The first principle is that you must not fool yourself
Andy Lewis on what the trans “movement” has done to skepticism:
So, Rebecca Watson of @skepchicks has produced a video calling JK Rowling a ‘bigoted fuckface’. She comes to this conclusion because the Harry Potter author defended Maya Forstater after Maya lost an employment tribunal over her beliefs that sex is binary and immutable.
Don’t go thinking that’s hyperbole. I haven’t watched the video because I value my sanity, but I skimmed the transcript, and “bigoted fuckface” is right there at the beginning.
JK Rowling, who you may know as the author of the theory that wizards don’t need indoor plumbing because they can just shit on the floor and then magic it away, has finally, officially come out as a TERF — aka a trans-exclusionary radical feminist, which is literally just an accurate description of what a TERF believes but apparently they think “TERF” is a slur so I will use a less-loaded term for this video: bigoted fuckface.
Pause for laughter that doesn’t occur.
Back to Andy:
Rebecca is quite happy to use slurs to demonise Rowling & Maya because they disagree with her on science. (The mispronunciation is also unforgivable.) But let’s play Rebecca with a straight bat & address her thoughts on the science of sex to see if her views are justified.
He does a science of sex explainer, the upshot of which is that male and female are not some wack new idea.
Sex arises from the fact that we are evolved sexually reproducing organisms. Sex evolved deep in life’s history and has remained remarkably conserved – although there are many sex determination mechanisms in organisms.
…
To suggest that there are more than two sexes, or even more extreme, that somehow sex forms a continuum, a distribution or a spectrum is completely incompatible with this view of life and sexual reproduction. (The idea that ‘sex is a spectrum’ is a core part of the credo of gender ideology.)
So, how does Rebecca attempt this?
In short, she does not. She nods her head to the complexity of sex development, but makes no attempt to suggest there is anything other than two sexes. It is almost as if she does not want you to see lack of rebuttal after just complaining the XX/XY mechanism is ‘too simplistic’.
There is a referenced blog post though on why we should “Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia.” Like many blog posts in this genre, it makes a number of basic errors.
But but but it was a Scientific American blog post, so how can it be wrong? Scientific American is always right! Except for those think pieces by Michael Shermer, of course…oh look, a squirrel.
Rebecca goes on to a rhetorical trick though to appeal to the ‘diversity of humanity’. She claims that “male” or “female” are just a “shorthand” and that it “simply isn’t enough to account for the diverse array of beautiful human bodies in the world, and it’s anti-scientific to pretend as though it is.”
No justification is given for this & it is another straw-man, since no one is claiming there is not a wide range of variation within people. Even sex characteristics can exist on a wide distribution of scale. Size can vary.
The truth is rather banal – your sex is just one fact about you. An immutable fact. And there are many facts about you that make up the Whole You and “the diverse array of beautiful human bodies in the world”.
…
The core of Maya Forstater’s beliefs in her court case were that sex was a binary and sex was immutable. Despite lots of angry words and invective The @skepchicks have failed to show that this is not true and have instead invoked straw man arguments and thinking errors.
Which is not very…skep.
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.”
This was the defining message of Richard Feynman’s address to graduating students of CalTech in 1974.
Feynman was describing the difference between having a scientific outlook in life and being fooled by false beliefs – no matter how much those beliefs were shared by those around you and how much effort you put into living by those beliefs.
A lesson Feynman was called on to reiterate to the honchos at NASA who ignored what the engineers were telling them about the O-rings and cold temperatures, and so insisted the Challenger launch go ahead despite the engineers. An O-ring did indeed fail.
As Feynman said, “So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.”
I can’t help thinking we are seeing a lot of Cargo Cult Scepticism too right now about how we understand the nature of sex and gender. Worse, I think we are seeing Cargo Cult Progressiveness.
…
The ideology of gender is one massive ‘just so’ story.
It starts off with the required conclusions such as ‘transwomen are women’ and then works backwards. What must be true for this to be true? One thing that must be true is that our conceptualisation of biological sex must be wrong.
Women cannot be female. Males and females must be mutable and blurred in distinction. All scientific facts must then be shoehorned into this outcome.
But @skepchicks are part of a noble movement that questions authority and relies completely on science to get to the bottom of societies core beliefs!
The problem is that this is easy when it comes to homeopathy and ghosts and gods and vaccine injuries.
But there is a Cargo Cult Progressiveness now that insists you accept without question the New Progressive Movement of Gender. To question any aspect of this will result in instant excommunication. The social cost is high.
And it would [look] like the (almost) entire US skeptical movement has decided to fool itself rather than be on the wrong side of this social movement. The cost to anyone is too high to question it.
We see defenders of evolution such as @pzmyers reacting like the worst frothing mouth evangelical preacher when asked to defend the idea that women can have penises.
One would have thought that Myers would have taken the opportunity to use this as a quirky way to explain how evolution works and ends up with counterintuitive results. But no. Shouting and screaming instead.
…
We appear to have ended up with Cargo Cult Scepticism where all that is left is just the precepts and forms of debate but none of the challenging, debate, evidence gathering and – most importantly – thought.
Slogans and epithets instead of thought.
Blocking is the tool of the Cargo Cult Scepticism crowd. Blog posts the sources of evidence – not the primary literature. Denouncing heretics is the cry rather than questioning and discussion.
We are now at a place where scepticism is an Identity and not a set of tools. It is about belonging to the right crowd – ‘on the right side of history’. It is no longer about informing policy and social ideas with well founded science based on robust evidence.
Maybe it was always like this. Maybe it was always just about screaming at homeopaths. But this is not good enough.
In fact, it’s downright bad.
Yes, it is bad. I wouldn’t have expected “Orac” of all people to be so glib about fooling yourself.
https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/1210932647440080896
Memes are the new form of “rational thought”. “OK Boomer” substitutes for actually defending your position. “Die TERF” substitutes for engaging your critics and convincing them with rational argument. “Sport is a human right” becomes a mantra to be chanted at people who believe that fair doesn’t mean men playing against women.
For some people, I think that may be all. PZ took so many pot shots at people who think skepticism is chasing the chupacabra while dismissing any hint of social justice; the so-called ‘dictionary atheists’. I think for a lot of the trans activists, they believe they are doing that something more that is required, and are doing more than the screaming at homeopaths (excuse me, TERFs). They see this as the social justice portion of the movement that was lacking in people like Benjamin Radford.
Of course, we saw the other side of this earlier; skeptics like J. T. who would elevate every single claim of a young boy raped by Catholic priests (though I never saw him elevate any of the claims of the even more girls that were raped by Catholic priests – maybe that should have been a clue), even before evidence arrived considering them guilty.. Then, when the favored atheists turned out to be asshole predators, it was “pics or it didn’t happen”. The skeptical movement circled the wagons about their heroes as quickly and eagerly as any congregation circled the wagons around their priest/minister/pastor when they were accused of sexual improprieties.
Skeptical toward thee, but not toward me.
Unless we can put our own beliefs under the same microscope, we are not true skeptics, we are just debunkers.
The degree to which the skeptic movement has bought into this is jawdropping. Biologists denying the facts of biological sex! Science advocates muttering gender-soul nonsense and attacking feminists the way Scientologists talk about Thetans and attack apostates.
I thought the skeptic scene was toxic and I moved away from it years ago. Can you imagine what it would be like to work at CFI today, where you’d have to pretend all these newly divorced fathers in skirts and bad wigs are literally female, all the while claiming you’re on the side of science and reason?
It’s absolute madness.
I don’t think CFI is a haven for trans dogma, although I can’t swear to it. I haven’t seen any signs of it that I recall.
Rebecca Watson is great at skewering people, but I’ve always felt she takes a lot of cheap shots, that she could just as easily switch sides and make her original side look equally ridiculous if the mood struck her. Interestingly I have a friend that that is very mismatched with her politically, but he loves her videos and often sends me links to them. He essentially appreciates her as an insult comic.
You can sneer at, laugh at, ridicule, and use profane names for any position. It might be fun to watch when your enemy is being attacked, but it doesn’t really prove anything.
I did have to laugh here that, as one of the people who derided “Bigfoot skeptics”, she is is now essentially being derided as a “homeopathic skeptic”. I don’t think either is really fair though.
JK Rowling, who you may know as the author of the theory that wizards don’t need indoor plumbing because they can just shit on the floor and then magic it away,
Is Watson aware that there is indoor plumbing at Hogwarts? Indeed, some of the action occurs in an unused girls’ lavatory that is haunted by Moaning Myrtle.
Skeletor – what? I don’t understand the “as one of the people who derided “Bigfoot skeptics”, she is is now essentially being derided as a “homeopathic skeptic”” bit. She derided Bigfoot skeptics? That doesn’t sound likely.
But anyway, as to the skewering people/taking cheap shots thing, yes. She’s funny and quick-witted and sharp, but that doesn’t make her a biologist.
I have been saying this for quite some time (some of you may remember my saying it here).
Skepticism itself, so long as it remains primarily a debunking club, is Cargo Cult critical thinking.
This is not the Skepticism of Gardner and Sagan.
I think she did, O, though I can’t recall for certain. I think she was one of the people who wanted Skepticism to examine social and political claims, and they called the people who wanted to stick to debunking woo “Bigfoot skeptics”.
Problem is, of course, that dispassionately analyzing one’s own (and one’s “side’s”) beliefs is a helluva lot harder than pointing out the flaws in other’s thinking. As Feynman noted.
In other words, she’s a fair polemicist, but she’s not a good critical thinker.
Ohhh, skeptics who fritter it away on Big Foot, right, now I get it. Question withdrawn.
About the fair polemicist, but not a good critical thinker bit – I’ve long suspected that’s what Harriet Hall was getting at with the infamous T shirt. I still think it wasn’t the kindest thing to do in the circumstances, but I understand her point (if I’m right about the interpretation).
Yes, as discussed I, too, recalled Watson as being part of the group that derided skeptics who focused on what was seen as trivial matters such as Bigfoot.
However, looking now I can’t see that she ever actually did that. In fact, quite the contrary:
https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/gone_squatchin_my_day_at_the_bigfoot_expo/
I suspect what happened is I read PZ or someone complaining about “Bigfoot skeptics” while praising Watson and incorrectly assumed she was on their side on that issue.
Her stance on trans issues vs. women’s issues is unfortunately completely clear to me.
Ophelia, you will probably also like Andy L’s primer on how GC feminism is not right wing fundamentalism:
https://twitter.com/lecanardnoir/status/1129742277134508033
From this post:
In which Rebecca Watson openly states that ‘TERF’ is more loaded than ‘bigoted fuckface’, neatly undercutting her sarcastic pretense that it is not a slur. Thanks for the admission, Rebecca.
Identical to the reasoning used by religious apologists. “My conceptualisation of God is that he is infinitely benevolent, powerful, and knowledgeable, therefore… there must be a grand plan which turns apparently bad things like child cancer into hidden good things.”
From the linked-to pharyngula post:
“Once someone joins a tribe, all the other members of the tribe are expected to assume that they’re good and nice and rational, and bugger all the evidence.”
I remember thinking at the time, If only he turned that call for examination on himself.
Yes, one of the things that makes it so frustrating is that she was the “Elevator Guy” woman, who knew that women must be cautious, and being in a vulnerable spot with an unknown male is…uncomfortable at best, dangerous at worst. She got ridiculed by the incels and MRAs and PUAs, and roundly defended by PZ and others.
Now, she is willing to let men into all of women’s spaces. All they have to do is say “but I’m a woman”. Or maybe not even that. If you have a bathroom policy that is what the TRAs would like, it’s just go where you feel you belong, and anybody that mentions you are in the wrong restroom is (to use R. W.’s words) a ‘bigoted fuckface’. In other words, you don’t have to say “I am a woman”. All you have to do is walk into the restroom; we are required to treat you with respect and courtesy. What could go wrong?
Why can’t people who could see that it wasn’t unreasonable to be cautious of Elevator Guy not realize it is even more reasonable to be wary of unfettered access of Horny Guy and Mean Guy and Rapey Guy in women’s most vulnerable spaces? And that it is normal for women to doubt the motives of males in the women’s room?
This is made worse by the fact that it is now considered okay to say you are a woman while retaining not only testicles and penis, but also beard and men’s garb. In short, walk around in the world in totally entitled skin while whining about oppression you aren’t likely to experience in your casual, day to day encounters, the sort of casual day to day encounters that every woman (young or old, fat or thin, hot or not) must cope with.
What could possibly go wrong?
Oops, formatting error: the first blockquote, which looks like it comes from the preceding twitter link, is actually from the OP. I should have put a separator of some sort.
I mean … Welcome to Social Justice? If it were coherent, then it wouldn’t have to propagate via intimidation and deception. Since it’s incoherent, literally any conclusion can be derived. And since it’s fundamentally religious in nature, it’s a sign of virtue (rather than insanity or weakness) to accept absurdities—the more absurd the better, since it requires more virtue.
Weren’t you getting bored of addressing all the same, tired apologetics for God? This is, as Andy puts it, Cargo Cult Progressivism. We’ve got ourselves a whole new religion to tear apart! Hurray!
@ Iknklast #14
That’s exactly what surprised me so much when I discovered that RW had turned into a trans cheerleader. I don’t understand why it’s not obvious that sex/sexual reproduction is a brute fact of biology.
I’ve always found her insufferable as a person while often agreeing with her. I still dislike her. Now she’s also wrong.
It’s interesting that Vinay Prasad on Twitter is falling foul of some of the same group of skeptics and SBM luminaries because he’s criticising them for expending their time and energy on debunking what he characterises as soft rather than hard targets.
I’m genuinely surprised at Dave Gorski. He’s done so much outstanding work and he cut his teeth on holocaust denialism so to see him class women-with-a-different-perspective as Terfs and use “vermin” and “swarm” as figures of speech was a moment that shocked me.
Yes, it surprised and shocked me too.
Minor epiphany (at least for me).
“Sex is a spectrum” and “Sex is changeable” are two seperate claims and require separate arguments. I just figured that out. Go me!
With the tendencies of TRAs to throw everything AND the kitchen sink into their Gish-gallopish stew of assertions and claims ( “Whaddabout unfertile women? Are they women?” [Did anyone say they weren’t? Then fuck off.] “Whaddabout women of colour? Are they women?” [Did anyone say they weren’t? Then likewise fuck off.] “Transwomen” are just another kind of woman like infertile women and women of colour. ‘trans’ is just another modifier that works in just the same way!” [Nope. Not buying. The ‘transness’ is indicating NOT A WOMAN TO START WITH (i.e A MAN), whereas infertility and ethnicity don’t preclude womanhood, unlike you know, BEING MALE. Fuck off. Again.] “Intersex people exist!”[ Are trans people all “intersex” then? No? Keep fucking off.]) I’d just realized that even if sex were a spectrum, it would not follow thar sex was also changeable.
Conflating sex and gender is what lets TRAs get as far as they do. Both allegedly exhibit a “spectrum” of possibility. But what kind of “spectrum” has 99.9% of its range consisting of being one two options only? “Spectrum” has become another word redefined to suite the needs of trans ideology. And gender isn’t so much a spectrum as a mess.
Skin colour actually is a spectrum, and apart from minor changes (I can go from fishbelly white to lobster red, and, if I’m lucky, can work up a bit of beige if my sun exposure is carefully regulated), I can’t go any darker than I’m naturally equipped to do. I can’t swap out my skin and become as dark as someone who is a native of Sudan, say. Can’t “identify” into it either. The existence of a whole range of human skin pigmentation does not mean that any given individual has potential access to all or any of them. Same case if sex were a spectrum. Which it is not.
Yeah, that one bugs the pedantic linguist who lives in my head. The argument basically amounts to saying, “Here are a few [modifier] [noun] pairs. The [noun] is still a [noun] in these pairs, so [noun] is a [noun] in any pair. Hence, a trans[noun] is a [noun].”
This is utter hogwash (as well as hasty induction). We have numerous modifiers that don’t follow that pattern, and leaving them out is disingenuous as fuck (and so an instance of the fallacy of observational selection—the “stacking the deck” fallacy). Here are a few: fake, false, forged, faux, bogus, quasi-, pseudo-, counterfeit, fabricated, fictitious, fraudulent, mock, phony, make-believe, pretend, inauthentic, unreal, ersatz.
I can see where Rebecca Watson is coming from, and I can almost sympathize with what she’s trying to do. I’m sure she genuinely thinks she’s being progressive and good — feminist, even! She’s taking a putatively feminist idea — there aren’t any significant differences between men and women — to a logical extreme. She’s taken the leap from “It shouldn’t matter whether someone is male or female” to, “What does it actually mean to be male or female anyways?” Of course, from there it’s just a tiny step all the way to, “There’s no such thing as male or female!” But that position won’t fly with trans people, whose transness by definition requires the existence of the categories male and female in order to trans between them. So she stops just short of hitting the wall of no-such-thing-as-sex and veers at the last second into the “Sex exists but it has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with personal feelings” dumpster fire.
Underpinning this whole thing is the idea that the way to be truly progressive is to valiantly fight against inconvenient facts. Woke skeptics like PZ Myers and Rebecca Watson have shown that, to them, science is only the good guy when it’s aligned with the beliefs you already have and which are therefore good by virtue of their being your beliefs, because you are a good person. As soon as science contradicts your beliefs — such as the obvious facts that sex differences exist in humans just like all mammals, that sex is binary and immutable, and that humans can virtually always detect a person’s sex within microseconds of looking at them — it becomes the enemy. And that’s not just un-skeptical, it’s literally the opposite of skepticism, isn’t it? It’s anti-skeptical.
And that’s to say nothing of the fact that feminism is perfectly compatible with the facts that sex differences exist, that sex is binary and immutable, and that humans can virtually always detect a person’s sex within microseconds of looking at them. Isn’t feminism not only compatible with these facts, but in fact reliant on them? So, to deny these facts is not just un-feminist, then; it’s the opposite of feminism, isn’t it? It’s anti-feminist.
Gender ideology begot a million little ironies.
I am so, so tired of the sex/gender is a spectrum argument. Variation within a phenotype does not mean classes (binary or otherwise) do not exist. In other words, it can be both a spectrum and a classifier. I’m a fan of the idea that sexuality is more of a spectrum; that does not mean hetero/homo/bisexual are not useful classes for some situations.
Equally, electromagnetic radiation is a spectrum. It does not mean that light, x-rays, gamma rays, microwaves, and radio waves are not important classes. If you disagree, try cooking your food with plutonium. You may find there are some unwanted side effects.
@Nullius in Verba #22:
COUNTERFEIT MONEY IS MONEY!
COUNTERFEIT MONEY IS MONEY!
COUNTERFEIT MONEY IS MONEY!
COUNTERFEIT MONEY IS MONEY!
COUNTERFEIT MONEY IS MONEY!
Maybe if I repeat it a few more times that will make it true… or do I have to add clap emojis too?
The claps seem to be the standard. It’s probably a bad idea to leave them off.
[…] The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – Butterflies and Wheels […]