Notes
"Note that when the contents of beliefs are verifiable, such as the belief in the law of gravity or a belief that there are two genders, anyone can hold them."
That there are "two genders" is something of an article of faith, or, at least, a matter of definition. More than a few credible sources -- the British Medical Journal, the late Justice Scalia, and more than a few more or less rational feminists, for examples -- basically DEFINE gender to be more or less synonymous with personalities AND personality TYPES. Of which there are, of course, billions and billions:
BMJ Editorial: bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735
Scalia's rather insightful and illuminating analogy:
Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/l…
But while "masculine" and "feminine" may well constitute something in the way of a binary, each one of those subcategories encompasses a myriad of personalities of differing degrees -- each a spectrum. Like the reddish and bluish halves of the colour spectrum.
And then there's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP]:
SEP: "2.2 Gender as feminine and masculine personality ... Instead, she holds that gender is a matter of having feminine and masculine personalities that develop in early infancy as responses to prevalent parenting practices."
plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/ent…
Lorenzo and Helen make a more or less decent if something of an overwrought case -- certainly a lot of dots connected, although it might be somewhat moot how much water it holds. But the problem they seem to have is some reluctance in addressing the fact that virtually every last man, woman, and otherkin has different and quite antithetical definitions for sex, gender, and gender-identity, not all of which are created equal, though some are substantially more tenable than those they apparently subscribe to, if not take as articles of faith:
twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/12340400…
No wonder at all that the whole "debate" is such a dog's breakfast, a case of virtually everyone riding madly off in all directions. Don't see much hope for any sort of resolution without some willingness to address that fact:
Durant: “ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
