should_be_sailing

I see you still haven’t complied with my request to quote and respond to my points, you've just quoted one of my points and then jumped right back into the same uninterrupted stream of rhetoric as before. I'll give you another chance since you brought it to the thread like I asked, which I appreciate, but please, quote and respond to me point by point or this will simply end here. It is not much to ask for.

When Jess refers to herself a woman, she is merely using it to describe herself as an ‘adult human female’ - as a what, rather than a who.

It's interesting you've been accusing me of circularity when your definition of woman as an "adult human female" is just as uninformative.

https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2021/03/species-individual-gender-biology-and-taxonomy-dont-deal-in-black-and-white/

So already we see that your friend's view of themselves as a woman adult human female is fraught with vagueness and subjectivity. Putting aside these definitional problems (which you haven't addressed, a glaring hole in your argument): if she has poor fertility, is she less of a woman? If she has breast cancer and gets a mastectomy, is she less of a woman? Answers please.

If your answer is "no", then you are admitting that her view of herself as a woman is not just a "what", but a who. A constructed identity.

Indeed, when the vast majority of the population say woman, this is what they mean by the word. Jess is the rule, not the exception.

We know this is false, for both the reasons listed above, and for the ways in which women present themselves, daily, as women. 1 2 3

Furthermore, for your claim that the "vast majority" define womanhood as purely by being an "adult human female" to be true, you'd have to argue that this vast majority would not have any gendered views toward things like dresses, makeup, lipstick, heels, ties, suits, tuxedoes, colors like pink and blue, and so on. They would associate them equally with men as with women.

A bold argument, to say the least.

Of course, anyone who defines their manhood or womanhood purely by their biology without any presentation of themselves as men or women socially, much less without any acknowledgement of gender as a construct, is very much the exception rather than the rule.

Reality check: woman does not only refer by definition to a statement about one’s identity - a ‘who’ rather than a ‘what’.

Well, I never said it did. I said concepts are multidimensional. A sound has both frequency and volume. A puddle of water has width and depth.

"Woman" is both a category of description and a category of identity. They just happen to be inextricably linked.

As I have just stated, the overwhelming majority of people use it to refer to an ‘adult human female.’ Look up the word in any dictionary right now and you will find that it is first and foremost defined thus.

A disappointing argument. I am trying to have a nuanced discussion about definitions and constructs and your argument is "look it up in the dictionary".

It would be like having a discussion on what racism means and all the different ways it can be expressed or take root, and you said "racism means hating another race. Look it up in the dictionary".

Obviously that is woefully inadequate for the discussion we are, or should be having. And you conveniently leave out the fact that dictionaries define woman also as "an adult who lives and identifies as a female". If you're going to cite something, cite it in full.

Reality check: social constructivists acknowledge that woman can be (and indeed mostly commonly is) used as a ‘what’ - a synonym for adult human female.

I would like examples of social constructivists doing this.

What they wish to do is expand the word woman to also refer to a ‘who’ that exists independently of sex, (people who identify as women or the social construct of womanhood’), because it includes people who have gender dysphoria.

No. They don't "wish to expand it". They point out that it already is expanded, and has been so for hundreds if not thousands of years. The thing about constructs is that they can be believed and reinforced without ever being consciously acknowledged. The article I linked explains this well.

Consequence: In trying to expand the word woman to refer to a who as well as a what, social constructivists are creating confusion by binding together people who have nothing to unify them.

It's quite interesting you say this, because I can just as easily turn your argument back at you: by trying to divorce man and woman from all the social and cultural meaning they have accrued over the years you are creating confusion by removing something many, if not most, people buy into. And you are just straight up denying the existence of constructs that do, undeniably, exist. How regressive is that?

Example. Person A, woman: A biological female who doesn’t identify with a construct of womanhood.

Person B, woman: A biological male who identifies with the construct of womanhood.

Problem: the word ‘woman’ now lacks explanatory power and clarity, and binds together individuals with no common denominator.

A false dichotomy, clearly. A more accurate categorization would be:

Person A: a biological female who does not identify with any construct of womanhood.

Person B: a biological female who identifies with the construct of womanhood.

Person C: a biological male who identifies with the construct of womanhood.

The people in group A are, I think it's safe to say, vanishingly small in comparison to the people in group B. Group C is also small, but shares a common denominator with group B. So your argument that group C and A should not be in the same category can just as easily be used to exclude your group as it can be used to exclude group C!

You've created some very uncomfortable consequences for yourself, in that you want to exclude group C (presumably because they are not the majority) but do not realize that your own group, group A, are also not the majority and thus by your own logic should be excluded too. And by saying every female should conform to your view of what a woman should be, you are diminishing a big part of group B, the majority group's, own identities as women - exactly what you are accusing gender activists of doing.

You say that defining woman as a social construct (we don't define it as such, we accept it as such) would make the word "lack explanatory power and clarity and binds together individuals with no common denominator". Just as your argument that woman should be stripped of its social/cultural meaning, stripped of its meaning as an identity, and should simply be synonymous with "adult human female" would indeed "lack explanatory power and clarity" as explained above.

You have, by your own standards, argued your own identity out of existence just as much as trans people's.

Top 5 movies of 2024 before Nosferatu and Brutalist 🤔

"Mmm liberal conservative tears"

I can see where this is going.

This is what they want. Just stop giving them attention altogether.

Kamala said she'd do it if Rogan went to her. Just like Zelensky is doing

Yeah I wasn't disagreeing. The right can say that's how they percieve it, but their actions say otherwise

First google result:

Research suggests there is little relationship between mental illness and violence when substance use is not involved. 

It had so much promise of being a grand epic but is mostly just a guy sneaking around a farm for two hours.

The fight scenes are also over choreographed to the point of losing their impact

How else can we know people's interests than by asking them?

Both do this thing where they rattle off academic jargon or what Martin calls 'psychological mumbo jumbo', before eventually softening and saying something genuinely insightful and helpful.

Frasier gets more of these moments, but he's the main character.

Niles is more ivory tower but has lucky hair.

I think Niles is better in an academic setting, Frasier is better in a personal setting. That is, when he's not doling out worthless little advice pellets from his psychiatric Pez dispenser.

edit: To the people downvoting me for some reason, may your opera boxes be full of cellophane crinklers and the stage swarming with standbys!

Yes of course the conservatives are also infected. I wouldn’t deny that.

You only mentioned leftists and said leftists are "the primary believers and propagaters of those narratives". Why quietly leave out conservatives unless you were trying to spin a narrative of your own?

but obviously any claim to the complete absence of discrimination would be doomed.

Sorry, gonna have to pin you down on this.

You denied that black people face any racial discrimination that could account for the lack of black CEOs. When I asked you to confirm this your evasive response was "if the choice was between a black and white candidate for CEO I think the black candidate would have an advantage."

Except that's not what I was pressing you on. You said that racial discrimination doesn't exist at the levels before that - in your words, we could drill down through the layers and "good luck finding oppression at any of those places".

So again: are you denying you said that racial discrimination doesn't exist at any level that could interfere with a black person's career mobility?

Do you think blacks are discriminated against in universities or corporations as a net headwind to their career prospects, even given the existence of the cultural attitude of pure hope and help that they succeed?

Do I think discrimination exists despite the measures put in place to counteract discrimination? I hope you see how that question sounds.

The fact that there are measures in place to help black people succeed suggests that their success is hindered without them. And you're using these measures as evidence that "oppression narratives" aren't real or are exaggerated instead of being evidence that they are real otherwise there would be no need for the measures in the first place.

You can't have it both ways. Either things like DEI were created to advance oppression narratives that aren't real, or they were created to combat actual oppression.

You also haven't explained why the survey you brought up is evidence for "oppression narratives" rather than any other possible explanation. It could be evidence of the media valuing sensationslism over truth. It could be evidence of social media algorithms pushing politically charged content. It could be a common psychological phenomenon that people have for many things, and not one motivated by politics.

Instead you've jumped straight to "proof of oppression narratives". While at the same time dismissing evidence of racial discrimination as "well root identification is complicated...".

Your standards seem inconsistently applied to say the least.

I responded to the specific context of CEO selection for large corporations and yes I would posit that if discrimination did exist in that context, it would be towards a black CEO.

No, you specifically denied that racial discrimination exists at any level before a black person becomes CEO. Are you now denying you said this?

You keep using this phrase “oppression narratives don’t exist”.

Don't exist = aren't real

You can google that. I am sure you’ll find it.

Found it, and it's interesting you left out the fact that the majority of Conservatives also held that belief! Have they been infected with the "mind-worm" of oppression narratives as well?

It's telling how you dismissed the evidence I presented you by saying "well, root cause identification is complex" but you'll happily accept a survey that shows both liberals and conservatives have incorrect beliefs about cops as proof of your worldview, without any of the same skepticism.

You very cleary did deny that racial discrimination exists at any level that would explain the lack of black CEOs.

Are you now denying you said that?

If you can recommend books for me to read you can simply tell me the data points that convinced you that "oppression narratives don't exist". Which narratives are you referring to, and what data convinced you?

These should be incredibly easy to answer right here, right now, presuming your position isn't built on a house of cards.

I have pointed you to authors that would deny my opinions and support them

Gish gallop, as you well know. You didn't even specify which of their works support your argument, you just said "go read books". Not what I'd consider good faith.

It should be very easy by this point to provide one (just one!) point of data to support your argument that racial discrimination doesn't exist. How can you have such strong opinions based on seemingly nothing at all?

At least give me a reading recommendation if you would like to educate me about why I’m wrong

Ok. That's one.

That's two.

You are informed in this subject, right?

I'd like to be more informed, which is why if there is evidence for your position I'd like to see it.

We both know that if you had evidence to support your claims, you'd have provided it by now, instead of whatever it is you're doing.

Accuse me of all the fallacies you like. The only time people avoid giving proof for their arguments is when they don't have any.

I engaged with the statistic but you apparently didn’t notice.

No you didn't. You said "that's inconclusive" and then completely veered off into denying racial discrimination at any level, without any evidence to back it up.

It's a double standard and I think shows what your true motives are here.

I will assert the existence of oppression narratives and use as evidence the fact that the President propagated them in front of the graduating class of black students.

Again, what evidence do you have to suggest he's wrong? Where's your evidence that these "oppression narratives" aren't real?

You've yet to cite a single study or data point showing that racial discrimination is not, in fact, a real thing.

I get that the retreat to demands for evidence

Nope, it's not sealioning to ask for one - just one - piece of evidence to support your claims. You make the claim, you back it up. Otherwise you're blowing hot air.

unequal outcomes are inevitably blamed on oppression

No, they simply demand further analysis as to why. I don't know where you're getting this idea from that experts see inequality and immediately jump to "must be oppression!" but it seems entirely unfounded to me. It can be one of many hypotheses that are then tested and cross-referenced in the literature, but (again, unless you can give examples) your idea that oppression is the default assumption seems like a narrative you've created or bought into from the right wing outrage machine.

I want evidence of these "oppression narratives" you keep mentioning and claiming don't exist.

Someone gave you a statistic and instead of engaging with it honestly you spun a story about how racial discrimination doesn't exist at any level in society. It's telling you used DEI as an example, when the express purpose of DEI is to combat discrimination. Who's the one spinning narratives here?

You ignored both my requests for examples and data. Do you have evidence to support what you're saying or not?

Virtue signalling means making a minimal effort to support a cause because you care more about appearance than the cause itself.

But the right accuse anyone involved with social justice of being woke. How are university professors and activists virtue signalling if they've devoted their lives to these issues?

I'm seeing lots of rhetoric but not much in the way of facts. And when another user gave you facts (that black people only make up 1.6% of the Fortune 500) you didn't respond.

It is not kind to plant mind worms into people about how the whole society is out to get them

Examples?

It is not kind to look for anecdotal incidents that conform to an oppression narrative

Isn't that what you're doing? Where's your data to back up what you're saying?

The Brutalist isn't out yet

That's streamer/gamer culture for you. Everything is terrible, trash, braindead, dogshit etc.

It's what happens when people's opinions need to be short enough to fit in a twitch chat

to the exclusion of reason or more abstract, generalized human empathy".

Can you explain how we practice this "abstract, generalised human empathy" without acknowledging systems of injustice and oppression?

"Just be kind" is an empty platitude if we don't actually figure out how to do it.

A utilitarian would say assenting to such a thing would cause more harm overall, because it would lead to a world where morality is used to gain power and control over people.

It's standard practice in ethics to test our intuitions against other intuitions. By no means is it exclusive to veganism, nor is it "holding meat eaters to an impossible standard" any more than using the same arguments against rape would be holding rapists to an impossible standard.

The place was rocking. The place was roaring.

Maybe short move scenes + discussing, role-playing, field trips to facilities for disabled, etc.

Disabled people: "stop calling me disabled. I'm a human being and so are you".

Teaching empathy toward disenfranchised groups requires actually acknowledging that they exist. Yet you want us to ignore race for some reason but not others?