It's A Quote

[GrandizerII]

That isn't science, it's picking criteria that align with their ideology despite the science. Science has no problem with gender, which is why the APA removed gender dysphoria from the DSM-V nearly two decades ago. The whole "Science can't determine... blah, blah, blah, blah" schtick is nothing more than a talking point from the far right. It's no more valid in this instance than it is when the creationists say the same things about fossils or speciation.

Suppose you have two people in a room, and both of them say they are a woman. But one of them is lying -- he's really a man.

What scientific test can you apply to determine which one is lying?

The answer is whatever scientific tests we consider to be valid for determining who is lying.

The same challenge applies to two people claiming they are autistic, or introverts, or lovers of art.

Also, gender is defined so that it need not always align with biological sex, and this is an appropriate working definition due to what has been both observed and reported more than enough times. So it's a fact that gender does not always align with biological sex, just as genitalia does not always align with biological sex, just as chromosomes do not always align with biological sex.

[Fake Messiah]

Suppose you have two people in a room, and both of them say they are a woman. But one of them is lying -- he's really a man.

What scientific test can you apply to determine which one is lying?

Again, considering that gender is something that was created by society, it is questionable if it even exists. Like what is the definition of a man? Someone who chops wood, repairs cars and watches sports? Or a woman?

But then again, it's not like you are really interested in gender discussion. You are just trolling as usual.

[Belacqua]

Suppose you have two people in a room, and both of them say they are a woman. But one of them is lying -- he's really a man.

What scientific test can you apply to determine which one is lying?

The answer is whatever scientific tests we consider to be valid for determining who is lying.

The same challenge applies to two people claiming they are autistic, or introverts, or lovers of art.

Also, gender is defined so that it need not always align with biological sex, and this is an appropriate working definition due to what has been both observed and reported more than enough times. So it's a fact that gender does not always align with biological sex, just as genitalia does not always align with biological sex, just as chromosomes do not always align with biological sex.

Right. So Dawkins is old-fashioned and he thinks that gender is determined in the old-fashioned way: genitalia, chromosomes, pelvis shape, etc. 

Paleo rejects this. However, he agrees with Dawkins in thinking that there MUST be a scientific test we can use to answer the question. 

I think you'll agree that "whatever scientific tests we consider to be valid" is not a very specific answer. Do such tests exist now? Are they something we imagine will exist in the future? What do you suggest?

I am more skeptical. I suspect that there is no objective scientific way to determine gender.

Suppose you have a committee of scientists who publish the definitive test for determining gender. Then a patient goes in, they do the tests, and the committee says "You're a man." But the patient says "No, I don't care what the tests say, I know I'm a woman." Do we then say that person is mistaken? Or do we believe what the individual says about him/herself?

Since this is supposed to be a quotes thread, I'll add this:

Beyond the bright cartoons
Are darker spaces where
Small cloudy nests of stars
Seem to float on the air.

These have no proper names:
Men out alone at night
Never look up at them
For guidance or delight,

For such evasive dust
Can make so little clear:
Much less is known than not,
More far than near.

— Philip Larkin

[GrandizerII]

The answer is whatever scientific tests we consider to be valid for determining who is lying.

The same challenge applies to two people claiming they are autistic, or introverts, or lovers of art.

Also, gender is defined so that it need not always align with biological sex, and this is an appropriate working definition due to what has been both observed and reported more than enough times. So it's a fact that gender does not always align with biological sex, just as genitalia does not always align with biological sex, just as chromosomes do not always align with biological sex.

Right. So Dawkins is old-fashioned and he thinks that gender is determined in the old-fashioned way: genitalia, chromosomes, pelvis shape, etc. 

Paleo rejects this. However, he agrees with Dawkins in thinking that there MUST be a scientific test we can use to answer the question.

Whatever Dawkins has to say about this matter is his personal opinion. Science doesn't decide how things should be defined. We do. Through science, we then conduct studies/experiments to answer questions or test hypotheses partly in light of how we have defined things.

In the case of gender, the current definition (based on decades of observations and reports related to how individuals identify and present themselves) adopted by many academics has been something like a social/socialized expression of sex. This is essential partly due to observations and reports of individuals deviating from the traditional manner of socially expressing what is supposed to be their sex.

So because of how we have defined things, it's a scientific fact that biological sex and gender don't always align even if the correlation is high. If Dawkins (or anyone for that matter) disagrees, then they will have to clarify exactly what they are disagreeing with here?

Do they disagree with the definition of the word "gender"? Ok, fine, but doing away with the definition doesn't do away with what has been observed and reported, and so we still need to account for those.

Do they disagree that people are identifying themselves correctly? Ok, fine, but on what scientific basis are we making these judgements? Do we know better than the individual how they experience themselves internally?

Do they disagree that people are honest regarding how they identify as? Well, that's an overly cynical take, and you may as well question whether someone who claims they have autism or depression (or some other X) is being truthful. Do we just ignore that these people also present themselves socially as such and such, supporting their identity claims?

Do they disagree that we should care about those rare deviations in the first place? Then what's the science supporting that we should not care?

If none of the above, what are they disputing exactly when they insist (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that sex and gender always align?

I think you'll agree that "whatever scientific tests we consider to be valid" is not a very specific answer. Do such tests exist now? Are they something we imagine will exist in the future? What do you suggest?

To determine if someone is lying about anything? Not aware of any scientific measures that does so in an absolute sense, but surveys can be designed to detect deception in some of the answers relative to how the individual answers other questions on the survey.

If you mean only in the context of people claiming to be women, then again, my response remains the same as previously. If there is a scientific test that we can currently employ to detect deception, then we can use that. There's no deeper answer required here, because your question can be reduced to a question about deception perse.

I am more skeptical. I suspect that there is no objective scientific way to determine gender.

Based on your reasoning, it seems like we also don't have an objective scientific way to determine if someone has autism, or depression, or loves sports. But it doesn't mean autism or depression isn't real, or that no one really loves sports.

Suppose you have a committee of scientists who publish the definitive test for determining gender. Then a patient goes in, they do the tests, and the committee says "You're a man." But the patient says "No, I don't care what the tests say, I know I'm a woman." Do we then say that person is mistaken? Or do we believe what the individual says about him/herself?

My immediate response here is: Why do we need these tests at all?

But suppose the test is truly definitive AND valid (in line with criteria widely accepted by all relevant communities), then sure, we'd be forced to say that that person is just wrong. But this is not a realistic hypothetical anyway (or ethical one for that matter).

[Belacqua]

Science doesn't decide how things should be defined. We do. Through science, we then conduct studies/experiments to answer questions or test hypotheses partly in light of how we have defined things.

Yes, I think this is crucial. Although I'm not sure how "science" differs from "we." Scientists are people. Anyway, we define things in a certain way, and then we test to see how things match up with our definitions.

Do we know better than the individual how they experience themselves internally?

Currently our method of determining gender is based on this -- the way that an individual experiences himself or herself internally. 

We (the good people, the up-to-date people, not the Dawkins-type bad people) have agreed that this is sufficient to determine a person's gender. Thus our determination is based on an individual's subjective reporting. It is not something we test objectively. 

I agree with you that objective tests are questionable -- not necessary, and maybe not possible. Certainly we can't conduct an anatomical test the way Dawkins thinks we can. 

This is only a problem for people who think that we should only believe what is objectively testable through science. I have maintained all along that there are many things in the world which we hold to be true even in the absence of science-type testing. So I have no trouble with the whole gender thing.

[Paleophyte]

That isn't science, it's picking criteria that align with their ideology despite the science. Science has no problem with gender, which is why the APA removed gender dysphoria from the DSM-V nearly two decades ago. The whole "Science can't determine... blah, blah, blah, blah" schtick is nothing more than a talking point from the far right. It's no more valid in this instance than it is when the creationists say the same things about fossils or speciation.

Suppose you have two people in a room, and both of them say they are a woman. But one of them is lying -- he's really a man.

What scientific test can you apply to determine which one is lying?

The same test that you'd apply if they were lying about anything else. Is the lie somehow special because it involves something that you hold strong ideological beliefs about? No, it isn't.

[Belacqua]

Suppose you have two people in a room, and both of them say they are a woman. But one of them is lying -- he's really a man.

What scientific test can you apply to determine which one is lying?

The same test that you'd apply if they were lying about anything else. Is the lie somehow special because it involves something that you hold strong ideological beliefs about? No, it isn't.

Right. So there is no test you can apply to determine a person's gender. We can only believe what they say about their gender or not.

[Paleophyte]

I have maintained all along that there are many things in the world which we hold to be true even in the absence of science-type testing. So I have no trouble with the whole gender thing.

Wow. Just wow. I don't think that I've ever seen a theist try and warp gender issues to mainsplain their silly little deity. You should be ashamed on levels that I can't properly describe.

[Paleophyte]

The same test that you'd apply if they were lying about anything else. Is the lie somehow special because it involves something that you hold strong ideological beliefs about? No, it isn't.

Right. So there is no test you can apply to determine a person's gender. We can only believe what they say about their gender or not.

It's easy enough to quantify the stresses produced by misgendering an individual. The only reason that there isn't a rigorous test is that the hypothetical cis-liar claiming to be trans isn't really a thing.

[GrandizerII]

Currently our method of determining gender is based on this -- the way that an individual experiences himself or herself internally.

Socially, out of respect for the individual, we take their word for it. But when examining this academically/scientifically, it's not true that academics go by merely how one self-identifies. When people identify a certain way, this manifests in them presenting themselves in a way that is in accord with how they identify themselves. People aren't just making some claim when they say "I am X", they are saying something meaningful to them that is internally felt but also presented outwardly through various activities in their lives. So for transgendered women (in an environment where they feel safe to express their felt gender), they consistently act like other women within their society, doing womanly things like wearing dresses, putting on makeup, taking their purses with them, shopping with the ladies, talking and walking like them, etc. They not only personally identify as a woman, they align socially with other women.

I go back to the example of identifying as autistic since I personally relate to that. When I first learned about this thing called autism in my 20s, it just clicked in my mind that this is what I had because pretty much all the boxes were ticked. But I had long suspected something different about me before ever being familiar with the word itself, and I didn't get an official diagnosis until later in my life when I was already midway in my 30s. For the diagnosis, all they did was ask me questions about my life, relationships with others, what I struggled with, how I behaved under certain contexts, and had me fill out a few questionnaires. That's about it. There was no brain scan or anything of that sort. So what did they look out for? Behavioral markers rather than biological ones.

And that is the case with gender as well. Just like autism, there are limited biological markers for gender that have been uncovered through science, but when assessing if someone is a particular gender, you look to the behavioral/social markers since they are more accessible.

That said, being a woman is not a psychiatric condition (like autism may be) for which a diagnosis may be favored to get some needed support. So an official assessment is even less needed in the case of gender. And really, we should just be ok with people identifying themselves as whatever gender they identify as, because why should this be an issue at all?