How to deal with Arguments in Social Constructionism and Nature? Have I committed a Logic fallacy?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
This is a bit of a touchy Subject.
I was called a Bigot for suggesting Turner Syndrome and Klinefelter syndrome should be considered Chromosome disorders as they are associated with massive complications. Heart Disease, Cancer, Infertility, autoimmune disease, weak muscles, learning disabilities. An overall lower quality of life.
I assume the person was upset when I implied if chromosome disorders could be prevented they should be. I came out of it with a bad taste It's hard being called a Bigot as It made me really Question what I said. I also feel it is cowardly too use emotional Language with no context just too guilt me into giving up my claim and keep bringing up that everything is a Social Construct. If you feel I was offensive please give me your opinion.
Answers
2Sounds like you've had a close encounter with Wokeism and Transgender mania. If so, being called a bigot is the least of what you might expect from the fanatical brain fever sweeping over campuses and popular culture from the Left.
Of course, I am assuming that the offended party believed you were equating transgenderism with a chromosomal disorder, and that is a highly precarious and sensitive subject in certain circles - the equivalent of the DSM-V diagnosing homosexuality as a psychological disorder.
I suggest reading Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters 2020 by Abigail Shrier Regnery Publishing. She is a brilliant lawyer and reporter for the Wall Street Journal, and what she has faced in reprisal for her thoroughly researched and controversial findings are far worse than being called names.
Taking on that mantel at this time is not fallacious, but it could very well be folly. Good luck, and don't forget your flack helmet.
I wouldn't say it is really Social Constructionism that you are really dealing with there.
Thing is that you are actually making a deeply problematic philosophical statement without realizing it. When we start saying that certain inherent (inborn rather than acquired) characteristics a person has constitute disorders, you are implying there is some ideal person against we are judging everyone else.
That puts certain people on edge, because basically speaking it is very difficult to not reach those conclusions about certain particularly nasty congenital conditions but the logical consequences of doing this is that basically we can 'score' human genomes for brokenness and somebody will inevitably end up with the 0 score, or near enough compared to all the others.
Now there is the basis for an argument to eliminate everybody whose scores aren't the best. So that is why you are called a 'bigot'. They would rather we did not actually judge inherent characteristics at all so that nobody can create a scoreboard of human value in the first place.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course