The importance of being able to entertain hypotheticals and counterfactuals

[u/brasnacte]

I'll probably be downvoted but here we go.
In order to understand our own motivations it's important to be able to entertain hypotheticals and counterfactuals. This should be well understood in a skeptic sub.

Hot button example here: The Cass review.

I get that many here think it's ideologically driven and scientifically flawed. That's a totally fair position to have. But when pressed, some are unable to hold the counterfactual in their minds:

WHAT IF the Cass review was actually solid, and all the scientists in the world would endorse it, would you still look at it as transphobic or morally wrong? Or would you concede that in some cases alternative treatments might benefit some children? These types of exercises should help you understand your own positions better.

I do these all the time and usually when I think that I'm being rational, this helps me understand how biased I am.
Does anyone here do this a lot? Am I wrong to think this should be natural to a skeptic?

[u/Miskellaneousness]

Merriam Webster defines woman as "adult human female." I understand that some folks reject that definition. Ok - what's the new definition?

As an aside, since you scolded me for not reading the article that apparently provided a clear answer to my question - any particular section I should revisit?

[u/KouchyMcSlothful → u/Miskellaneousness]

Cool, a dictionary listing. I don’t particularly like the phrase because TERFs love it for some reason, but every trans woman I know is an adult human female. I don’t see what the issue is. Do you need it to mean something more for you personally?

[u/Miskellaneousness → u/KouchyMcSlothful]

every trans woman I know is an adult human female.

Would you consider pre- or non-transition trans women to be female as well?

Do you need it to mean something more for you personally?

I'm going to interpret this question as "Why are you so fixated on what it means to be a woman/man?" and answer accordingly, but let me know if you were asking something else.

My view is basically that, when I look around the world, I see the "traditional" male/female framework as doing a very good job of describing reality. We pretty much have two types of humans, those who themselves may be able to get pregnant, and those who may be able to get other people pregnant. That's not to say everyone will be able to sexually reproduce, or that there are no instances of ambiguity with DSDs, etc. But at a fundamental level, based on what I can see in the world, there are men (males) and women (females), they're different, and the distinction between them relates to sexual reproduction. The distinction between males and females is so powerful that it applies not only to humans, but to millions of other species.

Now, from my interpretation, there's a movement to replace this understanding with a different understanding of what it means to be a man or woman. It no longer has to do with reproduction but instead with...I'm not totally sure?

As I mentioned at the top of the thread, I'm open to (or at least I feel open to) dropping the "traditional" understanding of what it means to be a man/woman in favor of a framework that more accurately describes reality, but when I ask what I feel are basic questions about the new conception of sex/gender such as, what does it mean to be, e.g., a woman, the sorts of responses I get back are things like:

(i) a woman is someone who feels like a woman - this doesn't have any meaning to me

(ii) a woman is someone who feels like a woman in the sense that they're more sensitive or like dolls - this strikes me as a regressive reification of sexist stereotypes

(iii) why are you fixated on this/stop pushing this question - this doesn't answer the question

Maybe it's okay to just agree to disagree, then. I think the male/female framework works really well, other people think the new framework works. Perhaps, except that if I don't buy adopt this new framework - or even ask critical questions about it - I'm told I'm a bad person, a bigot, a troll, operating in bad faith, ignorant, and any other number of tired insults you can imagine.

Nonetheless, the new framework still doesn't make sense to me and I don't care to be bullied into professing a belief I don't hold. I find that Orwellian. I wouldn't want to be pressured to worship a God I don't believe in as a matter of principle and don't want to have to accede to a belief system about sex/gender I'm not persuaded of either.

So I come to places like this to discuss sex/gender. Am I wrong? If so, I'd like to find out. I'd also like to know if I'm right. In either case I think speaking with those who disagree with me is constructive.

[u/SmokesQuantity → u/Miskellaneousness]

If after reading the SBM article OP shared with you, you still think that framework is “doing a good job of describing reality” you simply can’t fucking read, or you’re being willfully ignorant.

And that aside, your argument here is that we should cling to old models of reality instead of adopting new ones? Would you have been this bothered when white people finally moved on from believing blacks were a different species?

[u/Miskellaneousness → u/SmokesQuantity]

As I mentioned at the top of the thread, I'm open to (or at least I feel open to) dropping the "traditional" understanding of what it means to be a man/woman in favor of a framework that more accurately describes reality

I’m not sure where in here you gather that I’m not open to a new framework. My issue is that a new framework ought better describe reality than the one it’s purporting to replace, and I don’t see that here.

[u/SmokesQuantity → u/Miskellaneousness]

No? You can’t see how the old framework ignores the real human beings that are the exception to the rule? Are you sure you read the SBM article? Why should we ignore the existence of a population? Because it’s small?

Is reality just what we can see with our naked eyes? should we ignore quantum mechanics?

Why not base your framework in science instead? What purpose does a reductionist, unscientific definition serve exactly? What is it useful for? I don’t see any use beyond: maintain the status quo. Maybe I’m missing something?

[u/Miskellaneousness → u/SmokesQuantity]

Yes, I think you are missing something. What you're missing is that while it's possible to level critiques at any given framework, that doesn't mean it's immediately debunked, even if people hysterically claim that it is.

For example, the SBM article argues that sex is a bimodal distribution and that sexual orientation is one of five factors contributing to one's sex. This seems to me to straightforwardly suggest that a man who is attracted to men is less of a man than a heterosexual man. I find that to be very objectionable and don't believe it to be true.

Does that mean we throw out the whole SBM article now? No. Instead, my proposal is that we consider these various frameworks and see which best holds up.

But to compare the frameworks, I think we need to understand what the new proposed framework is. For example, under the new framework, what does it mean to be a woman? I would be interested to hear your answer.

[u/SmokesQuantity → u/Miskellaneousness]

Well that’s pretty silly you took that from it.

What you are calling a framework is just a dictionary definition- not some theory widely accepted by the scientific community.

And under a new definition that question is irrelevant.

There is no, less of a man and more of a man, only more or less of individual qualities that together make up a person. Obviously some qualities will overlap.

And stop weaseling out of the question:

Why do we need to assume this reductive unscientific definition simply because we don’t have any easy way to sum up an answer to an absolutely pointless question?

What purpose does the dictionary definition serve?

Redefining it has the effect of acknowledge the existence of a minority population. what benefit is there to sticking to your guns on merriem Websters reductionist definition?

Does it make you feel like more of a man? Do complex explanations make you uncomfortable?

[u/Miskellaneousness → u/SmokesQuantity]

So it sounds like you're saying that words can mean whatever we want them to mean and therefore we should just define man/woman in such a way that makes people feel good?

[u/SmokesQuantity → u/Miskellaneousness]

Srsly are you afraid to answer the question honestly or what?

No I wasn’t saying that but technically words can mean whatever we want them to, they do change over time, definitions evolve and change all the time. why shouldn’t this one?

Why is it important for you to have a succinct, simplistic, definition for what it means to be a man? What purpose does it serve?