Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
what-is-gender [2024/12/24 11:44] – pittwhat-is-gender [2025/03/11 10:34] (current) – [Logical Fallacies] pitt
Line 61: Line 61:
  
 **Moving the goalposts:** Demanding that gender be defined without reference to related concepts like identity, roles, etc. and then claiming victory when those arbitrary criteria aren't met. **Moving the goalposts:** Demanding that gender be defined without reference to related concepts like identity, roles, etc. and then claiming victory when those arbitrary criteria aren't met.
-** + 
-Equivocation:** Exploiting the ambiguity of terms like "gender" and "sex" to make specious arguments, e.g. conflating gender roles with gender identity.+**Equivocation:** Exploiting the ambiguity of terms like "gender" and "sex" to make specious arguments, e.g. conflating gender roles with gender identity.
  
 **Appeal to definition:** Insisting that dictionary definitions trump the lived experiences and self-understanding of trans people. **Appeal to definition:** Insisting that dictionary definitions trump the lived experiences and self-understanding of trans people.
  
 **Strawman:** Misrepresenting the trans position as a denial of biological sex rather than an affirmation of gender diversity. **Strawman:** Misrepresenting the trans position as a denial of biological sex rather than an affirmation of gender diversity.
 +
 +===== Conclusion =====
  
 So watch out for these in the first ask of “what is gender” or in their follow up points. Often if just means moving the goalposts. Typically it is expected to be a “gotcha” of some sort, so when you come with a well reasoned and concise definition, they will either move the goal posts, ignore it to some entirely different point, or attempt to pick it apart. Call them out on the first directly, address the new point only after you point out “well, since we have a definition that is acceptable…” to point out they concede their arguments re: gender, and for the last one, it almost always includes a need to split hairs, ask questions that provide false dilemmas, or are constructed in a way that presents a comparison that is not valid, such as “biological sex” vs “gender”. A common rebuttal is “this doesn’t make sense at all, because gender is based on your sex, not anything else” which is an example of a false equivocation, and is not longer about gender as a conceptual whole, but about //gender identity//.  So watch out for these in the first ask of “what is gender” or in their follow up points. Often if just means moving the goalposts. Typically it is expected to be a “gotcha” of some sort, so when you come with a well reasoned and concise definition, they will either move the goal posts, ignore it to some entirely different point, or attempt to pick it apart. Call them out on the first directly, address the new point only after you point out “well, since we have a definition that is acceptable…” to point out they concede their arguments re: gender, and for the last one, it almost always includes a need to split hairs, ask questions that provide false dilemmas, or are constructed in a way that presents a comparison that is not valid, such as “biological sex” vs “gender”. A common rebuttal is “this doesn’t make sense at all, because gender is based on your sex, not anything else” which is an example of a false equivocation, and is not longer about gender as a conceptual whole, but about //gender identity//. 

Trace:

Print/export
QR Code
QR Code what-is-gender (generated for current page)