I enjoyed reading your reply to my overlong comment. I think we are in agreement. BTW: I have spent most of my adult life in academia, for 25 years I was a research astronomer and for the past decade or so, I have been teaching. I mostly teach General Ed Astronomy because my 'mission' is to increase science literacy in America - it is a …
I enjoyed reading your reply to my overlong comment. I think we are in agreement. BTW: I have spent most of my adult life in academia, for 25 years I was a research astronomer and for the past decade or so, I have been teaching. I mostly teach General Ed Astronomy because my 'mission' is to increase science literacy in America - it is a quixotic quest because academia's science literacy is plummeting at a staggering rate. Let me give you an example:
I was having beers with some friends in academia when some of their friends show up and joined us - they teach Philosophy. I tend to have a lot of respect for Philosophy because doing science well requires us to think about how we are thinking about things (metacognition is the douchey term for it). One of these Philosophers mentioned that she teaches a class on sex and gender - I replied that I have had discussions with a *lot* of biologists whether sex is binary or not and it is a complicated topic.
She and her ally eagerly agreed and somehow made a case that complexity in Biology supports their position that sex is a spectrum. I kept saying "The community of biologists does *not* have a consensus that sex is a spectrum." That did not seem to make them hesitant, as Philosophers, to speak for the field of Biology.
They quoted one estimate that 'intersex' makes up 5% of the spectrum and I pointed out that many biologists dispute that estimate for being far too high (the most common estimate is between 1 & 2%). They dismissed that, saying a lot of people are intersex and don't know it, justifying cherry-picking the higher estimate. I replied that *real* scientists do not make up new numbers because the old numbers are flawed. *Real* scientists make better measurements to get better numbers. They brushed that aside.
Then they made the absurd case that 5% is a *huge* number - why that exceeds the percentage of redheads! I replied, "First, no 5% is not a huge number, would you accept a 5% COLA in your salary during this period of inflation?" Then, because I am a scientist and am very careful about comparisons, I said "Comparing the percentage of an entire spectrum of non-male & non-female to the percentage of a SINGLE category of hair color is an apples to oranges comparison. It would only be valid if their position was that there are three sexes."
Once I got into the topic of measurements and analysis, they reverted to rhetoric and essentially based everything on their feelings and the feelings of intersex people (I should have walked away, saying I was searching for a person who is one exact sex: tight tush, big rack ... and a vagina. The last part is non-negotiable)
After beers one of the profs - who had a BS in Biology and wisely stayed out of it - told me that we were quibbling whether these variations are within the two sexes or constitute another sex, but the words do not change their nature or reality. Folks in the humanities spend all of their time thinking about things that humans have created so they lose sight of the Universe out there. It was there before us, it will be there after us, and it exists entirely independent of us. Our words and thoughts do not change it.
Maybe y'all should challenge them more on feelings. They may be *part* of the humanities but in the end, for something like sex, it's pretty immutable...feelings notwithstanding, you can't say transwomen are women because biology says they're not; and it's the gametes, as you point out, that ultimately define them. Everything else is window dressing, although it strikes me that bio males always think like bio males to some extent, as do bio females. Elliott Page is the most chicky transmale I've seen so far. I'm quite sure she will one day regret what she did to herself; it seems so ridiculously inauthentic, and I wouldn't say that about all transfolk.
I agree mostly, except the part about engaging with them. Arguing with an intellectual is like mud wrestling with a pig - you both wind up covered in muck but the pig actually likes it!
Instead, we should get word out that _some_ college degrees aren't worth the price. They don't provide marketable skills beyond what should have been learned in High School. Also, if a person must work 3 jobs to pay rent and student loans, then they don't have time & energy to ponder all the deep thoughts that these degrees introduce. It is just a waste. I call these 'dilettante degrees' because only kids with trust funds can afford to major in them.
Going to college nowadays is like entering indentured servitude - you have to work the rest of your life to earn your freedom. How ironic they bandy about decolonization when they are the biggest colonizers of the modern era.
I enjoyed reading your reply to my overlong comment. I think we are in agreement. BTW: I have spent most of my adult life in academia, for 25 years I was a research astronomer and for the past decade or so, I have been teaching. I mostly teach General Ed Astronomy because my 'mission' is to increase science literacy in America - it is a quixotic quest because academia's science literacy is plummeting at a staggering rate. Let me give you an example:
I was having beers with some friends in academia when some of their friends show up and joined us - they teach Philosophy. I tend to have a lot of respect for Philosophy because doing science well requires us to think about how we are thinking about things (metacognition is the douchey term for it). One of these Philosophers mentioned that she teaches a class on sex and gender - I replied that I have had discussions with a *lot* of biologists whether sex is binary or not and it is a complicated topic.
She and her ally eagerly agreed and somehow made a case that complexity in Biology supports their position that sex is a spectrum. I kept saying "The community of biologists does *not* have a consensus that sex is a spectrum." That did not seem to make them hesitant, as Philosophers, to speak for the field of Biology.
They quoted one estimate that 'intersex' makes up 5% of the spectrum and I pointed out that many biologists dispute that estimate for being far too high (the most common estimate is between 1 & 2%). They dismissed that, saying a lot of people are intersex and don't know it, justifying cherry-picking the higher estimate. I replied that *real* scientists do not make up new numbers because the old numbers are flawed. *Real* scientists make better measurements to get better numbers. They brushed that aside.
Then they made the absurd case that 5% is a *huge* number - why that exceeds the percentage of redheads! I replied, "First, no 5% is not a huge number, would you accept a 5% COLA in your salary during this period of inflation?" Then, because I am a scientist and am very careful about comparisons, I said "Comparing the percentage of an entire spectrum of non-male & non-female to the percentage of a SINGLE category of hair color is an apples to oranges comparison. It would only be valid if their position was that there are three sexes."
Once I got into the topic of measurements and analysis, they reverted to rhetoric and essentially based everything on their feelings and the feelings of intersex people (I should have walked away, saying I was searching for a person who is one exact sex: tight tush, big rack ... and a vagina. The last part is non-negotiable)
After beers one of the profs - who had a BS in Biology and wisely stayed out of it - told me that we were quibbling whether these variations are within the two sexes or constitute another sex, but the words do not change their nature or reality. Folks in the humanities spend all of their time thinking about things that humans have created so they lose sight of the Universe out there. It was there before us, it will be there after us, and it exists entirely independent of us. Our words and thoughts do not change it.
Maybe y'all should challenge them more on feelings. They may be *part* of the humanities but in the end, for something like sex, it's pretty immutable...feelings notwithstanding, you can't say transwomen are women because biology says they're not; and it's the gametes, as you point out, that ultimately define them. Everything else is window dressing, although it strikes me that bio males always think like bio males to some extent, as do bio females. Elliott Page is the most chicky transmale I've seen so far. I'm quite sure she will one day regret what she did to herself; it seems so ridiculously inauthentic, and I wouldn't say that about all transfolk.
I agree mostly, except the part about engaging with them. Arguing with an intellectual is like mud wrestling with a pig - you both wind up covered in muck but the pig actually likes it!
Instead, we should get word out that _some_ college degrees aren't worth the price. They don't provide marketable skills beyond what should have been learned in High School. Also, if a person must work 3 jobs to pay rent and student loans, then they don't have time & energy to ponder all the deep thoughts that these degrees introduce. It is just a waste. I call these 'dilettante degrees' because only kids with trust funds can afford to major in them.
Going to college nowadays is like entering indentured servitude - you have to work the rest of your life to earn your freedom. How ironic they bandy about decolonization when they are the biggest colonizers of the modern era.