Thanks for being patient on this belated Weekly Recap! Last week was not a good one to miss, since so so much has been happening in the realm of sex denialism and gender ideology in society. I will be covering some of the most significant happenings over the last two weeks, so apologies for the length. I will be more brief on each topic so that this post does not run on forever.
These weekly recaps are fantastic. I was especially interested in your review of the Ohio law allowing trans people the right to change sex on their birth certificate. While I agree that falsifying birth certificates should not become law, I disagree with your (repeated) claim that changing legal sex on driver's licenses and other ID can be acceptable. Is sex a category or isn't it? If it is a stable category, then it follows that changing it on any document is a categorical error. If it is acceptable to change legal sex in some cases, then the category has been so corrupted that it is meaningless. In fact, it seems that this line of reasoning is based on equivocation between sex and gender. To avoid the thicket of legal interpretation of a porous sex category, wouldn't it make more sense to add a gender category, namely a box for those whose identity does not match their biology, as in M F and T. Wouldn't this solve most, if not all, of the many social problems arising from the obfuscation of the sex category? I have raised this point with you several times and on several platforms. I would love to hear your in-depth reasoning on this issue.
These weekly recaps are fantastic. I was especially interested in your review of the Ohio law allowing trans people the right to change sex on their birth certificate. While I agree that falsifying birth certificates should not become law, I disagree with your (repeated) claim that changing legal sex on driver's licenses and other ID can be acceptable. Is sex a category or isn't it? If it is a stable category, then it follows that changing it on any document is a categorical error. If it is acceptable to change legal sex in some cases, then the category has been so corrupted that it is meaningless. In fact, it seems that this line of reasoning is based on equivocation between sex and gender. To avoid the thicket of legal interpretation of a porous sex category, wouldn't it make more sense to add a gender category, namely a box for those whose identity does not match their biology, as in M F and T. Wouldn't this solve most, if not all, of the many social problems arising from the obfuscation of the sex category? I have raised this point with you several times and on several platforms. I would love to hear your in-depth reasoning on this issue.
Great stuff Colin, I'm very grateful to have access to your work, more than happy to pay, looking forward to learning more from you
I think Clair Lehman of Quillette fame put it best.
With the ascendancy of Woke, all conservatives have to do to attract majority support is to not be crazy.
But noooo, instead we get QAnon; Bill Gates conspiracy theories; anti-vax death cults. Thanks guys you’re really doing a great job 🙄