2020 Elections

[Parasaurolophus]

Other countries that have 3, 4, 5 parties and a Prime Minister appointed by the majority of Congress (as opposed to a separately elected President) seem to be forced to create coalition governments which makes the center more appealing.

Well... that mostly only happens when you have proportional representation (or, rarely, minority governments). Otherwise, what ends up happening is that one party forms a majority government with around 30% of the vote, and then they govern entirely unhindered by the Opposition.

And the PM is just the head of the party with the most seats. They're not selected after the fact by the entire Parliament (or its equivalent).

[marshwiggle]

The progressives on the left don't subscribe to a lot of facts about things like biology; both sides have their serious blind spots

Um...you do know that at least one progressive, AOC, has a degree in microbiology, yes?

M.

FWIW, her degree is in IR and economics. But she did come second for microbiology at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in her last year of high school.

(Even so, your point stands: the claim was ludicrous on the face of it.)

So the idea that "biological sex is a social construct" would be universally rejected by people on the left?

[Cheerful]

But she did come second for microbiology at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in her last year of high school.

LOL.  Akin to the tv commercial about staying at "a Holiday Inn Express last night"?

[spork]

The USA's electoral system needs to replace plurality voting with ranked choice/single transferable vote so that the interests of the electorate are better represented.

Meanwhile, Trump still has control of the executive branch.

[Parasaurolophus]

So the idea that "biological sex is a social construct" would be universally rejected by people on the left?

Since when is universal acceptance the standard for anything? I doubt you could come up with a single fact that's universally accepted without so narrowing the class of people involved as to render it useless.

This particular question, at any rate, is meaningless. It's meaningless because we've established, elsewhere on The Fora that you do not understand social construction and its claims, and have no interest in doing so. We've also established that you are not interested in the nuances that are actually involved in understanding the scientific account of biological sex, which is nothing like as clear-cut as people often believe it is. So, absent further precisification of what you mean by those terms in that question, it's meaningless. The issue is not helped by the fact that the term "the left" is massively overgeneral, and almost certainly means something different to you than it does to me and others.

But she did come second for microbiology at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in her last year of high school.

LOL.  Akin to the tv commercial about staying at "a Holiday Inn Express last night"?

I was offering an explanation for the confusion, not a defence of her credentials. That said, I'm willing to bet AOC has a better understanding of microbiology than most people (myself included).

[ciao_yall]

The USA's electoral system needs to replace plurality voting with ranked choice/single transferable vote so that the interests of the electorate are better represented.

Works well here in SF. In fact, candidates often join up with each other and ask supporters to put the other candidate as their second choice to build coalitions.

[marshwiggle]

So the idea that "biological sex is a social construct" would be universally rejected by people on the left?

This particular question, at any rate, is meaningless. It's meaningless because we've established, elsewhere on The Fora that you do not understand social construction and its claims, and have no interest in doing so. We've also established that you are not interested in the nuances that are actually involved in understanding the scientific account of biological sex, which is nothing like as clear-cut as people often believe it is.

The existence of intersex people in no way makes biological sex socially constructed. It does make description of their anatomy, physiology, etc. slightly more complicated than the average person. An accurate, precise medical description does not depend on the culture or ideology of the person making it.

[Cheerful]

But she did come second for microbiology at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in her last year of high school.

LOL.  Akin to the tv commercial about staying at "a Holiday Inn Express last night"?

I was offering an explanation for the confusion, not a defence of her credentials. That said, I'm willing to bet AOC has a better understanding of microbiology than most people (myself included).

I thought your finding was humorous, nothing more, nothing less.  I didn't think you were defending or critiquing her credentials.  I know nothing about AOC's understanding of microbio and don't much care.

[Puget]

We've also established that you are not interested in the nuances that are actually involved in understanding the scientific account of biological sex, which is nothing like as clear-cut as people often believe it is.

For anyone who is interested, I'd recommend the Radiolab mini-series Gonads as a great introduction to the biological complexity: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/projects/radiolab-presents-gonads

I promise listing to it will be both more productive and more fun than yelling at each other here.

[Parasaurolophus]

The existence of intersex people in no way makes biological sex socially constructed. It does make description of their anatomy, physiology, etc. slightly more complicated than the average person. An accurate, precise medical description does not depend on the culture or ideology of the person making it.

Again, this only serves to demonstrates your ignorance. That's not what anybody has said, or would say. Even those who would argue that there's an element of social construction at work in biological sex.

[marshwiggle]

The existence of intersex people in no way makes biological sex socially constructed. It does make description of their anatomy, physiology, etc. slightly more complicated than the average person. An accurate, precise medical description does not depend on the culture or ideology of the person making it.

Again, this only serves to demonstrates your ignorance. That's not what anybody has said, or would say. Even those who would argue that there's an element of social construction at work in biological sex.

Is Sex Socially Constructed?

Biological Sex As A Social Construct

Nicholas Matte, Lecturer, Transgender Studies at the University of Toronto simply denies that biological sex exists.

Biological Sex is a social construct

etc.

[ergative]

So the idea that "biological sex is a social construct" would be universally rejected by people on the left?

This particular question, at any rate, is meaningless. It's meaningless because we've established, elsewhere on The Fora that you do not understand social construction and its claims, and have no interest in doing so. We've also established that you are not interested in the nuances that are actually involved in understanding the scientific account of biological sex, which is nothing like as clear-cut as people often believe it is.

The existence of intersex people in no way makes biological sex socially constructed. It does make description of their anatomy, physiology, etc. slightly more complicated than the average person. An accurate, precise medical description does not depend on the culture or ideology of the person making it.

If you want to make issues of biological sex entirely dependent on accurate, precise, medical descriptions, then you either need to stop talking about it entirely, because medical descriptions of strangers' private parts are none of your business, or else declare that you are a pervert who can't stop wondering about strangers' private parts. Or you can acknowledge that the surrounding culture and ideology is exactly why it's a general topic of conversation in the first place.

[marshwiggle]

So the idea that "biological sex is a social construct" would be universally rejected by people on the left?

This particular question, at any rate, is meaningless. It's meaningless because we've established, elsewhere on The Fora that you do not understand social construction and its claims, and have no interest in doing so. We've also established that you are not interested in the nuances that are actually involved in understanding the scientific account of biological sex, which is nothing like as clear-cut as people often believe it is.

The existence of intersex people in no way makes biological sex socially constructed. It does make description of their anatomy, physiology, etc. slightly more complicated than the average person. An accurate, precise medical description does not depend on the culture or ideology of the person making it.

If you want to make issues of biological sex entirely dependent on accurate, precise, medical descriptions, then you either need to stop talking about it entirely, because medical descriptions of strangers' private parts are none of your business, or else declare that you are a pervert who can't stop wondering about strangers' private parts. Or you can acknowledge that the surrounding culture and ideology is exactly why it's a general topic of conversation in the first place.

Medical descriptions of strangers' cancer diagnoses are their own business as well, but it doesn't make them "socially constructed".

[spork]

I see no connection between this topic and the subject of the thread. Start another thread.

[Parasaurolophus]

The existence of intersex people in no way makes biological sex socially constructed. It does make description of their anatomy, physiology, etc. slightly more complicated than the average person. An accurate, precise medical description does not depend on the culture or ideology of the person making it.

Again, this only serves to demonstrates your ignorance. That's not what anybody has said, or would say. Even those who would argue that there's an element of social construction at work in biological sex.

Is Sex Socially Constructed?

Byrne argues that biological sex is not socially constructed, so if that was meant to be some sort of counterexample to what I said... it's not. He, at least, is well-informed on the issue, and understands the relevant nuances.

Biological Sex As A Social Construct

This one also argues that biological sex is not socially constructed. It reflects some basic misunderstandings of what social construction is, however, and what it would mean to argue that biological sex is socially constructed in some way. Seriously, buddy, did you not read your sources before posting them?

Nicholas Matte, Lecturer, Transgender Studies at the University of Toronto simply denies that biological sex exists.

You didn't notice that this 35 second clip is edited to make it look like Matte is denying the existence of biological sex? Sigh. 12 seconds in he says "that's a very popular misconception."

Biological Sex is a social construct

This one does not evince a very sophisticated understanding of social construction at all (in fact, I'd argue it gets it mostly wrong). But it's also just a blog post, which isn't written for the same audience as an academic treatise--nor does or should it marshal the same standards of evidence. I'll grant you that it comes closest to the claim you made earlier, although even then it manages to be somewhat more sophisticated about it. But again, when I say 'nobody' says that I'm referring to suitably informed people, not 'absolutely anyone and everyone in the universe'.