3 ms·
Oh? So you don't think sex is binary but want to discuss neurobiological differences "between the sexes"? Which ones do you want to discuss the differences, be
by tomlock 8y ago
Oh? So you don't think sex is binary but want to discuss neurobiological differences "between the sexes"?
Which ones do you want to discuss the differences, between?
- leereeves 8y agoAnother strawman. The existence of biological sexes other than the two most common (male and female) doesn't negate the existence of male and female. Biological sex isn't actually a spectrum (it's not one-dimensional), but using that analogy, it's bimodal, not binary.
- tomlock 8y agoActually, it does negate the existence of two discrete categories of people that you can ascribe intrinsic biological differences to. You'll always have to delineate the categories at some arbitrary point, and since the delineation is arbitrary, you'll therefore never be sure if your categories are correct.
- leereeves 8y agoThe usual delineation of male and female isn't arbitrary, it's based on biological mechanisms of reproduction. Only how (or if) one chooses to include those few who don't fit these categories is fluid. In other words, there's some uncertainty at the margins, but in the vast majority of cases, biological sex is clear.
- tomlock 8y agoIf there is uncertainty at the margins, the category is arbitrary.
- perilunar 8y agoThat is clearly not true, and is an example of a continuum or line-drawing fallacy.
- tomlock 8y agoI've not heard of that fallacy. By what authority is it derived? Source? :) If you can't clearly define a category, any intrinsic traits of that category are not ascribed clearly to individuals. Any uncertainty, even on the margins, makes the definition uncertain. Clear definition is a lack of uncertainty.
- leereeves 8y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy The fallacy is the argument that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states. In other words, your reasoning is a textbook example of this fallacy.