ArisKatsaris comments on The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? - Less Wrong

157 Post author: Yvain 27 August 2012 03:36AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (1742)

Comments (1742)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 12 September 2012 01:14:11PM * 0 points [-]

You ought perhaps consider that the "feminist response" originated at a time where it was easier to change society than to change biology.

As we come closer to the ability to genetically engineer our children, shouldn't you consider that the best and most practical path to the radical feminists' goal to "destroy gender" could become to destroy it at the biological level?

If that's the case then radical feminists should study evolutionary psychology and biology as much as possible, in order to know how to destroy gender in that manner.

Comment author: TimS 12 September 2012 01:58:58PM 4 points [-]

As chaosmosis says, I think that society does a poor job of distinguishing between gender and sex.

Although the line is not clean, gender is the social roles, sex is the physical facts. The physical facts have consequences for possible social roles. But there's lots of evidence that there are many possible social roles consistent with the physical facts.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 12 September 2012 01:49:55PM 0 points [-]

Hm.
As a practical matter, if I had an ideological goal (e.g., destroying gender) and came to believe that expertise in a particular technical field (e.g., biology) were necessary to make optimal progress in that goal, I would probably be more inclined to work towards convincing experts in that field to adopt my goal (whether through rhetoric or money or social engineering) than towards becoming an expert in that field myself.

Comment author: chaosmosis 12 September 2012 01:35:52PM 0 points [-]

Feminists often perceive gender as cultural, and I think lots of that is justified.

But, I agree with a more general form of your argument, which is that evolutionary psychology and biology are more useful than feminism. I like both, but if one precluded the other then I would probably end up supporting the former. I'm open to counterarguments about this though, because I'm not terribly sure of this conclusion.

Comment author: TimS 12 September 2012 02:01:12PM 1 point [-]

This is the basic argument against the practical usefulness of ev. psych in deciding our current social roles.

In essence, beware status quo bias.

Comment author: [deleted] comment score below threshold [+] (13 children)

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 12 September 2012 03:27:04PM 8 points [-]

Feminism holds that gender is a social construct

And if feminism happens to be factually false in that particular respect? Even partly false, so that gender is 90% a social construct, and 10% a result of biology?

The existence of gender identity dysphoria indicates that people can have "genders" which they were not assigned to socially -- the dysphoria arising from the discrepancy between their "real" genders, and their societally assigned genders.

I've not studied if/how feminism (as you describe it) can be reconciled in this respect with pro-transgender thought -- do you have any thoughts on the subject?

Comment author: TimS 12 September 2012 03:43:58PM 0 points [-]

Gender != sex.

I support the position that all social roles that are totally uncorrelated with physical facts should be re-examined (and probably eliminated).

Where to draw the line between physical difference and pure social construct is a difficult empirical question. Ev. Psych asks the right questions, but I don't trust its answers.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 12 September 2012 03:53:55PM * 1 point [-]

I know that gender != sex, but people are societally assigned the gender corresponding to their biological sex (or more accurately the gender corresponding to their genitalia). So if gender is a wholly social construct, there would probably not exist such a thing as gender identity dysphoria.

I don't trust the particular answers of Ev. Psych either, but I also mistrust any claim of psychological equality in biologically different groups. It smacks of a mind-body duality that doesn't exist: The brain is a physical organ like any other; psychology is a biological function -- culture and society shape it, but so does biology.

Therefore there's no physical law requiring its average characteristics to be completely the same between males and females. That would be privileging the theory we would prefer to be true as egalitarians.

Comment author: TimS 12 September 2012 04:05:54PM 0 points [-]

There are historical ideologies that seem to repeatedly be wrong for essentially the same reasons.

Mind-body dualism.
Essentialist "scientific" theories to explain then existing social norms.

Which is more powerful in this case? Hopefully we can find out.

As for gender identity dysphoria, I don't doubt there is a phenomena out there. But for it to support your position seems to require that the DSM-IV cut the world at its joints. I think we agree that this is a laughable assertion.

In particular, I distrust the current descriptions because I suspect that the distinction between gender and sex is not being sufficiently respected by those making the diagnostic definitions. Lots of mental illness is defined explicitly or implicitly in terms of fit into current social norms.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 13 September 2012 12:10:59AM 1 point [-]

As for gender identity dysphoria, I don't doubt there is a phenomena out there. But for it to support your position seems to require that the DSM-IV cut the world at its joints. I think we agree that this is a laughable assertion.

This is a package-deal fallacy — the DSM can get a lot of things wrong about gender dysphoria without weakening AK's position.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 September 2012 10:54:12PM 0 points [-]

I support the position that all social roles that are totally uncorrelated with physical facts should be re-examined (and probably eliminated).

This leaves open a line a very traditional line of reasoning that I would have expected you to be hostile to. We can determine a physical fact about a child with high accuracy, and at a glance: whether or not they will have a chance to become pregnant as adults (1). Many people believe this physical fact should inform the way the kid is raised, including the kind of social roles they are prepared for. I assume you don't accept this kind of argument, but I'd be interested in hearing your "true rejection."

(1) In case my meaning is not clear, the way I would put it in a less abstract conversation is "girls and not boys can get pregnant." But in this case I understand there are high stakes attached to the words "girl" and boy."

Comment author: TimS 12 September 2012 11:48:19PM 0 points [-]

Many people believe this physical fact should inform the way the kid is raised, including the kind of social roles they are prepared for.

Those beliefs are not really facts about the baby. Where did the beliefs come from? Isn't there a counter-factual history where (1) society works, (2) no one has those beliefs?

You should counter that "society works" just assumes the conclusion. I could respond by pointing to societies that actually existed in other places and times. And I'm sure that there are further responses on both sides.

Ultimately, the problem is that our differences in terminal values affect what sorts of things we consider good evidence. Or, if one were a moral realist, this would be evidence that one of us is so defective that they can't perceive moral truths.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 September 2012 06:01:12PM * 0 points [-]

This has traditionally been a very divisive point within radical feminism, and it typically divides the discussion into transphobic social-constructionist radical feminists (like the source of my original infographic) and neo-essentialist post-feminists.

Personally, I came to radical (pro-)feminism from the feminism mainstream within anarchist culture, which is more pro-transgenderism (and therefore essentialist), and I haven't fully came to a conclusion on this specific issue. It doesn't help that neither of the two sides really care much for empiricism (outside of horrible "look at this fMRI" type stuff).

A comrade of mine told me that these are good articles on this topic, and while I haven't yet read them, I know the author to be very good at getting that comrade (who is more tumblr-feminist third-wave-y) and I to agree, so they probably would clarify my position on this and maybe yours:

Edit: It's annoying that less wrong's reddit instance doesn't hyperlink raw links, but I dislike hiding what I'm linking to, so... sorry if you're too lazy to cut and paste, I suppose.

Comment author: ErikM 12 September 2012 08:20:11PM 10 points [-]

This has traditionally been a very divisive point within radical feminism, and it typically divides the discussion into transphobic social-constructionist radical feminists (like the source of my original infographic) and neo-essentialist post-feminists.

http://www.xkcd.com/1095/

Comment author: CharlieSheen 12 September 2012 08:19:00PM * 7 points [-]

"This has traditionally been a very divisive point within radical feminism, and it typically divides the discussion into transphobic social-constructionist radical feminists and neo-essentialist post-feminists."

I'm just wondering would you mind reading Moldbug? I want to see the resulting philosophy for the lulz.

Comment author: thomblake 12 September 2012 06:03:54PM * 2 points [-]

It's annoying that less wrong's reddit instance doesn't hyperlink raw links, but I dislike hiding what I'm linking to, so... sorry if you're too lazy to cut and paste, I suppose.

That's easily fixed - just write the link like [url](url).

Comment author: [deleted] 12 September 2012 06:08:13PM -1 points [-]

Done, thanks.

Comment author: Sarokrae 13 September 2012 12:43:31AM 4 points [-]

So, if gender is a social construct, I'm presuming you advocate absolute equality of opportunity, and absolute social blindness to biological sex? So one physical entry requirement into the armed forces and police? And generally no positive discrimination anywhere?

ArisKatsaris comments on The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (1742)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (1742)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login