The main problem with prioritizing the ‘gut feeling’ approach to knowledge is it leads inevitably to obviously false conclusions that cannot be dislodged. For example, Push seems keenly aware (to a fault) of the plight of black folk in America. Thus, I am sure he knows there are a depressingly large number of Americans who have a ‘gut feeling’ that black folk are inferior to whites in any number of respects–intellectual, moral, cultural, etc. And while I strongly suspect everyone reading this knows they’re wrong, our certitude doesn’t alter the fact that those individuals are as confident in the veracity of their gut feelings (concerning black folk) as Push is confident in the veracity of his gut feeling (concerning TG folk). Like Push, the racists don’t care about the science that rebuts their beliefs; they could care less about the scientific consensus on the subject. Again like Push, they believe their gut, and that’s all there is to it.
The dilemma, I hope, is obvious. If one is willing to prioritize Push’s gut feeling concerning TG, by what logic could one reject that of the racists concerning black folk?
Setting aside for a moment the fact that I know nothing Kroc’s individual circumstances, and thus do not think it’s appropriate to dwell on his particular case…I find your logic to be completely faulty. That is, it is not the case that a ‘disorder’ requires something (ie, either the mind or the body) to be diseased. If a sound female identity is located in a sound male body, a disorder exists. Call it a ‘congruence disorder’ if you like.
I don’t see that at all. I read him to say simply that gut feelings are not reliable and have not been throughout history, using racism as an example. I don’t see him defending science or the DSM-V as unchanging or indisputable, but rather the consensus of people whose lives are spent carefully studying these matters, hopefully without political agenda, though of course there will always be agendas. We need to base our societal debates on something more than feelings (whether warm or cold) and he advocates this as a resource.
I am sometimes dismayed at the seeming need to win fights at the cost of honest debate here at TN. Just one more thing I’d rather be different but am prepared to accept as part of the world I inhabit.
Kind of hilarious that this is what you managed to take away from a very reasonable analog between the two.
I’m quite amused at your approach to discussion. When someone throws in a fairly weak point, you (justifiably) take them to task on the flaws in that argument. When someone writes a series of coherent and viable thoughts, your alternative approach is to essentially ignore the content, tell them they’re just plain wrong, and revert to insults. It’s very Trump-ian.
Then again, Trump has managed to ride the “just pretend you’re always right, and even if you are proven incontrovertibly wrong, say you’re always right even louder and people will believe you” so perhaps you have the right idea. Trump might still be looking for a VP.
Only things like the DSM and the “scientific consensus” have largely been the vehicles of things like racism. In no small part because those types of “consensus” are based on politicking as much as the scientific process.
Can anyone tell me where all of these transgender people were shitting before this became such a controversial problem? Have they been defecating among us this whole time or did they have a secret bucket out back or something?