Definitions are also motivated, including for Sex, Gender and Mental Disorders. They are not reasoned: they are motivated.
Proof and Excluding Paranoia.
Proof and Excluding Paranoia. Having an irrational fear and contradictory use of exclusion can be a form of Paranoia, maybe…
This is a Comment to "Loose lips. When the language of biological sex is stripped of meaning, it's the rights of women and girls that are left exposed" by Sandra Pertot.
I do not authorize psychological nor psychiatric formulations, interpretations nor diagnosis, etc. I do not authorize any Religious use of my texts. Rights Reserved. I am not a lawyer, this is not legal nor medical advice nor advice of any kind. This is an analysis, a set of proposals and opinions based on the narrative in the quoted Post in Substack. These are my opinions and statements not those of Sandra Pertot, except as quoted, and as quoted in her Post. I created some amended definitions within quotes, I indicated such in the text.
“A major protagonist, Judith Butler, confidently declared that because gender is a social construct and gender is associated with sex, then sex is also a social construct…” which is an absurd conclusion which should never have been accepted, sex is not a social construct is a Biological Fact based on genetics and biological development.
It fails the evident test: It is evidently false, hence one of the premises must be false if the reasoning is flawless. As such proving either gender is not associated with sex, or gender is not a social construct, not that sex is a social construct, which is patently false.
Evident is what can be known by merely looking at it: no more effort required.
Patently is in a clear and unambiguous manner when not synonymous with evident, because it is open and plain, free from obstruction such is the case. Meaning it can´t be doubted rationally. There is nothing to hold on to question it as in "Plain and Simple".
It appears to be a reductio ad absurdum argument: the conclusion is patently false, if one of the premises is true, in this case sex is biological, then the other must be false: Either gender is not associated with sex, or gender is not a social construct. But there are missing, hidden premises in the argument including "sex is biological", big caveat.
But I guess they can be elaborated, and I can imagine the problem is in using a false premise which is broad: social construct, applied to the word/concept gender. Later extended to include sex.
It seems an argument of the form: If A is associated to B, and B is C, then A is C. Which is a non-sequitur, it does not follow: the conector, “associating” A to B, does not lead to the conclusion A is C. Which is obvious when seeing A is C is patently false in the specific case of Sex being a Social Construct.
Like this reductio ad absurdum argument:
Sex is biological (true but hidden premise not used in the previously quoted argument).
Gender is a social construct (premise accepted as true by proposition)
Gender is associated with sex (premise which truth is to be evaluated, premise under evaluation. Its association is by construction!, by assignment, as part of a construct, the Gender construct, not as an objective evaluation nor objective association. This is an important point missed when talking about Intersubjective things: associations in Intersubjective things are created/assigned in a non Objective manner, and agreed in a non Objective manner: that´s why they are called Intersubjective and not Objective)
Therefore Sex is a Social Construct (patently false conclusion from "Sex is Biological". Even if we stop thinking about sex as socially understood, socially unknown or against as socially understood, "sex is biological" is still Real: it does not ceases to exist, it is not negated as Real despite we believe it or not")
Elaborated as such, accepting "Gender is a social construct" as true, at least "Gender is associated with sex" is false. And that´s the problem, right?.
Gender is not associated objectively with Sex!. I think I just proved that with informal logic :)
If one accepts Gender is a Social Construct, of course, if not, then not...
The claim "Gender is a social construct" could also be false, at least in the sense it leads to false conclusions even if its value of truth is context dependent, it is inconsistent in use. Hence questioning implicitly the valid use in logical argumentation, even if informal of all Social Constructs: they lead to false conclusions. Outside of Hermeneutics, where evaluations are necessarily done in a context dependent manner.
Which is evident for Social Constructs when considering their truthfulness is context dependent, and therefore no comprehensive, no big enough, and useful enough set of true conclusions with utility outside a narrow and limited set of statements can be made out of Social Constructs because their context dependent interpretation makes them inconsistent if used as proposed in this paragraph: Widely, Generally and with Utility for Real Stuff.
It leads to Byzantine squabbles and erroneous conceptions and attitudes towards Reality: it leads to Magical Thinking against which Evidence is of no use, and correlations are not needed.
The hidden premise "sex is biological" is not used in the quoted argument, hence my proposed argument is not circular since it is not used until the assessment as False of the conclusion "Sex is a Social Construct".
All constructs are not real, are merely imaginary and are not subject to Objective verification, mere subjective and intersubjective evaluations, and for the latter: agreements. They are not Facts, facts are objective otherwise they would not be called Facts, and Opinions are based in Facts, hence all constructs are not even Opinions but Beliefs. Opinions are based on true claims.
Hence my broad proposal since the issues are important for Humanity is: Use Gender when it is not associated with Sex. Why?, because Gender is not associated with Sex, it would be inappropriate/wrong to do something based on a demonstrably false claim.
Use sex when sex is truly associated with something like single sex spaces, reproductive rights, sexual freedoms, sexual rights and derived or linked obligations to them, medical treatments, etc., and Gender when it is not associated with Sex. I think it could solve a lot of problems...
“The only way they can get legal recognition as a woman is to render that word meaningless and thus open to individual interpretation.”, no, Gender is not an individual, subjective interpretation, it is an Intersubjective one, specially when it is part of a collective identity: Being Trans and/or Queer.
The distinction between subjective, intersubjective and objective is an important one, because many people, including researchers and practitioners, specially psychologists and psychiatrists from my personal and reading experience (although possibly biased but appropriate given the topic, I have seen Philosophers, Sociologists, Politicians, etc., doing the same, like in a contagion, a Pandemic of Confusion), believe intersubjective things can replace objective ones, and such is not the case, and such is quite evident to me in the case of Trans.
They replaced the objective definition of Sex, an including but not limitative definition, which is important in Law, with intersubjective ones, not subjectives ones. Since those “definitions” made it into position papers, practice guidelines, etc., lacking objectiveness, not mere reasonability, which in principle can apply to subjective and intersubjective things, as hermeneutical arguments, not as Opinions nor Facts, which are based on Objective things: Facts.
Hence including them in public access documents used to provide something for the masses, legislators, administrators, practitioners, makes them intersubjective not merely subjective, and certainly not objective seen clearly, evidently, beyond doubt in the statement: Sex is Biological.
Making the distinction of Objective v Intersubjective way too important to be omitted, even if it is done by almost everyone, and in circumstances outside Trans Ideology.
Which explains a lot: Confusions Galore…
And the supportive process is considering definitions of sex as reductionist, they are inclusive definitions, not limitative/exclusionary definitions. People familiar with legal definitions should know that, hence, I think, legislators should not have removed them from the Laws as they did in Australia, as claimed in the Post I am commenting to.
As narrated it reflects to me a serious misunderstanding of how legal definitions are interpreted: one criterion is whether it is limitative or not, if it is exclusive or not. And the definition of Sex, for example as related to reproduction, is not limitative, it is not an exclusionary one. As the example of bipedality it is not limitative for being Human, being a Homo Sapiens.
And I think it is visible Homo Erectus might have fitted the definition quite well by mere naming convention, despite being extinct, and decidedly not Human, even if part of Homo. Homo Neanderthalensis most likely fitted such definition too and decidedly ironically related to us Sapiens, enough to have mingled sexually “successfully” in the past, seen by the presence of their before exclusive genes in them now in us, but decidedly, still, not Human by definition. Even if it opens the field to speculations of what being Human might be, not what it is…
Such clearly points out the definition of Human as provided is not a limitative one. And several more examples were or can be provided: the refusal, rejection or non adoption of maternity, or subfertility.
Bringing the issue definitions are created not only to be used, for uses, but for reasons as in arguments, and with motivations. Which is an important thing to we aware of: somethings are defined they way they are, specially intersubjectively not for reasons and not with valid arguments but with motivations, one of which is to accomplish something.
As feminism used to be defined, it was motivated to achieve parity between the sexes. Nowadays sometimes involves abolishing the Construct of Patriarchy in Reality…
One way to abolish a construct, and a really good one, is to stop thinking about it and stop using it, but alas, ironically, in Reality it does not work that way!.
And in Intersubjective fields intent to achieve something, to change the way things are, to change the World is the primary driver of how things are defined: Capitalism, Socialism, Feminism, Gender, Mental Disorders, etc.
To Change the World, but without describing it First. Therefore ways of trying to change the World lacking Objectiveness, Consistency (i.e. lacking contradictions) and Predictive and Explanatory Powers.
Ways of trying to change the World lacking in Knowledge of Reality…
In Objective things motivations are a driver, but not a primary driver, exemplified by the Definition of Human, a Humanities´ definition which has not been, and cannot be done consistently, i.e. without contradictions, therefore requiring interpretation, hermeneutics.
As opposed to Objective definitions requiring Objective evidence such as bone anatomy in fossils or Genetic Material, caveats and all.
Making the definition of Male and Female different to use in Law for a given purpose, more close to a Humanities definition, than in Science, requiring Objective definitions and evidence, like having a pair of X sexual chromosomes or a having a Y sexual chromosome, exclusively. With all its implications, or at least the necessary and sufficient for the purpose not only of the definition, but for the application of the definition in each specific case.
Hence the need to clearly understand the differences between excluding definitions from non-excluding ones, in specific cases.
For most purposes in Law requiring a chromosomal inspection is not needed, which does not mean it can be dispensed when applying definitions, not when creating them!. Even if a given definition does not say explicitly Sex is defined genetically or chromosomally, it still is determined that way!, being in the definition or not.
The reductionist claims against definitions are many times motivated, not reasoned, and are applied reductionistically, as the example provided when claiming Sex as defined related to Reproduction was a reductionist definition.
It was not, it was not a limitative one, not an excluding one, but the claim, the use of the definition as reductionistic to question the definition itself is a form of reductionism by denying it is an inclusive definition, not an exclusionary one. And as such, it is dependent on the context in which it is applied, and the reasons why the definition is true: it is based in Facts, it is based in Science, not on Beliefs.
So that at some point, Opinions based on Facts, not on Beliefs, can be created for Legal Uses. Although Beliefs sometimes are used in Law as in Freedom of Conscience, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Religious Practice and Cult.
Which to me appears a form of circular arguing, circular reasoning: claiming something is reductionistic by using it reductionistically and starting from false premises not reaching conclusions, in a reductionistic way: Sex is not Biological.
“It is self-evident that clear communication requires a common understanding of the words being used.” I disagree, what seems is important is common use, not common understanding, and I think I provided examples of why.
And the biased/dishonest definitions on the Post I am commenting to point me in the same direction: that´s probably why those definitions were created that way.
Dishonest in the sense they lack things, they omit saying things that are necessary for the definitions and its applications.
And understanding something but being motivated to do otherwise which understood as commonly must lead to be motivated to do as commonly, seems to me a central problem in many issues: it appears unreasonable, but in reality it is better understood not as lack of understanding but intending to accomplish something different: not as commonly done.
And I doubt something as simple as the definitions provided cannot be understood: they are simple enough to understand them, but they are not accepted nor used because they are an obstacle to accomplish something.
And such, to me, requires understanding the definition to reject it, and subvert its uses, even if previously widely accepted as correct and useful.
In a process apparently motivated to change Social Norms, Social Traditions, by changing the Law, which has precedence over Social Mores, to then make binding the New Social Mores on everyone.
In this case affecting at least Lesbian Women: binding them to Laws created with intents which at least did not consider them as Victims, or Potential Victims of the changes in Law. Nor their previous status for some of them as Victims of male violence or aggression.
And with Ideologies not widely adopted by Society, not widely accepted by Society, therefore not even being Social Norms, but desires of a motivated minority. Which absent the considerations of consequences, in the abstract, might seem noble: empowering, anti-discrimantory, equitable, etc.
But which led to harms to Lesbian Women, including paradoxically discrimination against them, which is one of the central conclusions of the UK Supreme Court Judgement, which now is a Legal Fact in the UK.
It still does victimize by denying them the freedom to be Lesbians, to induce them instead to consider themselves Trans, as I´ve read in several Posts here in Substack and their links, Specially from Australia.
As a proposal, hopefully at least part of the FED consensus 😁, how about these more detailed definitions, amended and with Notes, perhaps removing motivations behind them, my guess:
“Gender: refers to the way in which a person identifies or expresses their masculine or feminine characteristics, sometimes against Reality, including against Biological Reality. A person’s gender identity or gender expression is not always exclusively male or female and may change over time, but for most people it is congruous, most of the time with their Biological Sex and Social Expectations implied by their Biological Sex”.
Note: Social expectations based on Sex, nowadays include expectations about Homosexual Behavior, based on anti-discrimination Laws and Sexual Freedom Rights.
Beyond motivations in the as originally quoted definition: what causes problems with the definition I created?. It includes the recognition of “gender fluidity”, it is an inclusive not an exclusive one of the Fact most of the time Gender Fluidity is not a thing for most people. My guess…
“Gender expression: refers to the way in which a person externally expresses their gender or how they are perceived by others. They are based on Social Norms and Traditions, and on Social and Individual expectations like acceptance. Including minoritarian Norms and sometimes recently created and adopted ones, necessarily not widely accepted nor widely adopted.”
Note: There are Laws to accommodate without implying acceptance of minority Beliefs. Those Laws apply to everyone´s benefit since they give everyone protection against at least discrimination and persecution based even on minor deviations of commonly accepted Beliefs. Exemplified prominently, but not exclusively, in the wide variation of Christian Beliefs.
“Gender identity: refers to a person’s deeply held internal and individual feeling of gender. As an internal feeling it is a subjective judgement and if externalized, Gender Identity includes its expressions which as visible have at least some Objectiveness. But when shared equally appreciated with other individuals it must be considered an Intersubjective Belief, not merely a subjective one. And as such, being either subjective or intersubjective it is not an Objective Judgement of Gender Identity: it is a feeling or a Belief (see Gender expression above). And as such subject to Laws applicable to feelings or Beliefs not to objective things, like Facts, Factual evaluations, Opinions or Judgements. And the exclusive applicability of Laws applied to Beliefs or feelings makes even the objective expressions of Gender Identity regulated by those Laws alone most the time, unless there are Laws specifically applicable to Gender expressions, like when they affect the rights of other people, specially their substantive rights, their basic human rights, like the right to not be discriminated, not to be persecuted and Freedom of Expression, among many others.”
Note: Substantive rights, basic human rights and Human Rights are interdependent of each other and form a coherent group of inseparable rights from one another and from the Individual Holding them by recognition of those rights as part of their Human Dignity by States and Governments. As such, being inherent, interdependent and inseparable, but requiring recognition, their preservation as recognized and protected, needs constant reminders, defense and promotion of them otherwise those rights are lost or are no longer effectively recognized.
“Sex characteristics: refers to a person’s primary and secondary sex characteristics, for example an individual’s sex chromosomes, hormones, reproductive organs, genitals, and breast and hair development. And according to Science such Sex characteristics in Humans, unlike in a few other Species, are determined at Conception by the sexual chromosome carried by the human male spermatozoon fertilizing the human female ovum.”
"The paradox for these men is that because they weren’t born and raised female, they cannot know what it is to be a woman, which forces them to find their own criteria."
Not only that, they probably cannot know how a female feels "internally", individually and deeply. Evident in Lesbian women not feeling equally as trans males. And probably viceversa. Showing Gender Identity is not even subject to Intersubjective agreement with the women who prima facie should feel more similarly: Lesbian women, but not exclusively my guess.
Removing the veil that Gender Identity as questioned or narrated in the Post I am commenting to is not a valuable "construct" in practice since it led to disagreements among trans men and lesbian females, which led to discrimination against lesbian females. In the outcomes it shows the use, the practice of Gender Identity for Law changing is a harmful one, not a beneficial one, at least for Lesbian Women.
And in other places it has harmed Freedom of Speech, like in Spain, Australia, and Brazil.
And these outcomes from a Single Clinic in the USA are probably more common than thought:
Reflecting to me the motivations behind those definitions and their use were at least misguided. And their inclusivity might have been a charade that led to discrimination, to exclusion, at least from due consideration of lesbian females.
But I can see their continued use despite the criticisms and the Legal Precedent in the UK, despite the evidence, now could be considered bad faith: not changing claims and statements despite being shown convincingly otherwise.
Even if the UK precedent is not legally binding to other Jurisdictions outside the UK it is a morally and socially binding one: it is exemplary of the harms of legislating without enough care. And Legal Ruling in similar enough manner, because the case reached the UK Supreme Court where it reversed the lower courts´ Judgements.
And those "lower" courts are part of the "...highest national court of Scotland in relation to civil cases."
"It is hard enough for some men to accept that women are men’s equals, so getting a man to believe that a woman can literally become a man is a tough ask." Not if a woman kicks a man´s ass, jockingly, but it would be clear to me: she is still a kick ass woman not a man. But such would make a woman an equal to males, not exclusively, which is the part I am questioning of the incompletely quoted paragraph. But such assumes, as illustrated with such a literally kick ass woman, perhaps not all males see themselves equally. As probably not all females see themselves equally.
Which brings the distinction of equally under the law and equally perceived, among other equally suchs.
"The biological definitions of woman and man define the separate roles in reproduction, not who we are as women and men." Again, but not exclusively... geez... :P
But, what happened, as I understand the narrative of Sandra Pertot is what happened with all things Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: Starting from Intersubjective appreciations, shared Subjective Appreciations and Associations, not Objective ones, the House of Cards of Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry and Mental Disorders was built, and continues to be used.
With also harmful effects with no proven benefit in the aggregate from their use against Humans. Of which Trans Medicine is only a part, but a very apparent and consequential one.
Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry cannot provide knowledge about Reality
Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry are also are heavy on confusing facts with fictions, even if parroting the brain and the brain circuits, both still have, and will continue to have the same problems making them non-Scientific: their subject matter.
To me, it is the same process, it just so happens it is more evident for Trans Ideologies than for other Mental Disorders, including Gender dysphoria.
Again, the Mind is not Real.
Thanks.
Federico Soto del Alba.