This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This starts so well- indeed I commend you on the points you draw attention to, but it fades in the later stages.
You initially point out that sex is binary, though the development and expression of this sex binary leads to different possibilities for individual organisms, male, female and intersex. This makes three sex categories but not a sex ternary, it is natures attempts to attain male or female with different developmental issues arising but there is no third sex capable of procreation.
We know that the body attempts to create male and female because of our scientific understanding of biology and evolution - the telos is inscribed by the actual history of the universe, whereby humans evolved to reproduce sexually, ie we all descend from mothers and fathers, eggs and sperm.
The essential aspect of how we assign sex is indeed not straightforward because of the genetic variation that is possible at each stage. But often categorisation is difficult, the complexity and philosophical difficulties don't undermine some essential reality just because it's hard to determine how to explicitly assign edge cases. To start the exploration, in humans it's the phenotype that leads to the development of functional elements that allow for reproduction, chiefly eggs and sperm, whether as potential future, current present, or prior capability. For most people this means a host of associated functional developments that are required and for most of us these line up nicely and we are functional males and females. For some, genetic anomolies occur such as failure for the placenta to develop or sperm that don't sperm. So functionally these people can not reproduce but it seems wrong to assign them as no-sex. But categories are not only formed based on a single rule, they can be based on family resemblances, or polythetic categories where not all members need to share every attribute. A single gene should not remove you from the sex category and the change certainly doesn't make you more like the other sex.
For intersex the change is more fundamental, earlier in the ontogeny and more prior in the phylogeny. The variation does lead to some change in the direction of the other sex and so for this group of people their sex is indeterminate, biologically speaking.
This doesn't exclude some people living as if they were a woman but finding out they were not in fact that sex, eg swyer syndrome.
So far so good. Im not a biologist but I think not only do we have knowledge of male and female sex from evolution as our basis for understanding it's reality, we could also construct a reasonable categorisation for individuals.
But you agree with this. The rest as far as I can tell is spurious thinking related to sex appearance and whether we can detect it. I don't know how to parse this as it doesn't seem at all confusing to me. Yes there are masculine woman and feminine men, but there is still the reality of whether they can reproduce or whether the similarity is just cosmetic.
More options
Context Copy link