WRT the discussion, Jane seemed to think that just because something like vision is subjective, that any statement of fact based on seeing something is subjective. But I may not know what you really see when you see red (maybe it looks like blue does to me), but if you blow through a red light in front of the police, that's not going to …
WRT the discussion, Jane seemed to think that just because something like vision is subjective, that any statement of fact based on seeing something is subjective. But I may not know what you really see when you see red (maybe it looks like blue does to me), but if you blow through a red light in front of the police, that's not going to get you out of a fine.
Even somewhat subjective experiences can lead to statements of replicable facts. If you run a red light, you're breaking the law and might get a ticket. If you see a rocket explode on takeoff, it's gone.
Now, if you're going to argue that everyone sees a completely different reality, well, that's a subject for a Philip Dick novel.
Haha, no, I'm not arguing that we all see a different reality. The keys point is how we treat subjective experiences in science and law.
If you were to tell me you're a woman, or a vampire, or a Martian, it doesn't affect me one way or another. I'll have my suspicions about it, but in the end it doesn't matter. You feel whatever you feel, I can never know what you're feeling or whether it's "valid," so I shrug my shoulders and we all carry on with or lives.
But if you claim that your feelings need to be recognised in *law*, that society needs to grant you rights that nobody else has on the basis of your feelings, well, now we need some evidence that your feelings are real and not a delusion. And if you can't provide that, then there's no way to enshrine them in law.
This is the problem with legislation that invokes "gender identity". Gender identity is nothing more than a subjective feeling. Absolutely nothing. It changes all the time, even among true believers, nobody can even describe it, never mind observe or verify it. And we can't even agree on soothing about it in the way we can at least agree that you stop when the top light on a traffic light is illuminated, whether you're seeing red or blue.
I could believe in souls before I could believe in gender identity.
Even before the "trans" fad I believed gender itself to be a largely useless concept, but since its descent into pure gibberish I would favor its complete removal from psychology, science, and law, if not from language. To the extent that it means anything, there are eight billion genders.
WRT the discussion, Jane seemed to think that just because something like vision is subjective, that any statement of fact based on seeing something is subjective. But I may not know what you really see when you see red (maybe it looks like blue does to me), but if you blow through a red light in front of the police, that's not going to get you out of a fine.
Even somewhat subjective experiences can lead to statements of replicable facts. If you run a red light, you're breaking the law and might get a ticket. If you see a rocket explode on takeoff, it's gone.
Now, if you're going to argue that everyone sees a completely different reality, well, that's a subject for a Philip Dick novel.
Haha, no, I'm not arguing that we all see a different reality. The keys point is how we treat subjective experiences in science and law.
If you were to tell me you're a woman, or a vampire, or a Martian, it doesn't affect me one way or another. I'll have my suspicions about it, but in the end it doesn't matter. You feel whatever you feel, I can never know what you're feeling or whether it's "valid," so I shrug my shoulders and we all carry on with or lives.
But if you claim that your feelings need to be recognised in *law*, that society needs to grant you rights that nobody else has on the basis of your feelings, well, now we need some evidence that your feelings are real and not a delusion. And if you can't provide that, then there's no way to enshrine them in law.
This is the problem with legislation that invokes "gender identity". Gender identity is nothing more than a subjective feeling. Absolutely nothing. It changes all the time, even among true believers, nobody can even describe it, never mind observe or verify it. And we can't even agree on soothing about it in the way we can at least agree that you stop when the top light on a traffic light is illuminated, whether you're seeing red or blue.
I could believe in souls before I could believe in gender identity.
Even before the "trans" fad I believed gender itself to be a largely useless concept, but since its descent into pure gibberish I would favor its complete removal from psychology, science, and law, if not from language. To the extent that it means anything, there are eight billion genders.
"I could believe in souls before I could believe in gender identity"
Yep. I think they're broadly the same concept.
Small note:
Not too long ago, the word "gender" was either a polite synonym for sex, or a grammatical component of some languages.
Then feminists described "gender roles", which I continue to believe a meaningful concept.
It's the more recent concept of "gender identity" which jumped the shark, IMO.