VoiceOfRa comments on Stupid Questions May 2015 - Less Wrong

10 Post author: Gondolinian 01 May 2015 05:28PM

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

Comments (263)

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

Comment author: philh 03 July 2015 10:27:24AM 1 point [-]

Why not?

Because the map is not the territory? You can argue that they are the same thing, but the fact that they use the same word isn't sufficient.

Well, according to the (admittedly rather dubious) party line being gay is an intrinsic property and not a choice and most definitely not subject to environmental influence by pro-gay memes.

That doesn't mean it's a property that babies have. They might have the property "will be gay when they hit puberty", but that's a different property. A six-month old baby might have a gene that will give her a speech defect, but for now she speaks just as well as every other baby her age.

Heck, the official (and even more dubious) party line on trans-people is that they have always been their gender trapped in the wrong bodies.

I don't think this is true, but I'm not an expert.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 03 July 2015 05:58:13PM 2 points [-]

Because the map is not the territory?

That's an argument for bringing our map closer to the territory, i.e., applying the word "gender" in humans to the same concept we use for animals. Not for completely messing up our map.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 04 July 2015 09:00:32AM *  2 points [-]

applying the word "gender" in humans to the same concept we use for animals

I'm not aware of the word "gender" being commonly applied to non-human animals for any concept, other than grammatical gender. You might be thinking of the concept usually referred to as "sex".

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 04 July 2015 06:20:18PM *  2 points [-]

If you want to follow that distinction, then I agree that "gender" doesn't point to anything real aside from what is commonly pointed to by the word "sex". Heck when "gender" first became used in its non-grammatical meaning, it was a euphemism for "sex" since the latter had acquired a meaning (as [Edit: an act]) that made it not necessarily SFW.

Comment author: gjm 04 July 2015 10:54:03PM 1 point [-]

A pedantic correction: "gender" appears to have had that non-grammatical meaning since the 15th century (and has also had an NSFW meaning as a verb since even earlier) but (if the OED is to be trusted, which usually it is) it's true that "gender" became widely used to mean males/females collectively in the 20th century because "sex" was too distracting. (It wasn't "sex" as a verb, though, but "sex" as a noun meaning "copulation".)

Comment author: philh 03 July 2015 11:24:14PM 2 points [-]

That "i.e." is doing an awful lot of work. I don't agree that the map is messed up, and moving a label doesn't necessarily bring it closer to the territory.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 04 July 2015 12:20:07AM 2 points [-]

Above you said:

We use the word "female" when referring to babies and animals, but that doesn't mean we're necessarily talking about the same thing as when we refer to adult humans

So what did you mean by that?

Comment author: philh 04 July 2015 11:57:47AM 2 points [-]

Tapping out.