I don't think it's so obvious that there is anything "postmodern" about seeing the categories we use to describe physical objects as a conventional matter, that follows naturally from physics-types reductionism in which the behavior of all physical systems is assumed to be derivable from fundamental physical laws that make no reference to any higher-level categories. If one accepts this, then out of all the possible ways of lumping collection of fundamental particles into higher-level categories, I can't see any basis for an exclusive set of "natural kinds" in contrast to all the others; if some categorization schemes are better than others that's a matter of their pragmatic usefulness in simplified predictive models which let you avoid calculating the full physical details. This is the perspective of Daniel Dennett in 'Real Patterns' at https://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/personal-zenon-pylyshyn/class-info/FP2012/FP2012_readings/Dennett_RealPatterns.pdf -- see in particular his analogy starting on p. 37 to names we give to higher-level patterns in cellular automata like the ones listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life#Pattern_taxonomy , where the key is that we have designed the cellular automaton so that all behavior is 100% determined entirely by low-level cell transition laws that make no reference to such patterns.
This sort of view still says there is an objective truth about the underlying physical configuration, but no truth about which groupings are "natural kinds". One could say that even if the way we group particles into higher categories is a matter of convention, like grouping stars into constellations, once we have given such a definition there can be objective truths about whether an arrangement of particles meeting that definition is present.
Someone could also maybe argue that even if these categories are a matter of convention rather than natural kinds, once conventions have been accepted we shouldn't try to redefine them a la Humpty Dumpty. In the case of "sex" though, the notion of defining that in terms of gametes was itself a redefinition of earlier notions based on physical traits visible to the eye, and ordinary language use arguably still reflects this pre-gamete definition, so without any notion that sex is a natural kind it's not obvious that the pre-gamete definition should be refined in terms of gametes in all contexts, though there are good pragmatic reasons to do so in the specific scientific context of evolutionary biology.
This comment violates commenting guideline 3, "keep it short." The guidelines link to my post describing those guidelines in more detail. There, you will find this:
"Keep it short, or at least not too long. 300 words is a good limit, most should be far less. I won’t delete something at, say, 322, but if you are over 400, consider shortening before posting. Anything over 500 is at risk of being deleted. Over 500 and you should write your own essay on your own site."
Your post is over 800.
As a first violation, I am leaving it up, but any future violates will simply be deleted.
Sorry, I had only read up to the section of your piece dealing with the definition of "woman" before I decided to comment (I agree with the other part about the 2+2=5 argument being silly) so I didn't see your posting guidelines--I edited out the initial quote from your piece, the paragraph about the Greek atomists, and a few other minor parts to bring it to under 400.
There are some items which are objectively and demonstrably true and there are others that are not. Anything about the universe that would in no way change if humans never existed and the observer were a Vulcan or Romulan or Tholian (to use Star Trek alien species) is true regardless of the words or symbols they use to describe what they are observing. Anything that requires the "human" or "historical" perspective, however, is not as simply defined as true. For example:
How do we define "indigenous" peoples?
Native Americans define themselves as such claiming that they have been in their respective territories the Americas FORVER despite the archeological evidence disproving there permanent presence in any one region or even in this hemisphere any more than the Kelts, Germans, Romans etc. were ALWAYS in their respective parts of Europe. Indeed, there are families in New England descended from British settlers who have been on their farms in coastal areas LONGER than tribes like the Dakota have been in Minnesota. By any "objective" definition, how can one claim that southern Minnesota and places like the University of Minnesota are on the "forever" home of the Dakota and calling them indigenous while families on their 400 year tenure farms in New England are considered settler colonialists?
We see this same argument when Elon Musk points out that he is actually FROM Africa unlike the descendants of African slaves who have been in the Americas for centuries but who insist on being called called "African-Americans" by "white" people like Musk. Black African immigrants see a big distinction between themselves as AFRICAN-Americans versus BLACK Americans in the same way that a British immigrant from London living in NY isn't likely to claim the descendants of Anglo-Saxon settlers to rural Georgia from 300 years ago who live in trailer parks as their nearest kin.
Such socially constructed, often historically inaccurate, descriptions of the world and our place in it can become deadly. Example: Who is "indigenous" to the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River? Is it the Palestinian Arabs (X)? Is it the post Zionist Jewish population (XX)? Is it the pre-Joshua Canaanites? (XXX)? Given the fossil record we know that Homo Erectus was present in this territory long before any branch of Homo sapiens....so how does not resolve this question based purely on "My people were here first!"? You can't but much blood will be spilled and misery spread because objectivity is NOT being applied to. (Personally, I would resolve the claim by saying those who can live in the land peacefully with their neighbors have the strongest claim...but that's just my practical side coming out.)
In the end, many of these issues are best resolved as how I approach the trans issue. A person is free to identify how ever they wish...but the rest of us are not obliged to honor that identification without an acceptable ID! So....when someone tells me, "I identify as a woman who happens to have a penis?' My response is, "Perhaps, but you present as an idiot!"
This comment violates commenting guideline 3, "keep it short." The guidelines link to my post describing those guidelines in more detail. There, you will find this:
"Keep it short, or at least not too long. 300 words is a good limit, most should be far less. I won’t delete something at, say, 322, but if you are over 400, consider shortening before posting. Anything over 500 is at risk of being deleted. Over 500 and you should write your own essay on your own site."
Your post is over 500.
First violation, so leaving it up, but please keep it under 300 going forward.
I remember that moment in Twitter history! Growing up in post colonial India, I could not figure out what was colonial about science. That was dark phase of “social constructivism” ! Hope we are moving beyond that phase
Hmmm. No. Quote is from a book pubbed in 1951. Pomo originated in the 1960s. Regardless: 1. the quote makes a bullseye point; 2. Even pomo was not wrong about everything. Language does indeed often reflect/embed power dynamics. Of course, you do not need pomo to realize that.
You wrote "All stem, at least in part, from the Orwellian/Arendtian/Humpty Dumptyism of postmodern-infected critical and subjectivist perspectives...." You're Lee Jussim, so when I read that I was like am i missing something? But if you're referring to Hannah Arendt, she was in fact a prescient and effective opponent of radical subjectivism in social sciences long before it metastasized.
Wait. One of us is confused, I cannot deny it might be me.
I (thought I) was presenting the Arendt quote as trenchantly explaining how the denial of objective truths is both ridiculous and linked to authoritarianism, not as her constituting a pomo perspective... ????
Oh, wait, I think I figured out the confusion. It was a little of both of us, I think. Regardless, the revised sentence now reads:
All stem, at least in part, from the Humpty Dumptyism of postmodern-infected critical and subjectivist perspectives so eloquently highlighted by Orwell and Arendt.
The absurdity of it all . You could also say truthfully that One biological Male + One biological Woman could be 1+1 = 1 Singleton or 2 Twins or 3 Triplets or 4 Quadtruplets or 5 Quintuplets or 6 Sextuplets or 7 Septuplets or 8 Octuplets .
I don't think it's so obvious that there is anything "postmodern" about seeing the categories we use to describe physical objects as a conventional matter, that follows naturally from physics-types reductionism in which the behavior of all physical systems is assumed to be derivable from fundamental physical laws that make no reference to any higher-level categories. If one accepts this, then out of all the possible ways of lumping collection of fundamental particles into higher-level categories, I can't see any basis for an exclusive set of "natural kinds" in contrast to all the others; if some categorization schemes are better than others that's a matter of their pragmatic usefulness in simplified predictive models which let you avoid calculating the full physical details. This is the perspective of Daniel Dennett in 'Real Patterns' at https://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/personal-zenon-pylyshyn/class-info/FP2012/FP2012_readings/Dennett_RealPatterns.pdf -- see in particular his analogy starting on p. 37 to names we give to higher-level patterns in cellular automata like the ones listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life#Pattern_taxonomy , where the key is that we have designed the cellular automaton so that all behavior is 100% determined entirely by low-level cell transition laws that make no reference to such patterns.
This sort of view still says there is an objective truth about the underlying physical configuration, but no truth about which groupings are "natural kinds". One could say that even if the way we group particles into higher categories is a matter of convention, like grouping stars into constellations, once we have given such a definition there can be objective truths about whether an arrangement of particles meeting that definition is present.
Someone could also maybe argue that even if these categories are a matter of convention rather than natural kinds, once conventions have been accepted we shouldn't try to redefine them a la Humpty Dumpty. In the case of "sex" though, the notion of defining that in terms of gametes was itself a redefinition of earlier notions based on physical traits visible to the eye, and ordinary language use arguably still reflects this pre-gamete definition, so without any notion that sex is a natural kind it's not obvious that the pre-gamete definition should be refined in terms of gametes in all contexts, though there are good pragmatic reasons to do so in the specific scientific context of evolutionary biology.
This comment violates commenting guideline 3, "keep it short." The guidelines link to my post describing those guidelines in more detail. There, you will find this:
"Keep it short, or at least not too long. 300 words is a good limit, most should be far less. I won’t delete something at, say, 322, but if you are over 400, consider shortening before posting. Anything over 500 is at risk of being deleted. Over 500 and you should write your own essay on your own site."
Your post is over 800.
As a first violation, I am leaving it up, but any future violates will simply be deleted.
Sorry, I had only read up to the section of your piece dealing with the definition of "woman" before I decided to comment (I agree with the other part about the 2+2=5 argument being silly) so I didn't see your posting guidelines--I edited out the initial quote from your piece, the paragraph about the Greek atomists, and a few other minor parts to bring it to under 400.
There are some items which are objectively and demonstrably true and there are others that are not. Anything about the universe that would in no way change if humans never existed and the observer were a Vulcan or Romulan or Tholian (to use Star Trek alien species) is true regardless of the words or symbols they use to describe what they are observing. Anything that requires the "human" or "historical" perspective, however, is not as simply defined as true. For example:
How do we define "indigenous" peoples?
Native Americans define themselves as such claiming that they have been in their respective territories the Americas FORVER despite the archeological evidence disproving there permanent presence in any one region or even in this hemisphere any more than the Kelts, Germans, Romans etc. were ALWAYS in their respective parts of Europe. Indeed, there are families in New England descended from British settlers who have been on their farms in coastal areas LONGER than tribes like the Dakota have been in Minnesota. By any "objective" definition, how can one claim that southern Minnesota and places like the University of Minnesota are on the "forever" home of the Dakota and calling them indigenous while families on their 400 year tenure farms in New England are considered settler colonialists?
We see this same argument when Elon Musk points out that he is actually FROM Africa unlike the descendants of African slaves who have been in the Americas for centuries but who insist on being called called "African-Americans" by "white" people like Musk. Black African immigrants see a big distinction between themselves as AFRICAN-Americans versus BLACK Americans in the same way that a British immigrant from London living in NY isn't likely to claim the descendants of Anglo-Saxon settlers to rural Georgia from 300 years ago who live in trailer parks as their nearest kin.
Such socially constructed, often historically inaccurate, descriptions of the world and our place in it can become deadly. Example: Who is "indigenous" to the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River? Is it the Palestinian Arabs (X)? Is it the post Zionist Jewish population (XX)? Is it the pre-Joshua Canaanites? (XXX)? Given the fossil record we know that Homo Erectus was present in this territory long before any branch of Homo sapiens....so how does not resolve this question based purely on "My people were here first!"? You can't but much blood will be spilled and misery spread because objectivity is NOT being applied to. (Personally, I would resolve the claim by saying those who can live in the land peacefully with their neighbors have the strongest claim...but that's just my practical side coming out.)
In the end, many of these issues are best resolved as how I approach the trans issue. A person is free to identify how ever they wish...but the rest of us are not obliged to honor that identification without an acceptable ID! So....when someone tells me, "I identify as a woman who happens to have a penis?' My response is, "Perhaps, but you present as an idiot!"
Sadredin,
This comment violates commenting guideline 3, "keep it short." The guidelines link to my post describing those guidelines in more detail. There, you will find this:
"Keep it short, or at least not too long. 300 words is a good limit, most should be far less. I won’t delete something at, say, 322, but if you are over 400, consider shortening before posting. Anything over 500 is at risk of being deleted. Over 500 and you should write your own essay on your own site."
Your post is over 500.
First violation, so leaving it up, but please keep it under 300 going forward.
Sorry...just got on a roll.
I remember that moment in Twitter history! Growing up in post colonial India, I could not figure out what was colonial about science. That was dark phase of “social constructivism” ! Hope we are moving beyond that phase
Whoa, Arendt a post modernist. What's the basis for that?
Otherwise thanks for the fun post.
Hmmm. No. Quote is from a book pubbed in 1951. Pomo originated in the 1960s. Regardless: 1. the quote makes a bullseye point; 2. Even pomo was not wrong about everything. Language does indeed often reflect/embed power dynamics. Of course, you do not need pomo to realize that.
You wrote "All stem, at least in part, from the Orwellian/Arendtian/Humpty Dumptyism of postmodern-infected critical and subjectivist perspectives...." You're Lee Jussim, so when I read that I was like am i missing something? But if you're referring to Hannah Arendt, she was in fact a prescient and effective opponent of radical subjectivism in social sciences long before it metastasized.
Wait. One of us is confused, I cannot deny it might be me.
I (thought I) was presenting the Arendt quote as trenchantly explaining how the denial of objective truths is both ridiculous and linked to authoritarianism, not as her constituting a pomo perspective... ????
Oh, wait, I think I figured out the confusion. It was a little of both of us, I think. Regardless, the revised sentence now reads:
All stem, at least in part, from the Humpty Dumptyism of postmodern-infected critical and subjectivist perspectives so eloquently highlighted by Orwell and Arendt.
How's that?
I love it!
The absurdity of it all . You could also say truthfully that One biological Male + One biological Woman could be 1+1 = 1 Singleton or 2 Twins or 3 Triplets or 4 Quadtruplets or 5 Quintuplets or 6 Sextuplets or 7 Septuplets or 8 Octuplets .