Comment by cik2e
5 years ago
> It is also currently right wing that seeks to suppress actual fields of study on Universities.
Care to share your feelings on the far left push to suppress science and mathematics?
> And working in more conservative environment, I was careful not to say things that could be constructed as near-feminist, because that would lower my "trustworthiness" in other arenas too.
The opposite is certainly true today in corporate America and higher education. Making an argument for the existence of a biological basis for sex or denying that all whites are automatically racist is a no-go.
The ideas that the far left is trying to suppress are very much not conservative. It’s an assault on objectivity and rational thought.
>Making an argument for the existence of a biological basis for sex [...] is a no-go
If this were true, biology departments themselves would be a no-go. Every university I can name has a biology department. Is there any source for the claim that making such an argument is a no-go, or even any serious scholar (in any field) arguing that there is no biological basis for sex?
>It’s an assault on objectivity and rational thought.
If it were an assault on objectivity, then the scholars wouldn't be using 'objective' metaphysical models to argue for their positions. If they used 'non-objective' models, then the work would lack the normative force claimed. If it were an assault on rational thought, they wouldn't be crafting arguments at all. Would you care to link to some scholarly work which not only argues for the positions you criticize, but also adopts a model which denies objective or rational thought? Philosophically, rationality and objectivity are very tricky concepts. We should have debates on those just as we have debates on most other things.
or even any serious scholar (in any field) arguing that there is no biological basis for sex?
Sadly this is a thing: https://twitter.com/RebeccaRHelm/status/1207834357639139328 https://twitter.com/ScienceVet2/status/1035246030500061184
It's a motte-and-bailey argument going from "a small percentage of people don't neatly fall into either the male or female category" to "the concept of biological sex is meaningless and the only relevant factor is a person's self-identification".
>It's a motte-and-bailey argument going from "a small percentage of people don't neatly fall into either the male or female category" to "the concept of biological sex is meaningless and the only relevant factor is a person's self-identification".
Except that's not what the links you posted say. In fact, the very first sentence of the second link says: "First, sex defined: We're talking physical sex here, not gender."[0]
What's more, the same poster says further down: "It is worth noting that I never talk about transgender in this thread. Intersex is not the same as transgender. You can be one without the other, or be both."
So that thread doesn't say anything close to what you think it says. Unless I misunderstood either the twitter thread or you. Which is always possible.
Would you mind expanding on your point? It might lead to an interesting discussion.
[0] https://twitter.com/ScienceVet2/status/1035246030500061184
> > or even any serious scholar (in any field) arguing that there is no biological basis for sex?
> Sadly this is a thing:
Neither of the things your point to argue that.
They do argue that biological sex is not simple or binary, but that's very different from “there is no biological basis for sex”.
> It's a motte-and-bailey argument going from "a small percentage of people don't neatly fall into either the male or female category" to "the concept of biological sex is meaningless and the only relevant factor is a person's self-identification".
Except it's not; another thing neither of the sources you point to argues is that the various biological sex features don't matter: each of them matters; where they matter differs.
Unless, of course, by “matter” you mean specifically “provide an excuse to base socially ascribed gender on something other than gender identity”, in which case, sure, but it's hardly a motte-and-bailey argument, then.
>Care to share your feelings on the far left push to suppress science and mathematics?
It's not actually happening. I can imagine what you're thinking of as "suppression of science and mathematics" is pseudoscience.