Looks interesting, although I wonder how you define "gender identity".
Your previous post -- "Navigating Ideological Currents" -- asserts that "gender identity [is] a nebulous concept for which there is, as yet, no evidence." Yet your "Gender Framework" document asserts that: "‘Gender identity’: An internal sense of one’s own gender, which may or may not be at odds with one’s biological sex."
I think you need to be consistent, that you need to call a spade an effen shovel. If you're "hunting the snark" then you're not likely to find it if you can't even say what it looks like, if you have contradictory definitions for the critter.
As I had mentioned before, I think you have to SAY what you mean by the term, and that the most rational and logically coherent definition is analogous to what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP] more or less DEFINES "personal identity" to be. Paraphrasing them to offer a definition for "gender identity":
SEP [paraphrased]: "Outside of philosophy, [gender identity’] usually refers to [sexually dimorphic personality traits] to which we feel a special sense of attachment or ownership. Someone’s [gender identity] in this sense consists of those [feminine and masculine personality traits] she takes to 'define her as a person' or 'make her the person she is', and which distinguish her from others."
Thanks, you make many interesting points. The Gender Framework laid out working definitiions exactly for the reason you outline above - there was no universally recognised term and definition and so we have offered a definition. This episode of the podcast was released 3 years ago, the Framework was released 2 months ago
Glad I decided to stick around for at least another month ... 😉🙂 Somewhat en passant, I'm also glad to see -- from your recent "Ideological Currents" post -- that you're resisting, so far, the calls from the "gender-critical feminist position" and from various "Social and religious conservatives" for a more doctrinaire and dogmatic stance.
But while I'm happy to see those "working definitions", I'd suggest that more work is required. Apropos of which and ICYMI, you might have some interest in a "Big Conference" on Sex and Gender in Santa Fe late last September -- which Colin Wright took part in -- which had the objective of reaching some sort of consensus on some definitions for both categories.
However, I was rather “disappointed” that the Conference never really got around to answering that question, never really came to a “meeting of minds” on how to define either element of that dichotomy.
But, to underline those problems, about the closest the Conference seems to have gotten to meeting that objective was in the closing “Roundtable 2 Discussion”, particularly in an exchange at about the 15 minute mark between Daphna Joel, Carole Hooven, and David Geary. I thought that Hooven was particularly incisive and forthright in laying out the biological case, while Joel – arguably a “poster girl” for much of the “ideological bias” that characterizes the "debate" over "gender" – seemed rather “evasive” and quite “defensive” in muddying the waters:
But what was particularly illuminating and quite useful was Geary’s commendable defense of Hooven:
Geary (@ 15:56): "But I agree with Carole. I have no idea what 'gender' means. The definition is too fluid. I mean it's all over the place. .... I have no idea what one author means by [gender] versus another. ...."
A dog's breakfast, a bedlam, everyone riding madly off in all directions – as a famous Canadian humourist, Stephen Leacock, once put it.
But if the supposed pros from Dover apparently haven’t a flaming clue what they’re talking about – if they’re not all of the same (first) page, the one with the definitions – then it is maybe not surprising that the hoi polloi have followed them over the cliff – and into some rather toxic and quite enervating “debates”.
Seems like it should be "Job One" -- as the old Ford commercials once put it -- to reach a more workable and scientifically justified consensus on those definitions, for both "sex" and "gender".
Looks interesting, although I wonder how you define "gender identity".
Your previous post -- "Navigating Ideological Currents" -- asserts that "gender identity [is] a nebulous concept for which there is, as yet, no evidence." Yet your "Gender Framework" document asserts that: "‘Gender identity’: An internal sense of one’s own gender, which may or may not be at odds with one’s biological sex."
https://stellaomalley.substack.com/p/navigating-ideological-currents-why
https://genspect.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/The-Gender-Framework-Draft-One.pdf
I think you need to be consistent, that you need to call a spade an effen shovel. If you're "hunting the snark" then you're not likely to find it if you can't even say what it looks like, if you have contradictory definitions for the critter.
As I had mentioned before, I think you have to SAY what you mean by the term, and that the most rational and logically coherent definition is analogous to what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP] more or less DEFINES "personal identity" to be. Paraphrasing them to offer a definition for "gender identity":
SEP [paraphrased]: "Outside of philosophy, [gender identity’] usually refers to [sexually dimorphic personality traits] to which we feel a special sense of attachment or ownership. Someone’s [gender identity] in this sense consists of those [feminine and masculine personality traits] she takes to 'define her as a person' or 'make her the person she is', and which distinguish her from others."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/#ProPerIde
Thanks, you make many interesting points. The Gender Framework laid out working definitiions exactly for the reason you outline above - there was no universally recognised term and definition and so we have offered a definition. This episode of the podcast was released 3 years ago, the Framework was released 2 months ago
Glad I decided to stick around for at least another month ... 😉🙂 Somewhat en passant, I'm also glad to see -- from your recent "Ideological Currents" post -- that you're resisting, so far, the calls from the "gender-critical feminist position" and from various "Social and religious conservatives" for a more doctrinaire and dogmatic stance.
But while I'm happy to see those "working definitions", I'd suggest that more work is required. Apropos of which and ICYMI, you might have some interest in a "Big Conference" on Sex and Gender in Santa Fe late last September -- which Colin Wright took part in -- which had the objective of reaching some sort of consensus on some definitions for both categories.
However, I was rather “disappointed” that the Conference never really got around to answering that question, never really came to a “meeting of minds” on how to define either element of that dichotomy.
But, to underline those problems, about the closest the Conference seems to have gotten to meeting that objective was in the closing “Roundtable 2 Discussion”, particularly in an exchange at about the 15 minute mark between Daphna Joel, Carole Hooven, and David Geary. I thought that Hooven was particularly incisive and forthright in laying out the biological case, while Joel – arguably a “poster girl” for much of the “ideological bias” that characterizes the "debate" over "gender" – seemed rather “evasive” and quite “defensive” in muddying the waters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRW_II_-iFY&t=758s
https://santafeboys.org/recordings-of-the-big-conversation/
But what was particularly illuminating and quite useful was Geary’s commendable defense of Hooven:
Geary (@ 15:56): "But I agree with Carole. I have no idea what 'gender' means. The definition is too fluid. I mean it's all over the place. .... I have no idea what one author means by [gender] versus another. ...."
A dog's breakfast, a bedlam, everyone riding madly off in all directions – as a famous Canadian humourist, Stephen Leacock, once put it.
But if the supposed pros from Dover apparently haven’t a flaming clue what they’re talking about – if they’re not all of the same (first) page, the one with the definitions – then it is maybe not surprising that the hoi polloi have followed them over the cliff – and into some rather toxic and quite enervating “debates”.
Seems like it should be "Job One" -- as the old Ford commercials once put it -- to reach a more workable and scientifically justified consensus on those definitions, for both "sex" and "gender".