Even partly false, so that gender is 90% a social construct, and 10% a result of biology?
The existence of gender identity dysphoria indicates that people can have “genders” which they were not assigned to socially—the dysphoria arising from the discrepancy between their “real” genders, and their societally assigned genders.
I’ve not studied if/how feminism (as you describe it) can be reconciled in this respect with pro-transgender thought—do you have any thoughts on the subject?
Gender != sex.
I support the position that all social roles that are totally uncorrelated with physical facts should be re-examined (and probably eliminated).
Where to draw the line between physical difference and pure social construct is a difficult empirical question. Ev. Psych asks the right questions, but I don’t trust its answers.
I know that gender != sex, but people are societally assigned the gender corresponding to their biological sex (or more accurately the gender corresponding to their genitalia). So if gender is a wholly social construct, there would probably not exist such a thing as gender identity dysphoria.
I don’t trust the particular answers of Ev. Psych either, but I also mistrust any claim of psychological equality in biologically different groups. It smacks of a mind-body duality that doesn’t exist: The brain is a physical organ like any other; psychology is a biological function—culture and society shape it, but so does biology.
Therefore there’s no physical law requiring its average characteristics to be completely the same between males and females. That would be privileging the theory we would prefer to be true as egalitarians.
There are historical ideologies that seem to repeatedly be wrong for essentially the same reasons.
Mind-body dualism.
Essentialist “scientific” theories to explain then existing social norms.
Which is more powerful in this case? Hopefully we can find out.
As for gender identity dysphoria, I don’t doubt there is a phenomena out there. But for it to support your position seems to require that the DSM-IV cut the world at its joints. I think we agree that this is a laughable assertion.
In particular, I distrust the current descriptions because I suspect that the distinction between gender and sex is not being sufficiently respected by those making the diagnostic definitions. Lots of mental illness is defined explicitly or implicitly in terms of fit into current social norms.
This is a package-deal fallacy — the DSM can get a lot of things wrong about gender dysphoria without weakening AK’s position.
This leaves open a line a very traditional line of reasoning that I would have expected you to be hostile to. We can determine a physical fact about a child with high accuracy, and at a glance: whether or not they will have a chance to become pregnant as adults (1). Many people believe this physical fact should inform the way the kid is raised, including the kind of social roles they are prepared for. I assume you don’t accept this kind of argument, but I’d be interested in hearing your “true rejection.”
(1) In case my meaning is not clear, the way I would put it in a less abstract conversation is “girls and not boys can get pregnant.” But in this case I understand there are high stakes attached to the words “girl” and boy.”
Those beliefs are not really facts about the baby. Where did the beliefs come from? Isn’t there a counter-factual history where (1) society works, (2) no one has those beliefs?
You should counter that “society works” just assumes the conclusion. I could respond by pointing to societies that actually existed in other places and times. And I’m sure that there are further responses on both sides.
Ultimately, the problem is that our differences in terminal values affect what sorts of things we consider good evidence. Or, if one were a moral realist, this would be evidence that one of us is so defective that they can’t perceive moral truths.
This has traditionally been a very divisive point within radical feminism, and it typically divides the discussion into transphobic social-constructionist radical feminists (like the source of my original infographic) and neo-essentialist post-feminists.
Personally, I came to radical (pro-)feminism from the feminism mainstream within anarchist culture, which is more pro-transgenderism (and therefore essentialist), and I haven’t fully came to a conclusion on this specific issue. It doesn’t help that neither of the two sides really care much for empiricism (outside of horrible “look at this fMRI” type stuff).
A comrade of mine told me that these are good articles on this topic, and while I haven’t yet read them, I know the author to be very good at getting that comrade (who is more tumblr-feminist third-wave-y) and I to agree, so they probably would clarify my position on this and maybe yours:
https://radtransfem.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/sex-educations-gendering-and-regendering-women/
https://radtransfem.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/genderternary-transmisogyny/
Edit: It’s annoying that less wrong’s reddit instance doesn’t hyperlink raw links, but I dislike hiding what I’m linking to, so… sorry if you’re too lazy to cut and paste, I suppose.
http://www.xkcd.com/1095/
I’m just wondering would you mind reading Moldbug? I want to see the resulting philosophy for the lulz.
That’s easily fixed—just write the link like
[url](url).Done, thanks.
So, if gender is a social construct, I’m presuming you advocate absolute equality of opportunity, and absolute social blindness to biological sex? So one physical entry requirement into the armed forces and police? And generally no positive discrimination anywhere?