Personally I subscribe to a self-id model of gender.

(August 10, 2023 at 8:30 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Personally I subscribe to a self-id model of gender.

In nearly every field I know of, the majority of atheists on the Internet have strict standards if they're going to believe that something is true. 

We want objective, empirical evidence, which can be verified by independent observers. For years, I've been hearing that this is the only way we can have confidence in truth claims.

Now we have this one quite important exception to what had previously seemed like a rule. Self-ID of gender is not something that empirical science can objectively verify. In fact all the markers previously used for this purpose -- chromosomes, etc. -- are declared to be irrelevant. 

I think it's fascinating that the rule of empirical objectivity has exceptions. Obviously, if someone here said, "I am sure that God is all around me because it is self-evident to my experience as a human," none of the regular posters here would take that as the least bit persuasive as evidence. But "I am sure I am not the same gender I was assigned at birth because it is self-evident to my experience as a human" is something we now accept without question. 

It makes me wonder what other exceptions there may be, and what other things we will learn to accept without objective evidence. It may turn out that your sympathies for nihilism are correct, and objective evidence may not hold the weight that it once did.

(August 10, 2023 at 8:50 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(August 10, 2023 at 8:30 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Personally I subscribe to a self-id model of gender.

Now we have this one quite important exception to what had previously seemed like a rule. Self-ID of gender is not something that empirical science can objectively verify. In fact all the markers previously used for this purpose -- chromosomes, etc. -- are declared to be irrelevant. 

There are two sexes and they have empirical markers (genitalia, chromosomes).  Gender is expressed as an array of behaviors and in some cases modifications to secondary sex characteristics.  So no, we don't set aside our values to buy in to gender fluidity.

I still identify as a meat popsicle, and nothing anyone ever says, will change that!

It seems to me that gender can be divorced in large part away from sex (which itself is somewhat messy) and be seen as a social construct, psychological inner sense of self, or social performance or language game.

And so in combination with a harm-reduction/ liberty-maximisation approach to culture, it's relatively easy for me to accept all biological facts and a shared external reality, whilst also respecting and encouraging a sincere self-ID model of gender etc.

(August 10, 2023 at 8:50 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(August 10, 2023 at 8:30 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Personally I subscribe to a self-id model of gender.

In nearly every field I know of, the majority of atheists on the Internet have strict standards if they're going to believe that something is true. 

We want objective, empirical evidence, which can be verified by independent observers. For years, I've been hearing that this is the only way we can have confidence in truth claims.

Now we have this one quite important exception to what had previously seemed like a rule. Self-ID of gender is not something that empirical science can objectively verify. In fact all the markers previously used for this purpose -- chromosomes, etc. -- are declared to be irrelevant. 

I think it's fascinating that the rule of empirical objectivity has exceptions. Obviously, if someone here said, "I am sure that God is all around me because it is self-evident to my experience as a human," none of the regular posters here would take that as the least bit persuasive as evidence. But "I am sure I am not the same gender I was assigned at birth because it is self-evident to my experience as a human" is something we now accept without question. 

It makes me wonder what other exceptions there may be, and what other things we will learn to accept without objective evidence. It may turn out that your sympathies for nihilism are correct, and objective evidence may not hold the weight that it once did.

Do you think that most atheists dismiss the notion of clinical depression?

It's Bel - is there anyone here who actually thinks he's human?

(August 10, 2023 at 12:56 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: It's Bel - is there anyone here who actually thinks he's human?

(August 10, 2023 at 10:59 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(August 10, 2023 at 8:50 am)Belacqua Wrote: In nearly every field I know of, the majority of atheists on the Internet have strict standards if they're going to believe that something is true. 

We want objective, empirical evidence, which can be verified by independent observers. For years, I've been hearing that this is the only way we can have confidence in truth claims.

Now we have this one quite important exception to what had previously seemed like a rule. Self-ID of gender is not something that empirical science can objectively verify. In fact all the markers previously used for this purpose -- chromosomes, etc. -- are declared to be irrelevant. 

I think it's fascinating that the rule of empirical objectivity has exceptions. Obviously, if someone here said, "I am sure that God is all around me because it is self-evident to my experience as a human," none of the regular posters here would take that as the least bit persuasive as evidence. But "I am sure I am not the same gender I was assigned at birth because it is self-evident to my experience as a human" is something we now accept without question. 

It makes me wonder what other exceptions there may be, and what other things we will learn to accept without objective evidence. It may turn out that your sympathies for nihilism are correct, and objective evidence may not hold the weight that it once did.

Do you think that most atheists dismiss the notion of clinical depression?

Or does he understand the difference between a personnel identifier and claiming to know there is a separate entity to whom there is no evidence? As usual his takes are unhinged 

Just a suggestion for Bel and his ilk: if you make a sincere effort, you’ll discover that it’s actually possible to not give a fuck about someone else’s gender identification. Once you learn to see them as…whaddyacallem…people…how they choose to self-identify ceases to fuel your ire quite so much.

Boru