A quote from the article: "...this controversy comes from a deliberate conflation of a biological reality, the sexes, with a social construct, genders."
At its base, Butler's contention is that gender (the social construct) is "performative", that is defined and expressed by behaviour. I haven't read enough of her work to know whether she then makes the leap to SEX being performative. If she does, she's simply wrong per the presence of two and only two types of gametes. If she doesn't, there is no argument: how to "behave like a man (masculine gender)" and how to "behave like a woman (feminine gender)" vary quite substantially both between and, especially in our case, within societies.
I think it started back in the 70's as environmental sciences shifted from real science into advocacy. The amount of junk science and advocacy science increased and showed up in quality journals that became believed. Meanwhile the actual real environmental issues were being addressed and rivers no longer burned or acid rain changed lakes or the air in LA would cause your lungs to burn. According to the EPA belief in the lethality of PM2.5, I should be dead, but they are assuming that it is the particle size not its chemistry that are the relevant factors.
If the PM 2.5 didn't get me the PCB's in 5 gal buckets I was testing with no safety procedures beyond not drinking the oily stuff surly should have.
Anecdote is not data but observing the biological opinion on the delta smelt by the US fish and wildlife service 400+ page study that is the scientific basis for the regulations of the water extraction from the Sacramento delta with a valuation of billions of dollars worth of water is data. They looked at the history of this species and the ecology over dates from the late 1960's to present time. Yes, the population of the delta smelt crashed and they included everything in their ecological analysis from clam populations to "some" predators and water extraction rates. The water extraction rates only changed by 20% or so but that was where the power and money were so they did a statistical analysis using this variable with a very poor correlation. However it effectively became law.
What wasn't included is far more relevant. They didn't mention that DDT was banned during this time period and that change slowly decrease the concentrations and they finally banned it for the US Forest Service. This "solved" the thin shell egg problem with fish eating birds (DDT bio-magnifies with it high lipid solubility in air breathing organisms) and the cormorant populations increased dramatically (hard data). One colony in the bay area is estimated to eat 7 tons/day of delta smelt size fish and they could have a significant impact on the population of delta smelt over the correct time period. The cormorant population increased while the delta smelt crashed.
Having endangered birds eating endangered fish wasn't what the activists wanted.
However, the word bird or seal of any species does appear. In grad school in the 60's I explored this area and seldom saw fish eating birds, but now the area is dripping with them.
If you have an N-Dimensional problem and exclude a principal component in the analysis, the resulting analysis is pure BS. Think conic sections. That is the activist game being played.
Burying implicit assumptions that are known to be false in complex mathematical models is another game played (who but a nerd like me would actually look at the math details) in the science behind blocking ocean cooling water intakes and revised proposals to remove 3,000 MW of power dams on the Snake.
oh oh I'm gonna snitch you out to Judith Butler. Youre in trouble now buster bear :)
A quote from the article: "...this controversy comes from a deliberate conflation of a biological reality, the sexes, with a social construct, genders."
At its base, Butler's contention is that gender (the social construct) is "performative", that is defined and expressed by behaviour. I haven't read enough of her work to know whether she then makes the leap to SEX being performative. If she does, she's simply wrong per the presence of two and only two types of gametes. If she doesn't, there is no argument: how to "behave like a man (masculine gender)" and how to "behave like a woman (feminine gender)" vary quite substantially both between and, especially in our case, within societies.
Agreed but I believe she makes the leap to sex.
Ah, well. Thanks, Lawrence.
I think it started back in the 70's as environmental sciences shifted from real science into advocacy. The amount of junk science and advocacy science increased and showed up in quality journals that became believed. Meanwhile the actual real environmental issues were being addressed and rivers no longer burned or acid rain changed lakes or the air in LA would cause your lungs to burn. According to the EPA belief in the lethality of PM2.5, I should be dead, but they are assuming that it is the particle size not its chemistry that are the relevant factors.
If the PM 2.5 didn't get me the PCB's in 5 gal buckets I was testing with no safety procedures beyond not drinking the oily stuff surly should have.
"the plural of anecdote is not data"!
Anecdote is not data but observing the biological opinion on the delta smelt by the US fish and wildlife service 400+ page study that is the scientific basis for the regulations of the water extraction from the Sacramento delta with a valuation of billions of dollars worth of water is data. They looked at the history of this species and the ecology over dates from the late 1960's to present time. Yes, the population of the delta smelt crashed and they included everything in their ecological analysis from clam populations to "some" predators and water extraction rates. The water extraction rates only changed by 20% or so but that was where the power and money were so they did a statistical analysis using this variable with a very poor correlation. However it effectively became law.
What wasn't included is far more relevant. They didn't mention that DDT was banned during this time period and that change slowly decrease the concentrations and they finally banned it for the US Forest Service. This "solved" the thin shell egg problem with fish eating birds (DDT bio-magnifies with it high lipid solubility in air breathing organisms) and the cormorant populations increased dramatically (hard data). One colony in the bay area is estimated to eat 7 tons/day of delta smelt size fish and they could have a significant impact on the population of delta smelt over the correct time period. The cormorant population increased while the delta smelt crashed.
Having endangered birds eating endangered fish wasn't what the activists wanted.
However, the word bird or seal of any species does appear. In grad school in the 60's I explored this area and seldom saw fish eating birds, but now the area is dripping with them.
If you have an N-Dimensional problem and exclude a principal component in the analysis, the resulting analysis is pure BS. Think conic sections. That is the activist game being played.
Burying implicit assumptions that are known to be false in complex mathematical models is another game played (who but a nerd like me would actually look at the math details) in the science behind blocking ocean cooling water intakes and revised proposals to remove 3,000 MW of power dams on the Snake.