"When he wants to defend it from dissent, he interprets it as "The correlation of lineage to skin color is less than 1.00" (which is true)
But when he wants to reason based on it, he interprets it as "The correlation of lineage to skin color is 0.00" (which is false)."
Yep, exactly. This is the same motte-and-bailey that all "trans" arguments depend on. Or really almost all critical theory infused arguments.
"Categories cannot be perfectly defined with zero exceptions therefore categories are meaningless. At least, until my argument rests on the category in question, then the category is sacred and inviolable and any attempt to define it differently to me is hate speech."
For example, "woman" is a social construct and has no objective definition. But if I "identify" as a woman and you tell me I don't fit your definition of what a woman is, that's basically genocide.
"When he wants to defend it from dissent, he interprets it as "The correlation of lineage to skin color is less than 1.00" (which is true)
But when he wants to reason based on it, he interprets it as "The correlation of lineage to skin color is 0.00" (which is false)."
Yep, exactly. This is the same motte-and-bailey that all "trans" arguments depend on. Or really almost all critical theory infused arguments.
"Categories cannot be perfectly defined with zero exceptions therefore categories are meaningless. At least, until my argument rests on the category in question, then the category is sacred and inviolable and any attempt to define it differently to me is hate speech."
For example, "woman" is a social construct and has no objective definition. But if I "identify" as a woman and you tell me I don't fit your definition of what a woman is, that's basically genocide.