4 ms·
> If biologists instead used a different common definition such as "female == able to get pregnant, otherwise male" then birds would be all be male, and seahors
by circlefavshape 3y ago
> If biologists instead used a different common definition such as "female == able to get pregnant, otherwise male" then birds would be all be male, and seahorses wouldn't be associated with the sentence "weird biology fact: the males get pregnant!"
"Common definition"? I don't think so. If it was my post-menopausal wife would now be a man
I very much doubt that common-sense folks "assum[e] that words accurately and unambiguously carve up reality" either. Is it likely that a grown-up has never had a discussion about whether something was blue or green, or whether something is a fruit or vegetable?
- ben_w 3y ago> "Common definition"? I don't think so. If it was my post-menopausal wife would now be a man I didn't say it was a good definition :) In fact, the very point you're making here is also commonly brought up whenever someone uses this common definition to try to argue against trans issues, which is how I know it's commonly used. I rather hopped that me saying "birds would be all be male" would be a hint that I didn't hold this definition in high regard. > whether something is a fruit or vegetable? Tom-ah-to, to-may-to, but either way I really need to figure out how to use it in a fruit salad. Sure, almost everyone has had such an argument; but I've noticed many tend to say "it's common sense" and stop listening from then on.
- circlefavshape 3y agoI think you're straw-manning the "common sense" view. "Unable to get pregnant" is actually not a common definition of "male", afaics
- ben_w 3y agoAt worse, nut-picking rather than straw-manning. This specific (bad) definition comes up a lot, though it's certainly possible I've mistaken frequency of observation for frequency of beliefs.