you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

OP, I think you may find this article helpful. The author explains clearly what is the problem with QT arguments: they mix what sex is with how we recognize what sex someone is.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[from the article] What is a sex? How many sexes are there? And how do we characterise a sex? (the ontology of sex – what exists?)

How do we recognise the sex of an individual? What features indicate sex? (the epistemology of sex – what can we know?)

This is brilliant. I'd like to see a similar article on how the epistemology of sex is misrepresented in journalism and debate -- elevating pathos, manipulating ethos, misrepresenting logos, ignoring telos and kairos. This is done by journalists writing about sex and gender issues all the time.

[–]levoyageur718293[S] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

This article is brilliant, thank you for sharing it!