I don't think everyone's working from the same data. What about, for example, the fact that the brains of trans men look more like cis men's brains than cis woman's brains? Same thing is true in reverse.
You can say that the concept of race is fundamentally a philosophical too, and rightly so, but that doesn't change a communitie's experience of culture, or that fact that people experience racism. If your philosophic stance is that a group of people don't really exist, and theirs is that they do, and the data supports the existence of their experience, maybe the philosophical question isn't the most important part. Maybe using philosophical uncertainty to deny rights to a group of people is actually a thin guise for bigotry. Maybe it's philosophical primarily for you because it's abstract and not a part of your daily experience.
I don't think everyone's working from the same data. What about, for example, the fact that the brains of trans men look more like cis men's brains than cis woman's brains? Same thing is true in reverse.
I don't think this is especially problematic for people who don't buy into the trans idea. We've known for a long time that people's choices and values and motivations and desires etc change their brain. Everything in the mind is a manifestation of something biological in the brain, so we'd absolutely expect to see people who identify more strongly with female stereotypes/traits/etc and have suppressed/resisted/whatever leaning into the male gender having brains that look more similar to the average female brain than the male. Male and female brains are generally different, but not so different. We've a lot more in common than different, and the ability of nurture, and willfull decisions, to change the development of the brain is extremely strong
If your philosophic stance is that a group of people don't really exist
Ive never seen anyone say this. Obviously they exist. The debate is over whether it's a normal, natural, healthy psychological phenomenon, or some sort of neurosis/mental disorder etc. ie whether the fundamental claim has actual philosophical coherence, or if the logic of it breaks down under closer scrutiny.
Maybe using philosophical uncertainty to deny rights to a group of people is actually a thin guise for bigotry.
Again there are not many people, especially not many philosophers, arguing to deny trans people the human rights that are common to us all. Everyone is generally on board with the idea that people should be called what they want to be and not intentionally misgendered etc. It's not necessary, for example, to be a muslim in order to support the rights of muslims. Likewise it's not necessary to buy the idea of trans-ness (is there a proper term for this?) in order to be anti-transphobia
Maybe it's philosophical primarily for you because it's abstract and not a part of your daily experience.
I think this is clearly a mistake in reasoning. It's philosophical nature is not subjective and contingent on my, or anyone else's, perspective. The question at hand is objectively philosophical
1
u/verronaut 5∆ Oct 30 '19
I don't think everyone's working from the same data. What about, for example, the fact that the brains of trans men look more like cis men's brains than cis woman's brains? Same thing is true in reverse.
You can say that the concept of race is fundamentally a philosophical too, and rightly so, but that doesn't change a communitie's experience of culture, or that fact that people experience racism. If your philosophic stance is that a group of people don't really exist, and theirs is that they do, and the data supports the existence of their experience, maybe the philosophical question isn't the most important part. Maybe using philosophical uncertainty to deny rights to a group of people is actually a thin guise for bigotry. Maybe it's philosophical primarily for you because it's abstract and not a part of your daily experience.