Slate/Chase Strangio: No Such Thing As Male and Female Bodies: Possibly The Stupidest Article Ever To Appear On The Intertubes
This is complete idiocy.
Basically everything in there is wrong, and demonstrably so. Well...actually I just skimmed most of it because it was completely idiotic and I have better things to do that read such crap... So maybe "Strangio" sneaks something non-false in there somewhere...but if so, I missed it.
The core argument turns on the fallacy of the continuum, as do most such arguments--and as do most arguments for the conclusion that races are not real. I've discussed this many times, and I'm not going to do so again here. The main point though: real natural kinds have fuzzy boundaries. Pointing to fuzzy boundaries between the sexes in no way supports the claim that the sexes are not natural kinds. What it shows--all it shows--is that the person making the argument doesn't understand the bare minimum required to discuss the issue intelligently.
One sign of hope: as usual, the comments absolutely savage this nonsense. It's an odd situation--perfectly cogent criticisms typically dominate the comments of such things (except in the very leftiest publications)...but nothing against the PC orthodoxy is ever published in those venues...
It's appalling rto me that we see article after article in places like Slate (not exactly the Washington Post...but not exactly Salon or Jezebel either...) presenting patently invalid arguments for the patently false PC orthodoxy about transgenderism, while we see almost exactly zero articles presenting the very clear, obvious and decisive arguments against that orthodoxy. This smacks of brainwashing IMO. Of course it might not just be an editorial decision by Slate et al.--I'm sure that part of what's going on is that people are afraid to speak out against the left's orthodoxy about transgenderism. Anyone who does will, of course, be on the receiving end of the shrill, shrieky wrath of the academic and internet left...
Basically everything in there is wrong, and demonstrably so. Well...actually I just skimmed most of it because it was completely idiotic and I have better things to do that read such crap... So maybe "Strangio" sneaks something non-false in there somewhere...but if so, I missed it.
The core argument turns on the fallacy of the continuum, as do most such arguments--and as do most arguments for the conclusion that races are not real. I've discussed this many times, and I'm not going to do so again here. The main point though: real natural kinds have fuzzy boundaries. Pointing to fuzzy boundaries between the sexes in no way supports the claim that the sexes are not natural kinds. What it shows--all it shows--is that the person making the argument doesn't understand the bare minimum required to discuss the issue intelligently.
One sign of hope: as usual, the comments absolutely savage this nonsense. It's an odd situation--perfectly cogent criticisms typically dominate the comments of such things (except in the very leftiest publications)...but nothing against the PC orthodoxy is ever published in those venues...
It's appalling rto me that we see article after article in places like Slate (not exactly the Washington Post...but not exactly Salon or Jezebel either...) presenting patently invalid arguments for the patently false PC orthodoxy about transgenderism, while we see almost exactly zero articles presenting the very clear, obvious and decisive arguments against that orthodoxy. This smacks of brainwashing IMO. Of course it might not just be an editorial decision by Slate et al.--I'm sure that part of what's going on is that people are afraid to speak out against the left's orthodoxy about transgenderism. Anyone who does will, of course, be on the receiving end of the shrill, shrieky wrath of the academic and internet left...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home