Are you guilty of health-signaling? + Understanding gender, sex & gender identity

[C C]

Are you guilty of 'health-signalling', the latest beauty and wellness trend to arise as a result of the pandemic?
https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/galler...signalling

INTRO: “You look well” used to be nothing more than a platitude. In the midst of the pandemic, however, ‘looking well’ has become a form of social currency - an entry requirement for any form of interaction or contact. “It’s known as health signalling,” says makeup artist Lisa Eldridge,, who is referring to the urges we feel to send indicators proving our fitness and wellbeing - such as sharing photos of your homemade, healthy banana bread, or broadcasting the step count from your wholesome country walk, or sending screenshots of your Strava running times to the family WhatsApp group.

[...] this new wave of health signalling isn’t just skin deep. “Health signalling is the new humble brag,” says Alexia Inge, co-founder of Cult Beauty. In other words, we’re so desperate to prove our Covid-negative status that we gleefully share every indicator of health as widely as possible. You just have to count the number of “I’ve been vaccinated” stickers you’ve seen posted on social media to see health signalling at its finest.

Beyond the boasting aspect of health signalling, it’s also a sign of an important attitude shift. “The pandemic has prompted a deeper awareness of the need to care for both mental and physical health and we’re starting to see a re-prioritising of wellness,” says Alexia. According to Alexia, wellness is expanding to encompass all aspects of our lives, from our beauty products to our diets. “If there’s one positive to emerge from the pandemic it will be the elevation of wellness to something more than just a hobby for the affluent.” (MORE - details)

---

Understanding Gender, Sex, and Gender Identity
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/...r-identity

INTRO: Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene hung a sign outside her Capitol office door that said “There are TWO genders: MALE & FEMALE. ‘Trust the Science!’” There are many reasons to question hanging such a sign, but given that Rep. Taylor Greene invoked science in making her assertion, I thought it might be helpful to clarify by citing some actual science. Put simply, from a scientific standpoint, Rep. Taylor Greene’s statement is patently wrong. It perpetuates a common error by conflating gender with sex. Allow me to explain how psychologists scientifically operationalize these terms.

According to the American Psychological Association (APA, 2012), sex is rooted in biology. A person’s sex is determined using observable biological criteria such as sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia (APA, 2012). Most people are classified as being either biologically male or female, although the term intersex is reserved for those with atypical combinations of biological features (APA, 2012).

Gender is related to but distinctly different from sex; it is rooted in culture, not biology. The APA (2012) defines gender as “the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex” (p. 11). Gender conformity occurs when people abide by culturally-derived gender roles (APA, 2012). Resisting gender roles (i.e., gender nonconformity) can have significant social consequences—pro and con, depending on circumstances.

Gender identity refers to how one understands and experiences one’s own gender. It involves a person’s psychological sense of being male, female, or neither (APA, 2012)... (MORE)
- - - - - -

Cynical Sindee: This isn't "science" in the sense of discoveries made about the non-artificial world. But instead the human sciences tweaking, revising, updating their own word-games, nomenclature, and manuals decade by decade to mesh with the evolving cultural, political, and business/marketing climates they reside in. Which includes bolstering some prescriptive items outputted by philosophical enterprises in the humanities that become popular with progressive movements and specific population groups. Arguably, via complex exchange loops the various academic and societal divisions interactively affect each other creatively in terms of unfolding perspectives.

[Syne]

Anything "rooted in culture" that is in opposition to any factual science is objectively nonsense, at best, and likely mental illness.

[Zinjanthropos]

Watched documentary about a troop of mountain gorillas and got to wondering if these apes think or care about their daily lives and what’s important for their well being.

So if I’m a female in this troop I have the protection of a dominant male no matter who, a good provider, and generally has my welfare in mind. Not so much for a male, outcast, beaten up by competitors and shunned by the ladies. So if I’m female do I sit there and wish I was the dominant male or male in general and if I’m a male gorilla do I long for the peace and protection a female gets? IOW the grass is greener on the other side and dammit, I’m going to change gender/sex to get some.

Not saying this is how humans think. However I’ve had of plenty of instances where I’ve thought , ‘Geez, if I was a woman I wouldn’t have to worry about this stuff’ and I’m sure it happens the other way round too. There’s also plenty of things about being a woman I wouldn’t want and again I’m sure the opposite sex would echo that about a man. I never thought to declare myself a woman, hoping life would get easier if I did but perhaps the culture is such today that I can....idk

[Yazata]

Health signaling might be a sub-category of virtue signaling, it would seem to me. Being healthy is a virtue in a sense, like strength or athletic prowess. Mask-wearing is a sort of health signalling, I guess. It even has a moral component: "I'm making efforts not to infect you." Evidence of that is how people have tried to associate all this stuff with political divisions which are perceived as moral chasms. The "Bad People" (Trump and co.) are (according to that [false] narrative) against health/virtue!

[Yazata]

INTRO: Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene hung a sign outside her Capitol office door that said “There are TWO genders: MALE & FEMALE. ‘Trust the Science!’” There are many reasons to question hanging such a sign

Which are? One of them is that it probably signals a social/political position diametrically opposed to that of the author.

but given that Rep. Taylor Greene invoked science in making her assertion, I thought it might be helpful to clarify by citing some actual science.

It will be interesting to see if there is really any science in the author's reply.

Put simply, from a scientific standpoint, Rep. Taylor Greene’s statement is patently wrong. It perpetuates a common error by conflating gender with sex.

That's pretty common in this day and age. I recently filled out a medical questionaire that asked me to state my 'gender'. On a medical questionaire! We see the word 'sex' used less and less, as 'gender' replaces it. And no, it isn't the evil Trumpists pushing that change, it's the woke and politically-correct. The question here is what does the "science" support?

A little history. Until maybe the 1980's, "gender" was a term from linguistics. Most languages other than English assigned nouns 'genders' and grammar was a little different for each one. Then feminists appropriated the word and invented a brand new use for it, to refer to the "socially constructed" aspects of sex roles, such as expected behavior, clothing etc. There's probably some value in making that distinction, so I don't want to totally trash it.

What I do want to criticize is the feminists' underlying motivation, which was to constantly expand the scope of 'gender' at the expense of biological 'sex'. To the point where the word 'sex' is used less and less often in everyday conversation and has even acquired a bit of a controversial tone. People don't want to use the word 'sex' for fear of offending the sensibilities of the woke. That probably explains the use of 'gender' on my medical questionaire. We have reached the point where 'misgendering' a transvestite has become a thought-crime that can get people fired from their jobs.

Allow me to explain how psychologists scientifically operationalize these terms.

"Scientifically operationalize"? That sounds like a pretentious academic way of saying "use". The question that arises here is what makes this particular usage "scientific"?

According to the American Psychological Association (APA, 2012)

Quoting from the APA makes something 'scientific'? That looks like an argument from authority. It might work in everyday rhetoric but it's a piss-poor criterion for what makes something 'scientific'.

OK, the APA uses the words that way. Fine. But is their choice of words really the result of convincing repeatable scientific findings, or is it more of a philosophical choice about what words to use and how to conceptualize things? I sense that the author of this piece probably has difficulty keeping the philosophy/science distinction straight.

sex is rooted in biology.

Yes, that was the Representative's point with her sign, I think. Trying to deny the facts of biology is unscientific by its nature.

A person’s sex is determined using observable biological criteria such as sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia (APA, 2012). Most people are classified as being either biologically male or female, although the term intersex is reserved for those with atypical combinations of biological features (APA, 2012).

That's relatively uncontroversial, I think. At least among biologists (the scientists). It is interesting to note that the 'intersex' category has become a favorite topic among feminists and there's a whole contemporary literature attempting to redefine 'intersex' as something other than sexual abnormality (thinking that way becomes a new thought crime) and to use the existence of hermaphroditism among a small fraction of 1% of the population as a battering ram against the whole idea of "sexual binaries". The point being is that all of this stuff is highly politically charged in our contemporary intellectual climate. It isn't science, it's politics in scientific drag.

Gender is related to but distinctly different from sex; it is rooted in culture, not biology. The APA (2012) defines gender as “the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex” (p. 11). Gender conformity occurs when people abide by culturally-derived gender roles (APA, 2012). Resisting gender roles (i.e., gender nonconformity) can have significant social consequences—pro and con, depending on circumstances.

In other words, the APA has adopted the feminist definitions. Which isn't bad in and of itself, as long as it isn't pushed to far.

Gender identity refers to how one understands and experiences one’s own gender. It involves a person’s psychological sense of being male, female, or neither (APA, 2012)

The Psychology Today author's argument seems to be falling apart here.

The Representative's sign certainly fits within the vague and badly formulated APA definition stated here. She was merely implying that she "understands and experiences" gender to correspond more closely to biological sex than contemporary gender activists would like people to think. If all of this is just a matter of 'understanding and experience' (the APA's words), all a matter of word choice and how things are conceptualized, how could the Representative possibly be wrong? She's just different than the orthodoxy that the Psychology Today author favors. Aren't we supposed to "celebrate difference"?

Is there really any factual matter in dispute here, let alone a scientific matter? The Representative apparently thinks that male and female in the very poorly defined 'gender' sense should be more a function of the underlying biology (the scientific part of all this) than a function of whatever somebody feels like identifying as today (no science in that). She's actually trying to preserve the underlying scientific sex distinction in the face of a huge (anti-science?) social pressure to deny and ignore it. So yes, I would see her as the champion of science here.

Cynical Sindee: This isn't "science" in the sense of discoveries made about the non-artificial world. But instead the human sciences tweaking, revising, updating their own word-games, nomenclature, and manuals decade by decade to mesh with the evolving cultural, political, and business/marketing climates they reside in. Which includes bolstering some prescriptive items outputted by philosophical enterprises in the humanities that become popular with progressive movements and specific population groups. Arguably, via complex exchange loops the various academic and societal divisions interactively affect each other creatively in terms of unfolding perspectives.

Exactly. CC stated it far more succinctly than I could.

[Syne]

Health signaling might be a sub-category of virtue signaling, it would seem to me. Being healthy is a virtue in a sense, like strength or athletic prowess. Mask-wearing is a sort of health signalling, I guess. It even has a moral component: "I'm making efforts not to infect you." Evidence of that is how people have tried to associate all this stuff with political divisions which are perceived as moral chasms. The "Bad People" (Trump and co.) are (according to that [false] narrative) against health/virtue!

My knee jerk reaction was that it's not, at least wholly, virtue-signalling, because sanctity/purity is one of the foundations of Moral foundation theory. The problem with this is that political conservatives, even across different cultures, are much more likely to value the foundation of purity, and political progressives much less likely. So either there's been a serious and inexplicable violation of well-studied, cross-cultural mores, or for leftists, it has nothing to do with purity or signalling health at all. It's just the latest rite and ritual the loyal leftist must display to signal "don't eat me".

I'm strongly inclined to think the latter, because since when has a leftist cared about health, except as narcissistic vanity or vegan, etc. virtue-signalling, or purity. Leftists regularly excuse everything from prostitution to pedophilia ("an orientation"). Now, some of it may be a short circuit in their under-developed amygdalae, where their inability to properly assess threats (small amygdala with fewer connections to the prefrontal cortex) leads to deeming superficial differences as emblematic of their preexisting demonizing of others.

The Representative's sign certainly fits within the vague and badly formulated APA definition stated here. She was merely implying that she "understands and experiences" gender to correspond more closely to biological sex than contemporary gender activists would like people to think. If all of this is just a matter of 'understanding and experience' (the APA's words), all a matter of word choice and how things are conceptualized, how could the Representative possibly be wrong? She's just different than the orthodoxy that the Psychology Today author favors. Aren't we supposed to "celebrate difference"?

Is there really any factual matter in dispute here, let alone a scientific matter? The Representative apparently thinks that male and female in the very poorly defined 'gender' sense should be more a function of the underlying biology (the scientific part of all this) than a function of whatever somebody feels like identifying as today (no science in that). She's actually trying to preserve the underlying scientific sex distinction in the face of a huge (anti-science?) social pressure to deny and ignore it. So yes, I would see her as the champion of science here.

She can't be wrong, any way you look at it. The left no longer knows what science is, since they've been working to redefine it to suit their delicate sensibilities. That's fantasy, not science.