Leftists/liberals/Dumocrats can't even acknowledge real women and motherhood anymore? Why, and what is wrong with them?
DIM answer in brief: their thinking is mostly D (disintegration), with pockets of M2 (rationalist misintegration).
What’s going on methodologically
- D: linguistic constructivism and relativism
- Redefining “woman” and “mother” by self‑identification or committee style guides sever concepts from their biological referents (sex as defined by gamete type). When terms float with preference, you lose fixed units of thought—classic D.
- D: social metaphysics/consensus‑ism
- Truth is treated as whatever earns approval from prestige institutions or activist coalitions. Evidence yields to reputation and optics. That is disintegration of standards.
- D: emotivism
- Offense or inclusion is treated as evidence. Feelings become guides to action; causal analysis is sidelined.
- M2 overlay: formalism and blueprinting
- In some agencies and NGOs, a top‑down theory of gender is imposed as universal policy (mandated lexicons, compelled usage), insulated from domain‑specific biology. That is rationalist misintegration (M2): a tidy framework enforced regardless of concrete causal requirements.
Consequences of D/M2 on this issue
- Conceptual fog: “woman/mother” loses fixed biological referents, so higher‑level principles (medical protocols, maternal rights, sex‑specific research) can’t integrate cleanly.
- Policy error: Where sex matters causally (screening, dosing, maternal health metrics, sports categories, crime statistics), floating terms degrade data quality and decision accuracy.
- Coordination breakdown: Professionals self‑censor or talk past one another; rules shift by memo, not by mechanism, producing brittle institutions and public distrust.
I‑mode corrective (how to fix the method)
- Definitions by essentials: Anchor “female/woman” to biology (the sex organized for producing large gametes); “motherhood” to the causal role of gestation/birth in females. Keep identity descriptors separate as psychological/social categories; don’t let them replace biological terms where biology causally governs outcomes.
- Reduction to concretes: In any policy or guideline, name the exact measurements, mechanisms, and use‑cases where sex matters—and where it does not.
- Contextual certainty and open evidence: Set falsification points (what data would change the wording or rule). Let facts—not prestige—decide revisions.
- Rights without faking reality: Protect equal individual rights and civility in discourse while refusing to counterfeit biological facts or compel contradictions in language where precision is required.
No comments:
Post a Comment