I agree pretty strongly with Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne! (I have a history of disagreeing with their militant atheism from an agnostic perspective, but they obviously aren't always wrong.)
(Feb 6, 2025 09:40 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Is the male female divide a social construct or scientific reality? (Richard Dawkins)
https://richarddawkins.substack.com/p/is...e-a-social
EXCERPTS: In November 2024, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) published a silly article by one of their staffers, Kat Grant (“they, them”) called What is a Woman? The indefatigable Jerry Coyne took the trouble to write a reply, called Biology is not Bigotry, which the co-directors of FFRF reluctantly agreed to publish, albeit with a disclaimer, making clear that it did not represent their views. [...] The leaders of FFRF caved in and took down Jerry’s article, almost as soon as they put it up...
FFRF is a militant atheist organization and it's entertaining to watch the divisions play out within the militant atheist movement.
FFRF's removing Jerry Coyne's article from the FFRF publication (ironically called)
FreethoughtNow on the grounds that Coynes article "does not reflect our values or principles" led to Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne and Steven Pinker resigning from FFRF's board. The three were easily its most prominent members.
Quote: Science, according to these social scientists, is no more than a “social construct”. What is a social construct? The perfect example is money. ... If reality is a mere social construct, society has the power to change reality. Like the joke about legally repealing the Laws of Thermodynamics so that we can have perpetual motion machines.
Science as a human cognitive activity and social institution
is a social construct. The history of the evolution of scientific ideas makes that clear. The issue is whether that which science as social institution seeks to describe, explain or predict (or whatever it is that science does) exists in its own right independently of what humans believe about it. (Philosophy's realism issue.)
I think that most of us accept the objective reality of the natural world that the
natural sciences address. Virtually all natural scientists are realists in that regard. Biologists believe in the objective reality of biological organisms. Astronomers believe in the objective reality of planets and stars. (There may be some backsliding among the theoretical physicists.)
The realism issue is more complex and controversial in the (so-called)
"social sciences" (which might not be sciences at all, at least in the same sense that the natural sciences are).
Quote:I would argue that legally declaring a man to be a woman, just because he wants to be a woman, or vice versa, has much in common with the perpetual motion joke, and the calendar riots joke.
[...] unfortunately it is no joke. It’s the law in several countries. There are not just males and females, so the claim goes. They are but the extremes of a spectrum. Where you place yourself in the spectrum, man or woman or somewhere in between, it’s all a matter of personal choice. This entails a denial of genetic reality, and a Marxist-like faith in the malleability of nature. A bullying lobby today thinks your sex is not genetically determined but is malleable under your personal whim, sometimes backed up by law.
[...] Medical students are to be taught that both sex and gender are “social constructed”. And, “It is appropriate to affirm each individual’s self-determination regarding both sex and gender labels.” ... It is no idle whim, no mere personal preference, that leads biologists to define the sexes by the UBD. It is rooted deep in evolutionary history...
[...] A watered down version of the ideology concedes that sex may be binary but “gender” is not. The word gender enters the discourse trailing clouds of confusion....
The feminists originally introduced the sex/gender distinction. (Prior to that, 'gender' was a linguistic term.) I originally didn't like the distinction, but it's grown on me over the years.
According to this distinction, sex is biological and objective, rooted deeply in reproductive physiology. While gender refers to things like the clothing that the biological sexes wear in various cultures and the social roles that the biological sexes play. It's much easier to claim that Muslim women's veils and hijabs are social constructs than it is to claim that their reproductive anatomy is a social construct.
The issue today is the incessant activist push to eliminate the concept of sex entirely and shove the whole thing into the concept of gender. And that move, Coyne and Dawkins seem to think, is profoundly anti-scientific and an affront to reality itself. (And I agree with them.)
Ultimately we reach the point where there's supposedly no objective biological reality to sex at all, and it all becomes a matter of whatever people feel like believing.
When I filled out a medical questionaire at my HMO, it wanted to know my 'gender', not my biological sex! Look, if I'm in for an enlarged prostate, my male anatomy is what's relevant, not whether or not I feel like the "real me" (whatever that is, another confused concept) should be a girl. Imagine what happens when one of those "men can menstruate too!" things goes to the hospital for a problem in that regard and gets sent to the prostate guys.
Apparently, physicians are being cowed into playing along with the psychological craziness for fear of losing their medical licenses, while they continue to professionally address the biological realities that are presented to them in the clinic.
Quote: A feeling of being in a body of the wrong sex seems to be a real psychological condition, even if much rarer than the current vogue would suggest. Such “dysphorics” can feel genuine distress. When anorexics look in the mirror, they see an emaciated body that they think is too fat. “Gender” dysphorics look in the mirror and see what they perceive as the wrong genitals. Both deserve sympathy and understanding.
In the DSM, gender dysphoria is a psychiatric condition. While we probably should feel compassion for them, there's no need for everyone to believe that their delusions are reality.
nsNS