Beyond the lack of a common set of facts, we are lacking a common language. We should imitate the dialogs of Plato and agree upon definitions before the debate begins in earnest. Or perhaps the debate should be on the meaning of the word and why opposing debaters favor one definition over another.
Beyond the lack of a common set of facts, we are lacking a common language. We should imitate the dialogs of Plato and agree upon definitions before the debate begins in earnest. Or perhaps the debate should be on the meaning of the word and why opposing debaters favor one definition over another.
"Beyond the lack of a common set of facts, we are lacking a common language" Absolutely. I see this especially often when discussing trans issues. There have been so many linguistic games over the years that I think many of the people I talk to sincerely don't know how to define the words they use anymore. Of course, this makes any meeting of the minds impossible.
I believe that it's common for neo-progressives to avoid real engagement through asserting control of definitions.
As one example, there was a sudden firm conclusion that "sex" and "gender" referred to physical and mental aspects. It's actually a potentially useful distinction, and I could support it as a new proposal for purposes of discussion - but the proponents didn't consider it a "proposed" new definition, they considered it a done deal: "We have decided this is what the words really MEAN, and we will correct anybody using them 'wrongly'; this is not an additional meaning to be added to dictionaries, it's now the ONLY allowed meaning which will not be disparaged". That was a scant few years ago; now they are getting sorta conflated again, maybe. For example, for many activists, self-identification alone is often today being asserted to change "sex" as well as "gender".
Then Robin DiAngelo redefined "racism" in such a way that all white people without exception are racist, and nobody else can be - by definition. Of course, there could exist racial hatred, racial discrimination, racial bias, racial prejudice, or racial stereotyping by anybody and everybody, but those don't count (unless by whites, where it's redundant since they are racist from birth already). She wants to change what the word means, but retain all of the stigma from the earlier (and still far more common) usage.
When people say "trans women are women", it appears to me that many believe they are just stating objective fact, when of course that assertion is not objectively "true" nor "false", it's a disguised attempt to redefine "woman" to now include all humans who self-identify as women, and only them; biology is irrelevant to this definition. And changing the label doesn't change any objective reality. And in this case, the goal seems to be to immediately reinterpret any usage of the word "woman" in a document, policy or law, written under the original definition, to be inherited by the new definition.
This is a bit like redefining "children under 12" to now mean "anybody who feels like a child, no matter their biological age" and then requiring that all policies originally written for "children under 12" under the old definition, should now automatically apply instead to the new definition.
Some of these folks seem to confuse "winning by smugly redefining words and insisting that you HAVE to accept our definition" with actual engagement and superior reasoning and evidence.
So yes, I agree with you that real discussion would need to include agreeing on definitions of words - AS THEY WILL BE USED IN THE UPCOMING DISCUSSION at least (whether or not one agrees with these operational definitions, when used in other contexts.) There are some discussions which need to be held in good faith, which become impossible if somebody is insistent on playing word games.
To be clear, I am in this post not stating my agreement or disagreement or undecided view regarding any of the subject content (eg: regarding appropriate trans rights). I'm talking only about the seemingly deliberate obfuscation of communication by some parties. Well, semi-deliberate; as I say, some genuinely do not seen clear on the difference between labels and reality.
I really appreciate your thoughts here. YouтАЩve been able to put into words the frustration that I have with the neo-progressives who are also the loud and proud тАЬcancel cultureтАЭ crowd. I firmly believe that there needs to be accountability and transparency, I just donтАЩt agree with how theyтАЩre going about it.
Add onto that that, as you stated, тАЬsexтАЭ and тАЬgenderтАЭ are two terms that have been well-defined by biologists, anthropologists, wildlife experts, and so many others for well over a century now. To up and change those definitions because someone feels they lack inclusivity makes no logical sense to me. That would be, as you provided the example of, saying that тАЬall children under 12тАЭ now includes anyone who identifies as a 12-year-old, no matter their biological age, and there is a whole rabbit hole of nasty that that kind of thinking can lead to.
When did we abandon intellect and common sense for burning down the world because someone got offended by what they interpreted a word to mean without actually taking the time to look up the true definition and actually try to comprehend what it means instead of demanding it be changed to what they want it to mean?
Yes, one irony for me comes from something decades ago at a family gathering, where I wound up assigned to help a Christian home-schooled relative with his homework. The particular book being used was a seemingly normal science textbook, studying the eye, with diagrams and terms. When I injected observations about the differences between the eyes of prey like deer, and those of predators like cats or primates like ourselves - he solemnly corrected me to inform me that humans are not animals. Apparently, the similarities between our species and other primates are just coincidental. (Scanning the textbook after that, it had some strange anomalies, like avoiding any concept of species per se, but that's another topic).
Now it's neo-progressives who are in effect sometimes asserting that humans are not like animals, and our *biological sex* (not just social gender roles) is not determined by genes or phenotype, but by self identification. And then smugly saying "follow the science" as if they had a lock on science, which always follows their ideology or can be dismissed.
Yeah, I have to continually work on being more generous in my framing, and I do. Scorn does not persuade anybody, it more pushes them into defending their corner. I do not want to follow their example. But I just need to let my hair down in a space like this sometimes.
The uncommon language is intentional. Refer to the comment I just left here a few minutes ago about how the left is consciously muddying 'discourse', i.e., language.
Beyond the lack of a common set of facts, we are lacking a common language. We should imitate the dialogs of Plato and agree upon definitions before the debate begins in earnest. Or perhaps the debate should be on the meaning of the word and why opposing debaters favor one definition over another.
"Beyond the lack of a common set of facts, we are lacking a common language" Absolutely. I see this especially often when discussing trans issues. There have been so many linguistic games over the years that I think many of the people I talk to sincerely don't know how to define the words they use anymore. Of course, this makes any meeting of the minds impossible.
I believe that it's common for neo-progressives to avoid real engagement through asserting control of definitions.
As one example, there was a sudden firm conclusion that "sex" and "gender" referred to physical and mental aspects. It's actually a potentially useful distinction, and I could support it as a new proposal for purposes of discussion - but the proponents didn't consider it a "proposed" new definition, they considered it a done deal: "We have decided this is what the words really MEAN, and we will correct anybody using them 'wrongly'; this is not an additional meaning to be added to dictionaries, it's now the ONLY allowed meaning which will not be disparaged". That was a scant few years ago; now they are getting sorta conflated again, maybe. For example, for many activists, self-identification alone is often today being asserted to change "sex" as well as "gender".
Then Robin DiAngelo redefined "racism" in such a way that all white people without exception are racist, and nobody else can be - by definition. Of course, there could exist racial hatred, racial discrimination, racial bias, racial prejudice, or racial stereotyping by anybody and everybody, but those don't count (unless by whites, where it's redundant since they are racist from birth already). She wants to change what the word means, but retain all of the stigma from the earlier (and still far more common) usage.
When people say "trans women are women", it appears to me that many believe they are just stating objective fact, when of course that assertion is not objectively "true" nor "false", it's a disguised attempt to redefine "woman" to now include all humans who self-identify as women, and only them; biology is irrelevant to this definition. And changing the label doesn't change any objective reality. And in this case, the goal seems to be to immediately reinterpret any usage of the word "woman" in a document, policy or law, written under the original definition, to be inherited by the new definition.
This is a bit like redefining "children under 12" to now mean "anybody who feels like a child, no matter their biological age" and then requiring that all policies originally written for "children under 12" under the old definition, should now automatically apply instead to the new definition.
Some of these folks seem to confuse "winning by smugly redefining words and insisting that you HAVE to accept our definition" with actual engagement and superior reasoning and evidence.
So yes, I agree with you that real discussion would need to include agreeing on definitions of words - AS THEY WILL BE USED IN THE UPCOMING DISCUSSION at least (whether or not one agrees with these operational definitions, when used in other contexts.) There are some discussions which need to be held in good faith, which become impossible if somebody is insistent on playing word games.
To be clear, I am in this post not stating my agreement or disagreement or undecided view regarding any of the subject content (eg: regarding appropriate trans rights). I'm talking only about the seemingly deliberate obfuscation of communication by some parties. Well, semi-deliberate; as I say, some genuinely do not seen clear on the difference between labels and reality.
I have decided to henceforth call this neo-progressive tactic "The Humpty Dumpty Stratagem", referencing this:
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean тАФ neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean тАФ neither more nor less.'"
ЁЯШБ I absolutely love this!
тАЬThe question is,тАЭ said Humpty Dumpty, тАЬwhich is to be masterтАФthatтАЩs all.тАЭ
I really appreciate your thoughts here. YouтАЩve been able to put into words the frustration that I have with the neo-progressives who are also the loud and proud тАЬcancel cultureтАЭ crowd. I firmly believe that there needs to be accountability and transparency, I just donтАЩt agree with how theyтАЩre going about it.
Add onto that that, as you stated, тАЬsexтАЭ and тАЬgenderтАЭ are two terms that have been well-defined by biologists, anthropologists, wildlife experts, and so many others for well over a century now. To up and change those definitions because someone feels they lack inclusivity makes no logical sense to me. That would be, as you provided the example of, saying that тАЬall children under 12тАЭ now includes anyone who identifies as a 12-year-old, no matter their biological age, and there is a whole rabbit hole of nasty that that kind of thinking can lead to.
When did we abandon intellect and common sense for burning down the world because someone got offended by what they interpreted a word to mean without actually taking the time to look up the true definition and actually try to comprehend what it means instead of demanding it be changed to what they want it to mean?
Yes, one irony for me comes from something decades ago at a family gathering, where I wound up assigned to help a Christian home-schooled relative with his homework. The particular book being used was a seemingly normal science textbook, studying the eye, with diagrams and terms. When I injected observations about the differences between the eyes of prey like deer, and those of predators like cats or primates like ourselves - he solemnly corrected me to inform me that humans are not animals. Apparently, the similarities between our species and other primates are just coincidental. (Scanning the textbook after that, it had some strange anomalies, like avoiding any concept of species per se, but that's another topic).
Now it's neo-progressives who are in effect sometimes asserting that humans are not like animals, and our *biological sex* (not just social gender roles) is not determined by genes or phenotype, but by self identification. And then smugly saying "follow the science" as if they had a lock on science, which always follows their ideology or can be dismissed.
Yeah, I have to continually work on being more generous in my framing, and I do. Scorn does not persuade anybody, it more pushes them into defending their corner. I do not want to follow their example. But I just need to let my hair down in a space like this sometimes.
https://youtu.be/-wkdH_wluhw
The uncommon language is intentional. Refer to the comment I just left here a few minutes ago about how the left is consciously muddying 'discourse', i.e., language.