Is Sex binary ? A Reasoned objection to Rationality Rules in the pursuit of truth

Feb 25, 2024

With this article I hope to provide a Reasoned objection to Rationality Rules recent videos and statements from the YouTube channel "Rationality Rules" .

As you may have seen, the debate rages on, over gender, sex and preferred pronouns. Defending that "sex is binary" is regularly called out as being transphobic. There are arguments that "preferred pronouns" are becoming compelled speech and threaten free speech. On the other hand trans-people argue that not using someone's preferred pronouns and refusing so-called "gender affirming care" to young people is "denying their existence".

Before diving in, and for a bit of context, a short presentation of Rationality Rules :

Rationality Rules is the youtube channel of Stephen Woodford, he describes his channel as a place where

we debunk and refute predominately religious and supernatural arguments.

Indeed, the channel is mainly "anti apologetic" content. There are many videos about various philosophical topics, from theology to morality and free will, and a healthy dose of evolution by natural selection (I believe he has a beautiful edition of The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin).

Anyway, Stephen is a very bright thinker, if you are interested in quality counter arguments to many of the Daily Wires, and Ben Shapiro types, have a look there.

Now, I am going to make comments relating to these recent YouTube videos by Rationality Rules :

Below the 3rd one, here is the pinned comment by Stephen :

To those who have said that it's more accurate to say that my view of sex is bimodal (not binary), you're absolutely correct. Cheers for the pointer.

This is exactly what we are going to talk about, I strongly disagree with the view that sex is bimodal, and hopefully we can all together find an agreement on some facts about Biology.

First, as with all subjects, we have to agree on what is true, what the facts are. For that we have sciences, we observe, we make experiments, we define things and we invent new terms when needed to identify a new concept. The relevant science here, is Biology, the study (logy) of life (bios).

Video (1) is a 2 hours long podcast with Forrest Valkai ( YouTube | Forrest Valkai ), self-described as

Forrest is a biologist and a science communicator. He uses his platform to teach exciting science lessons, promote compassion and skepticism, and share his boundless love for life with audiences of all ages.

Videos (2) and (3) are related to (1) and to Forrest Valkai.

I think Forrest is the main offender here. He exemplifies a recent "Ideological Subversion of Biology". This is the title of an article written by 2 biologists, on the Skeptical Inquirer : skepticalinquirer.org | The Ideological Subversion of Biology, Jerry A. Coyne and Luana S. Maroja .

I am going to demonstrate why I think Forrest is not only wrong, but a professional gaslighter, especially at the end of this article (7. Forrest Valkai and the epistemology of Social Justice).

However I am more interested in seeking understanding and truth, than rebutting all stupid things Forrest has said and done, and since Rationality Rules hosts the videos, the bulk of my arguments will be based on Stephen's point of view, expressed neatly in a community post.

Stephen's Community post

These 3 videos are relevant to this article but I will not make a thorough analysis of all that has been said. Written statements, by both Stephen and Forrest on YouTube already give more than enough work.

Let us begin with what Stephen wrote in his community section (YouTube | Rationality Rules | community) regarding his definitions of Sex and Gender.

Here is the full community post from which I will be quoting and responding to.
Now for the detailed breakdown of these claims.

1. Biological Sex definition

Sex is typically defined based on gamete type or chromosomes.

As far as I understand, this is inaccurate. Sex is defined by gametes and determined by genetics, this is true for humans and all Mammals.
What this means is that

Since there are 2 gametes types, then the gametes types within human reproduction is binary(made of 2 parts). One human is said to be either
- female if her gametes are eggs (or ova, I might use these terms as synonyms)
- male if his gametes are sperms (spermatozoa)

Now, an individual may produce none or both, in which cases the individual would be said to have an intersex condition, or more precisely a Disorder of Sexual Development (DSD).

This is where there usually is a contention. The gametes types might as well be binary, but we are interested in human sexual identification, is it binary ? If it is then we should have 2 parts.

Here it might be good to stop and just make sure we understand how binary is defined.

The objection is as follows : with that definition of sex, there are cases where it does not apply, if the individual has neither gametes, then it is neither male nor female, and we need at least a 3rd category, so sex cannot be binary.

There is a bit of an ambiguity above, a confusion between one's sex (as in sexual identification), and Sex as a system.
Let us focus for a minute on Sex as a system and it's actual definition in Biology. The one above is actually a shorthand for the exact definition.
The precise definition has to do with reproduction, as with all things in Biology, it is all about Evolution.

Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts-some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole.
— bioone.org - Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, Theodosius Dobzhansky

Every Biological system is understood through the lens of Evolution.
So with that in mind, Sex is a system that exists for and because of reproduction. And Sex as a system is binary because it is made of 2 parts: for reproduction to occur there needs to be small gametes from an individual producing them (a male), trying to fertilize a big gamete from another individual producing them (a female).

And this, in essence, is why Sex is binary.

Now to steelman and address what it means to identify as "non-binary".
People who claim they are non binary just mean they don't fit into clear cut gender roles. They claim they are neither explicitly female nor male —woman or man, I consciously use sex and gender interchangeably as I think for most use cases, like this one, the distinction is irrelevant—. This has mainly to do with their behavior, how they feel, how they act, this one part of the phenotype, their psychology.

See :

However the fact that some people don't have behaviors that feet neatly into "feminine" or "masculine" does not invalidate the binary nature of Sex, functionally, for reproduction, sex works with 2 parts. Notice that "non-binary" claims would not exist if there wasn't some specific differences between females and males behavior, and within that framework of differences we can identify 2 groups, women and men. It is only within that framework that it makes sense to identify oneself as not belonging to any one of these 2 groups (non binary).

That claim goes further, they say that the "feminine" and "masculine" behaviors, or more commonly referred to as "women and men gender roles", are socially constructed. This I disagree strongly with, we will see why later on.

Notice that in these videos, where people identify as non-binary, for most of them you can easily tell if they are male or female (I had trouble only for Francois, with the makeup and the clothes it was hard at first glance. And the voice did not give it away for me. It was only on subsequent close up shots that it became obvious with the jaw and mouth shape, that Francois is a male). We will also see why this is the case that we are able to do that so easily.

Here is how Sex is defined in Biology from a 2014 paper in the journal Molecular Human Reproduction :

Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems
Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems.
Anisogamy refers to gametic systems where the gametes are dimorphic in size: one gamete type is larger (e.g. ova) than the other (e.g. spermatozoa), and gametic fusion occurs only between the larger and the smaller gametes.
— academic.oup.com (Oxford Academic) | Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes, Jussi Lehtonen, and Geoff A. Parker

Sexual dimorphism, physical differences

In a vast majority of cases, the entire body of someone is made to produce these gametes. This is a result of Evolution and reproduction constraints. For example, a female would have a uterus, a cervix. Even if a male loses his testicles and his gametes with them, we still would have his prostate.

Further differences can clearly be seen if taken as groups.
Human females (henceforth called women), have on average lower heights, lower bone density, lower body strength than human males (henceforth called men).

These differences are the reason why, when we see people in the street we can instantly identify men from women, because our eyes see many things, and our brains use multiple variables at the same time.

When we see someone we get many many variables at once, jaw width, cheeks shape, hip width, ass size, bust/waist/hip ratio, shoulder width, total height, mouth shape, body and facial hair, body fat distribution.
And if you cannot tell, if it is ambiguous, it usually is solved when you see the person walk, or when you hear her or his voice.

Remember I said "determined by genetics" ? Well in humans that means that specific genes determine the specific developmental pathway the foetus and then child (at puberty mostly) undergoes. Certain genes are responsible for developing a male or a female body, this is sex determination. This determines what gametes the body will produce and accordingly, how the entire set of cells will work to accommodate these gametes. This gives rise to sexual dimorphism, in physical characteristics and also in psychological ones. Both are the result of Natural Selection.
This in no way means that, because it is natural, therefore anything deviating from this is an error, as seen from a statistical point of view, deviations are deviations, but no value judgement can be ascribed on them. It is just a fact that nature has selected this configuration.

But this means that external characteristics heavily correlates with gametes production for multiple evolutionary reasons. Two of them being, seduction and reproduction pressures

2. Is someone's sex "value" binary [M,F], Male or Female ?

The adjective binary is simply :

binary
consisting of, indicating, or involving two.
Mathematics.
of or relating to a binary system.
— dictionary.com | binary

binary system
a system involving only two elements, as 0 and 1 or yes and no.
— dictionary.com | binary system

binary is widely used in computer's and mathematics :

In mathematics and digital electronics, a binary number is a number expressed in the binary numeral system or base-2 numeral system which represents numeric values using two different symbols: typically 0 (zero) and 1 (one). The base-2 system is a positional notation with a radix of 2.

—w3resource.com | Convert Binary to Decimal

This means that values are represented "using two different symbols", 2 parts, hence binary, but one binary number can have an infinite number of values. In the same way we could say that human Sex is represented using 2 different symbols M (Male) and F (Female), but one individual specific phenotype (value) is infinitely diverse. So diverse that that one individual might indeed not have gametes, or maybe both.

Someone's sex is directly related to the system of Sexual Reproduction, which is a binary system (made of eggs and sperms). In that sense, someone's sex is binary.

None of these 2 definitions prevent variations, nor do they mean that individuals are mathematical numbers and that somehow their whole identity is reduced to a sex value of either M or F.

Definitions are only usage, and context usually determines what definition fits best.

Anyway, back to Stephen.

It's not as simple as "Everyone is born with either male parts or female parts"

I do hope no serious person claims that "Everyone" is born with either male parts or female parts. Even restricting the definition of "parts" to external genitalia, [1 penis, 2 testicles] vs [1 vagina, 1 clitoris and labium], this would be wrong. This looks like a straw-man, but fortunately Stephen admits himself :

However, just as we admit exceptions to a rule in many domains of discourse, so too do most philosophers, sociologists, and biologists when it comes to sex. So, sex is seen by most as binary.

Even if this is an appeal to popularity, I do agree that most people take the binary as a general rule and accept the existence of exceptions. Just to be thorough here, we have to distinguish between what most people agree on, mainly relying on their common sense, and what the scientific consensus is on the matter.
Furthermore, appealing to philosophers and sociologists when talking about Biology is straight up nonsensical appeal to popularity. What if there is a disagreement on the definition ? How do we clear up the ambiguities ?
By using an ambiguous definition, one can argue anything. In this context, the definition of Sex needs to be a clear one. And I think it is better to first start with a scientific definition, we can have philosophical disagreements later, but not if we deny empirical facts.

I will concede that I have seen some variations of "You are either male or female, there is no other choice". After much thinking about it and trying to understand this position best I can, I don't think this is a coherent position to hold. Even the strongest form of the argument that I can formulate has issues : "There are only 2 sexes, males and females and there are variations within those sexes. Everyone is either male or female" If one where to add that it is true in all circumstances, then necessarily, people born with ambiguous sex, like people with CAIS, would be classified either male or female, and this seems to lead to some inconsistencies (see 5. People with CAIS).

3. Gender

About gender then :

Mostly everything is incorrect here.

Since the mid 20th century, gender has been more and more seen as associated with, but certainly different from, sex, and it refers to social and cultural roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a society considers appropriate for men and women.

This may be true for niche intellectual circles, but it is flatly false for the vast majority of the population. I would bet that more than 90 % of people considered "someone's gender" as a synonym for "someone's sex". This has become mainstream only recently, after having been forced into popular culture in the last 20 years maybe.
And this is the reason why the push back is so strong, most people don't recognize the concept of gender as being "different from, sex" and referring to "attributes that a society considers appropriate for men and women." .

According to this article (2011) : springer.com | Distinguishing Between Sex and Gender: History, Current Conceptualizations, and Implications

The use of gender to refer to social and cultural roles was proposed only in 1979 :

Rhoda Unger (1979) argued that the widespread use of the term sex implies biological causes and promotes the idea that differences between women and men are natural and immutable. She proposed the use of the term gender to refer to traits that are culturally assumed to be appropriate for women and men.

They then go on to explain that even amongst researchers there are wide inconsistencies in definitions and usage, even inconsistencies between how they defines sex and gender and how they measure it.

So there is no way that this view became widespread outside of a niche of psychologists working on the subjet.

Ironically, considering what we see today, the authors conclude that

At one time, distinguishing between sex and gender was a valuable contribution. It provided a way to reject biological determinism that linked biology with rigid sex roles and expectations. It provided a way to understand transsexual individuals, whose biological sex did not match their gender identity. Like Yoder (2003), however, we predict that, as researchers learn more, the distinction between sex and gender may become less important or meaningful

4. A social construct

It's a social construct (like money, marriage, etc.,) that varies across cultures and changes over time.

I assumed when I first read this that we were talking mainly about behavior here, but since there is also mention of "attributes that a society considers appropriate for men and women", it seems we are also talking about physical attributes, like having long hair, boobs, and wearing dresses. I do hope I am mistaken as sexual dimorphism as a social construct is even more absurd than psychological dimorphism.
For gender to be a social construct would mean there is no biological or evolutionary bases for differences between males and females.

All mammals have many striking behaviors differences between males and females, so unless humans are a special case (one might say, made by God) there is no reason to suppose it should be different for us.
If there is no behavior differences rooted in biology between men and women, then where do these social constructs come from ? Granted it could be sheer randomness and social propagation, but then why the need to particularly fight it ? Is it not enough to simply say Don't force people to do things they do not want to do ?
Multiple studies have already shown differences between men and women, physically it is overwhelming, and really no one needs science to know that. Until recently, when people like me started spending their lives behind computers, everybody knew it.
Of course, physical strength, or more broadly, performance, are not the full extent of physical differences. As I pointed out earlier, there are cosmetics ones as well. For those I am not sure it is relevant to point out to scientific literature to "prove" that women have boobs and men do not...
However I recognize that popular knowledge might not be the most reliable, some things known by everybody in the past have been proven to be false with more rigorous analysis. I have added some studies below highlighting the physical performance gap between the sexes.
Regarding behavior too there are a lot of differences, this is consistent with what we know of our cousins of the mammalian kingdom.

The literature on the physical performances gap between women and men is so vast that it is actually hard to choose which ones to point to. It is literally overwhelming. Here are 3 of these studies :

Regarding psychological sex differences, here is a systematic review of the literature :

wiley.com | The reality and evolutionary significance of human psychological sex differences

5. People with CAIS

A good example to illustrate this is people with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS). Though they are genetically male (XY chromosomes, and have testes internally), they develop outwardly as females due to insensitivity to male sex hormones. As a result, people with CAIS are assigned female at birth and often raised as girls. Their gender identity and expression aligns more with the societal construct of femininity rather than masculinity. This shows how gender is not strictly determined by chromosomes or sex organs, but is influenced by social and cultural norms.

The case of people with CAIS is worth exploring.
If the definition of Sex is about gonads, then they are male because they have testicles (I am not sure they produce sperm, and already we are forced to stretch the gametes definition to mean, "actually it is about gonads, working or not").
On the other hand, if the definition is about the entire phenotype, physical and psychological at once, then clearly they are female. From what I understand they would not even know they have testicles if women did not usually go through an exciting and super cool episode in their life, when they start having their period.
I think this is one case where it is indeed not so clear cut if these people should be classified as males or females, however this doesn't matter in society, these people look and act like female, and this is enough for anyone to think of them as female, or women.

They have not been "assigned female at birth", they have been identified as female, based on their phenotype. The same way we do not "assign" the species "Canis lupus" to young puppies, we identify them as such. Sure the name in itself is made up, like all words, but the concept it refers to exists independently of us creating a word for it.
This can devolve into ontological questions, "what does it mean to be X ?", sure we can have endless pondering about "what is a woman ?", and very seriously.
We can have endless pondering about "what is a chair ?". If you start removing matter, when is it not a chair anymore ? Is a chair still a chair if you remove one of its legs ? Is a table a chair if you sit on it (defined functionally) ?
In the same way, we can debate about when is a person not exactly a female. There are cases for which the answer might be hard to give. It doesn't mean that for most cases the answer does not exist and is not easy to give. It is the same for a lot of problems, some times the precise line is hard to draw.

Imagine we plot a group of people based on their phenotype, as much characteristics as we want. Of course this is a lot of variables, so it could not be represented on a 2 dimensional space, but we can perform dimensionality reduction —For example with a method called "Principal Component Analysis"(PCA)—.

This is what plotting human individuals based on different characteristics could look like.

On this plot we see 2 distinct groups, so we say, well easy, we draw a vertical line and everything on one side we call "men" and on the other we call "women".

We have drawn a line, a separation between the 2 groups, individuals in these groups share something we call their sex, but there is still a lot of variation.

But wait, you see there are 2 points on the line, right in the middle, and what about points close enough ? Are we saying these individuals are without a doubt men and women ?

Like we saw before, some times the precise line is hard to draw. So maybe we can draw 2 lines ? 1 below which, it is easy, and 1 above which, it is easy. In between it requires care and a detailed analysis.

We have our 2 unambiguous groups, and 1 in-between.

Now, here we have 2 limits, let us say that we have been conservative enough, and individuals beyond the lines (to the left and the right), are those with unambiguous genitalia, they have no known DSD, they produce one and only one type of gametes.
They are without a doubt, males and females.

In the middle now, we have our edge cases, people for which in some cases we would need to decide how to consider them. Does it mean they are a third sex ? or a spectrum ? No it does not seem so, it just means for each one we would have to decide on a case-by-case basis how to classify them, because that is the nature of nature, it is messy sometimes.
However this does not mean the general case does not exist, the vast majority of people are in the left and right categories, we can easily and objectively classify them as male or female.

6. Richard Dawkins comments on gender

Here Stephen is critical of Richard Dawkins comments about trans ideology in different videos :

when Dawkins actually mentions gender, he does so as to dismiss it by saying “They use the word gender to get around things

Never mind that most trans-people are not claiming that, activists are. And by the way, many activists are not transgender themselves.

Dawkins point is relevant about trans-activism, and he is exactly right. Let us break it down :

If gender is a "social construct" as activists claim.

Because some will likely claim that "nobody" is saying such radical things as "your sex has no basis in Biology, it is a social construct", it is important to remind them of the literature on the subject. In her Book, Judith Butler goes as far as suggesting that even sex might be a social construct :

If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called "sex" is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all.

— Judith Butler, Gender Trouble, p 7

Later she writes :

Whether gender or sex is fixed or free is a function of a discourse which, it will be suggested, seeks to set certain limits to analysis or to safeguard certain tenets of humanism as presuppositional to any analysis of gender. [...] This is not to say that any and all gendered possibilities are open, but that the boundaries of analysis suggest the limits of a discursively conditioned experience. These limits are always set within the terms of a hegemonic cultural discourse predicated on binary structures that appear as the language of universal rationality. Constraint is thus built into what language constitutes as the imaginable domain of gender.
— Judith Butler, Gender Trouble, p 9

So in short, the limit of our experience of "gender", has nothing to do with biological sex, sex and gender might be the same thing any way. It is conditioned by the dominant discourse of the time, a discourse "predicated on binary structures that appear as the language of universal rationality".
The binary structure of sex, has no basis in biology for Butler, it just appeared, somehow, "as the language of universal rationality", whatever that means.

So is there an objective measure to determine someone's gender ? Well according to Nature ( nature.com | Sex redefined ) :

if you want to know whether someone is male or female, it may be best just to ask.

So now the issue appears, if man and woman are genders socially constructed, anyone can claim to be one or the other. But in modern western society, this explicit discrimination is only asked and required in a few situations, namely, access to bathrooms, sports competitions categories, prisons and medical care.
Now we have a situation where some spaces are segregated by gender — not Sex then, or at least not defined by gametes since no one check the actual gametes—, but anyone can be any gender ? So what is the point of this separation ?

There are 2 ways to get around that :

We change policies to discriminate on biological sex, we check gametes, and when ambiguous we use other criteria. But then we have come full circle haven't we ? Trans-people are at the same point as before, when gender was synonymous with Sex. In all instances that matter, they will not have access to female spaces when they are biologically male.
We abolish non-mix spaces, and indeed we used gender to get around things, because gender is too complex, it cannot be objectively measured, it is an inner feeling.

7. Forrest Valkai and the epistemology of Social Justice

Now my complaints against Forrest.

Watching a few minutes of the video where he criticizes Dawkins' views ( Addressing Richard Dawkins' comments on "trans ideology" @RenegadeScienceTeacher ) demonstrates that either Forrest is an activist, and not a truth seeker, or that he truly misunderstands everything Dawkins says. In any case, consciously or not, behind the label of "science communicator", he is actively pushing ideologies using intellectually dishonest tactics. This is worse than just being wrong in my opinion, this represent an ideological subversion of Science, and no wonder many people come to distrust Science when it is presented like that. (I cannot recommend enough that you read : skepticalinquirer.org | The Ideological Subversion of Biology ). Nevertheless I shall give an example to illustrate my point.

At 27:31 he presents Dawkins and Boghossian's point of view like that :

"men just become women by just declaring that they are". And then the other guy is like "that's clearly delusional". Yeah ! nobody is saying any of that ! Nobody is making those arguments ! You heard that on whatever freaking Matt Walsh podcast

Just in these short sentences he manages to demonstrate much intellectual dishonesty. Let's see :

What is this all about gender that we hear all the time ? All that we have just talked about in this article. How is it that we should ask someone (again, not Matt Walsh, it is on freaking Nature) if they are man or woman if they cannot "just declare that they are." ?
Let us see a definition shall we :

woman
an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth

— Cambridge Dictionary | woman

So ... I mean, reality's a bitch.
1. Either a dictionary is recording usages that are common enough to be worth teaching. In that case I have trouble understanding how few people is "nobody".
2. Or the dictionary is pushing a new definition that nobody indeed uses. In that case I have to assume that they think it is worth teaching, then going against the purpose of a dictionary (see reason (1)), for what I assume to be ideological reasons.
There are only 2 reasons to not mention the name of someone you are rebutting the argument of.
1. You do not want to give the name of the person to avoid giving him "publicity", this is known as "no platforming" for SJW (Social Justice Warriors, if you have forgotten this). On Twitter this is known I think as "sub-tweeting", not linking to the original tweet, bit different but same idea, avoid conversation, avoid rebuttals.
2. Or you actually don't know the name of the person, which means you did not even try to understand who is talking, and you probably did not even try to understand what the person was saying. Do I have to explain why this is intellectually dishonest ?
"The other guy" is Peter Boghossian, he is a philosopher. I have quoted him in my last article, he is responsible for inventing Street Epistemology, this is relevant because Peter has been working for years on trying to have better, reasonable conversations, and Forrest is doing the exact opposite here, sowing doubt and not working towards a goal of common understanding.
Furthermore, if he actually had tried to know and understand Peter's Work, he could have found that it cannot be further from Matt Walsh's. He actually got "cancelled" by Walsh, and invited him, 2 times I think, to have a conversation, Walsh never answered.

Forrest goal does not seem to be objective empirical truth but Social Justice first. By seeing the issue of Sex through the lens of Gender Theory, he is forced to straw-man people like Richard Dawkins and dismiss evidence that could falsify his narrative.

But to activists it does not matter, truth does not matter as long as we serve Social Justice. Or at least we could say "It is not true if it hurts people, especially minorities" —this is what I mean by "epistemology of Social Justice", truth does not only depend on objective empirical evidence, it depends on people inner feelings, and corrections of perceived historical injustices—.

But that is not what Biology is, it is a science. By claiming to do Biology, what Forrest does is propaganda for pseudo-science as defined by Karl Popper. Propaganda for a bunch of unfalsifiable hypotheses, mainly variation of that Nature article, "gender" is an inner feeling, an essence you come to know intrinsically and tell others.

3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

[...]

the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

— Science as Falsification, Karl R. Popper

As this article is already very long, I will give in a following one detailed links to many sources I used to understand more on this subject, videos, scientific papers, and articles like this one here. So you have a select bibliography to dive more on the subject.

I give special thanks to Océane for listening and checking my thinking and my writing, and for making these pretty plots for this article.

I will simply end by adding this article that I find hilarious : helpfulprofessor.com | 81 Types of Genders & Gender Identities (A to Z List).
As far as I can tell, this is not satire, and he, helpfully, defines some terms for us, "Cultural Construct" and "gender constructs".

While in Western secularism, the moon is seen as simply an orb in the sky, if we turn to Astrological traditions in India, we see that the moon’s phases can reveal insights about people’s personalities!

That looks like Science, Astrology used to justify gender as a social construct.
I would love to hear more about how nobody is making that kind of ridiculous arguments.

Definitions

Gaslighting

The act of flatly contradicting observable reality.

— littlebrown.co.uk | Free Speech And Why It Matters

And as why this is different than simply being wrong or lying :

a form of emotional manipulation in which the gaslighter tries (consciously or not) to induce in someone the sense that her reactions, perceptions, memories and/or beliefs are not just mistaken, but utterly without grounds—paradigmatically, so unfounded as to qualify as crazy. Gaslighting is, even at this level, quite unlike merely dismissing someone, for dismissal simply fails to take another seriously as an interlocutor, whereas gaslighting is aimed at getting another not to take herself seriously as an interlocutor.

— onlinelibrary.wiley.com | TURNING UP THE LIGHTS ON GASLIGHTING

Originally published on 15 Sep 2023 on curiousphilosophy.net.

Curious Philosophy

Discussion about this post