Trying to fight "hey guys" is stupid and tilting at windmills. It's a great example of performative wokeness that achieves nothing but making some people feel good about themselves.
Loud minority for sure. Republicans are right about biological sex being real (it's based off of gamete size, not chromosomes exactly), but that's more of a broken clock being right twice a day.
Gender ideology had its run and is past the high water mark. When it's gone, Republicans won't even have that hobby horse.
> However, Dennett is not denying the existence of the mind or of consciousness, only what he considers a naive view of them
It doesn't seem like he's Eliminativist. It also seems like the criticisms rely on harping on about qualia, which is one of the sillier schools of sophistry. I'd need to see actual criticisms before believing that Dennett is pushing for something comical.
I have personally gone through HR trainings that directly contradict what you're saying. "just and fair" allocation is also a vacuous qualifier. According to whom? If it's just and fair allocation according to someone that believes in equality of outcome, then you're not disagreeing with the comment you're responding to.
I think in practice, equity does in fact mean equity of outcome. Pretending that that's not the case feels like gaslighting to people, and drives people away from DEI initiatives.
XXY and XYY and whatnot are all variations within a sex. Sex is defined by gamete size, females produce the larger gametes and males produce the smaller gametes. In humans, this is binary and immutable.
It's not squishy, and it's not hard. Woman means adult female human, and female means someone that produces the larger of two gamete sizes. That's the real, literal biological definition.
Since I'm rate limited, to be slightly more specific, it's the gamete size one would or should produce. I elided that part but biologists are well aware of disorders of development.
Another edit: This has nothing to do with religion or any sort of intelligent design woo. Read "should" as "would if it were mature and healthy".
that's doing a lot of heavy lifting. i don't mean to single this specific instance out, but i think therein lies a key component of the "controversy" - human beings allow themselves to believe that there is an implied or intentional order (God, "science" or something else guiding things). this may be the case, or it really may just be the eventual result of evolution over a long-enough time period.
personally... if there is a god/s worthy of worship, i can't fathom trying to interpret their will or intent of what "should" be, and i believe anybody who claims to know is either suffering from grandiosity, or a liar. that's why i don't treat arguments of "should" that come from an implied knowledge of the meaning of life very seriously. the only "should" i really think matters is that we "should" treat each other with respect and stop trying to box people into neat categories based on our disdain of their outward expression of their own lived experience.
