6 ms·
It's bad faith because womanhood, like (for instance) adulthood, is a social construct. If I ask you, "what is an adult," there's no simple and rigorous answer
by bccdee 1y ago
It's bad faith because womanhood, like (for instance) adulthood, is a social construct. If I ask you, "what is an adult," there's no simple and rigorous answer to that question. You can say, "you're an adult when everyone agrees you're an adult," but that's a bit circular, and it risks making you sound dumb. Or you could get into different cultural ideas of adulthood, what happens when someone who's an adult in one culture enters a different culture where they're considered a child, the role that legal systems plays in establishing an age of majority, the social agreements that give that legal system the power to enforce certain rules based on that age, and so forth. But that's not going to come over very well in a snappy debate video where the other guy gets to edit the footage of whatever you say.
If a progressive were running the debate, they would never ask a question like, "what is a woman." They don't care that Republicans think trans women are men. They'd ask, "why should your conception of womanhood be used to determine who gets put in a women's jail when putting transgender women in male prisons measurably increases prison violence?"
"What is a woman" is a nebulous cultural question with no real importance compared to the actual lives and freedoms of transgender women.
- Izikiel43 1y ago> It's bad faith because womanhood, like (for instance) adulthood, is a social construct. And the Democratic Party still wonders why they lost. I’m saying this as not an American. The question is what’s 2+2 and the answer being it’s a social construct.
- bccdee 1y ago> The question is what’s 2+2 and the answer being it’s a social construct. Brother, you'll never guess what type of construct numbers are. If American voters prefer simple, incorrect answers over complex truths, that's a problem with their education system, not with trans rights.
- account42 1y agoYou're proving his point. Discussion of Peano axioms or however you want to construct natural numbers is irrelevant to the question what's two plus two, which has a straightforward answer to anyone who isn't being intentionally obtuse.
- bccdee 1y agoA better point of comparison would not be a question like "what is 2+2," but "what is 4?" There's a superficial, circular answer ("What is 4? It's 2+2"), and there's a more complex and rigorous answer which doesn't look good on camera ("What is 4? Well, numbers are a social construct used to communicate and analyze etc etc, Peano arithmetic blah blah"). These questions also admit "straightforward" answers ("what's 4?" raises 4 fingers "this many") ("what's a woman?" points to a woman "one of those"), but these don't really answer the deeper question being asked. They gesture at a preexisting category and demand that it be recognized without actually explaining the nature of that category or its boundaries.
- miltonlost 1y ago[flagged]
- thephyber 1y ago[flagged]
- peterashford 1y agoWell, I'm also not an American and I thought their answer was insightful and yours was dumb. We can all play this game. Alternatively you could actual engage with the substance of the argument?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Izikiel43 1y agoThat anything can be whatever we want because everything is defined by society/culture? It’s clear to me that these people lack real problems and are creating their own.
- peterashford 1y agoIf you ask a biologist, you will find that categories like "woman" are not clearly defined. Even the concept of biological sex is really complicated. If you want to pretend that this stuff is all black and white, that's up to you but its not a scientifically literate perspective. That's not the same as saying that "everything is defined by society/culture?" That's a strawman - no-one was claiming that.
- Izikiel43 1y ago> Even the concept of biological sex is really complicated. In some insect, reptile or fish, like the clown fish, sure. In mammals? It’s not. And to be more specific, in primates, it’s not.
- peterashford 1y agoYeah, it really is. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-sex-is-not-binary/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-s...
- 1y ago
- mock-possum 1y agoNo, the question is “is Pluto a planet” and the answer is complicated, but if you take the time to read up on how the scientific community reached consensus, then chances are you’ll end up better understanding the nuance - and why the answer is simply “No.” Define “woman?” It’s easy - it’s the traditional gender role for people AFAB. Do you understand how we arrive at that answer though?
- Izikiel43 1y agoI understand now all the complaints from regular people about how the democrats and colleges are out of touch with reality, it’s like another universe or twilight zone.
- mock-possum 1y agoHow do you mean?
- cderg 1y ago> Define “woman?” It’s easy - it’s the traditional gender role for people AFAB. This redefinition of "woman" comes from a fundamentally sexist and conservative perspective.
- bccdee 1y agoIf you actually knew any gender-non-conformant butch women, you'd know they are overwhelmingly trans allies.
- mock-possum 1y agoYes, precisely! Modern conservatism is almost primarily characterized by the way it holds traditional gender roles as sacred! Gender unorthodoxy is their main objection to progressiveness! That’s the reason any of this is even an issue, conservatives still think cows are sacred, queers are hungry for steak!
- account42 1y agoI don't think anyone would seriously make the claim that two kids in a trench-coat are actually an adult and must be let into adult-only spaces.
- bccdee 1y agoAs just one example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation