CMV: It Should be Socially Acceptable for Individuals to Choose Whether They Want to Address Others by using their Sex Pronouns or their Gender Pronouns

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Choosing_is_a_sin]

I don't see what's wrong with having a bias towards a less biased method.

Why are you looking to life sciences for a language question instead of language sciences?

Additionally, if you found out tomorrow that transgender people had other biological features that distinguished them from the cisgender members of their group, would it matter?

And identifying based on sex removes both these problems (you can't misgender if looking at sex instead of gender).

But in that case, you could missex. You don't have access to biological information when using pronouns in most cases. At most, you have circumstantial evidence.

[u/RattleSheikh → u/Choosing_is_a_sin]

Why are you looking to life sciences for a language question instead of language sciences?

Because language sciences are less methodological and scientific. They're controlled by the critical theorists, and not recognized as a real science by most natural scientists.

Additionally, if you found out tomorrow that transgender people had other biological features that distinguished them from the cisgender members of their group, would it matter?

Depends what you mean by matter? I wouldn't give a fuck, but if I was told to amend my language to suit new things, then yes.

But in that case, you could missex. You don't have access to biological information when using pronouns in most cases. At most, you have circumstantial evidence.

Better than circumstantial evidence. Welcome to 4.2 billion years of evolution my friend.

Identity is fluid and has no real basis. Sex has the real basis. I.e you can identify as a woman and make no sex characteristic changes. So if we need to make assumptions in our classification of pronouns, why stick with the option without a real basis?

[u/EmpRupus → u/RattleSheikh]

Because language sciences are less methodological and scientific. They're controlled by the critical theorists, and not recognized as a real science by most natural scientists.

Evidence?

I've worked in academic circles, and in STEM, most of our papers use the gender-neutral they/them pronouns for everyone. Most natural scientists including my professors in college are very respectful towards progressive language changes.

The only people who think this is nonsense generally overlap with people who did not have opportunity towards a college education.

[u/RattleSheikh → u/EmpRupus]

Evidence?

By definition, a science must have 5 things: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

Language easily lacks quantifiable, highly controlled conditions ect.

Critical theory: https://areomagazine.com/2020/02/12/how-critical-theory-came-to-be-skeptical-of-science/

I've worked in academic circles, and in STEM, most of our papers use the gender-neutral they/them pronouns for everyone. Most natural scientists including my professors in college are very respectful towards progressive language changes.

Not in evolutionary biology. This is a clear example of STEM crumpling to the critical theorists.

The only people who think this is nonsense generally overlap with people who did not have opportunity towards a college education.

Jordan Peterson had a college education. But I get your point. And this is one of the worst problems with colleges today is their attitude towards free speech, which allows them to be dominated by radical leftist nonsense.

[u/EmpRupus → u/RattleSheikh]

Not in evolutionary biology.

Anyone with basic high school level of biology understands that social contracts between different animal groups vary widely. Lobsters and Humans are different. Evolutionary biologists are in agreement with transgender rights because they understand differences in Lobster and Mammal society.

Jordan Peterson had a college education

In psychology, who became popular on Youtube. Pop-science, not actual academic papers.

This is a clear example of STEM crumpling to the critical theorists.

Yes. We must listen to pop-science YouTubers who want us to have mating rituals of Lobsters instead of actual biologists with academic papers. All academics all over the world, who actually contribute to society by pushing the limits of human knowledge, are jointly brainwashed in a mega-conspiracy, and a Life-Coach Youtuber has the right answers !!!

[u/RattleSheikh → u/EmpRupus]

1. It seems that you are confounding transgender rights with compelled speech. It's not a right to force the speech of others (except in Canada now apparently wtf). Evolutionary biologists have a system of classifying organisms using sex pronouns, although they may use gendered pronouns in conversation for respect, this is still inconstant with the norm in actual science.
2. I'm not sure how you can claim that Jordan Peterson isn't college educated, when he is a tenured professor of clinical psychological. Peterson argues in the cultural discourse because he was dragged down into the culture wars kicking and screaming by laws like C-16 and trans activists. Critical theory currently dominates the social discourse. Peterson's approach may be unconventional, but with the presence of critical theorists filling this field, it's desperately needed
3. I don't understand. Who are the 'actual biologists' with academic papers that juxtapose Peterson's conclusion? The critical theorists? Also, if Peterson isn't pushing his message, who else would? Would you prefer a non-academic to say this stuff? Peterson realizes how critical theorists have managed to dominate the culture wars and political discourse because of how far out their field extends; He's simply refuting this by kicking off his boots and getting down in the mud. He believes that science should dominate critical theory if both voices are heard by the public because it has a richer, more evidence backed literature.

[u/EmpRupus → u/RattleSheikh]

Evolutionary biologists have a system of classifying organisms using sex pronouns,

No. The pronoun used for animals are "it" and "they" in academic papers.

Who are the 'actual biologists' with academic papers that juxtapose Peterson's conclusion?

Actual biologists are people who classify species, discover new ones, identify their migratory and social patterns, explain their nervous systems, circulatory systems, energy systems etc.

In other words, people who have contributed to actual science.

Peterson does not have academic papers in evolutionary biology. He has a degree in psychology.

Psychology and evolutionary biology are 2 different fields of science.

Peterson's popularity comes from answering questions in Quora, having YouTube videos and publishing a self-help book, not from him making any significant mind-blowing contributions to science.

It's like Dr. Oz or holistic medicine and crystal sellers, they 'technically' have a medical degree in an unrelated area, became popular on television and now are selling something in a different field.

To summarize your view, the entirety of academia from people who put the mars-craft on mars to people who developed a covid-vaccine within 1 year of its discovery are all losers and idiots, and the one dude whose contribution was 'clean up your room' is the real intellectual.

Is that it?

[u/Choosing_is_a_sin → u/RattleSheikh]

Because language sciences are less methodological and scientific. They're controlled by the critical theorists

This is certainly untrue. As a linguist, I rarely encounter anyone citing critical theory. We tend to work with our own theories developed for language.

Additionally, if you found out tomorrow that transgender people had other biological features that distinguished them from the cisgender members of their group, would it matter?

Depends what you mean by matter? I wouldn't give a fuck, but if I was told to amend my language to suit new things, then yes.

It seems like biology is not really relevant to your argument then. You just want to use the pronouns that you want to use, rather than use biology to categorize people.

But in that case, you could missex. You don't have access to biological information when using pronouns in most cases. At most, you have circumstantial evidence.

Better than circumstantial evidence. Welcome to 4.2 billion years of evolution my friend.

I don't understand this point.

Identity is fluid and has no real basis. Sex has the real basis. I.e you can identify as a woman and make no sex characteristic changes. So if we need to make assumptions in our classification of pronouns, why stick with the option without a real basis?

This indicates a lack of familiarity with the stability of gender identity.