Legal definition of woman is based on biological sex, UK supreme court rules

[Toni]

There is no such thing as a ‘factual’ hypothesis. Or an unfactual one. Only supported or unsupported.

And the hypothesis that is consistently supported is that males and females are different in some important ways. Much of that has little or nothing to do with socializing.
Tom

The second part is not supported.

 

[Toni]

A hypothesis is neither factual or not factual. It is a question.

By "factual hypothesis" I meant a hypothesis about a matter of fact, as opposed to a hypothesis about policy such as "Deporting ten million illegal aliens will be good for America." If you want to judge policy hypotheses by their offensiveness, knock yourself out.

There is no such thing as a ‘factual’ hypothesis. Or an unfactual one. Only supported or unsupported.

Why did you write that? I told you what I meant by the phrase and you quoted it back to me. Are you seriously contending that there's no such thing as a hypothesis about a matter of fact? Or are you just insisting that "factual hypothesis" must only be used to refer to whichever nonexistent thing you have in mind and never to the existing thing we're discussing in the thread? If the latter, hey, use the phrase however you like. It's a free country. ( Linguistic prescriptivists [/mutter] )

<empty insult snipped>

Words have meaning. You are not using the term hypothesis correctly.

Here is a wiki link that might provide some understanding. I’m not holding my breath, tho.

Hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A hypothesis (pl.: hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. A scientifichypothesis must be based on observationsand make a testable and reproducibleprediction about reality, in a process beginning with an educated guess or thought.

 

[TomC]

There is no such thing as a ‘factual’ hypothesis. Or an unfactual one. Only supported or unsupported.

And the hypothesis that is consistently supported is that males and females are different in some important ways. Much of that has little or nothing to do with socializing.
Tom

The second part is not supported.

It's not supported by the information that you prefer to be true. That's the problem you have.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

Whereas dragging out a dictionary, pushing up your wireframes, and going "WELL AKSHULLY" makes you an easy going man-of-the-people, I suppose?

Of course it doesn't. Are you insinuating that not being an easy going man-of-the-people makes me a snob too? Dragging out a dictionary, pushing up my wireframes, and going "WELL AKSHULLY" makes me a lawyer calling in an expert witness to refute the testimony of the previous witness. I quoted the dictionary because you implied that using "sex" and "gender" interchangeably is no longer common usage and went out with corsets.

And "my subculture" - the sciences - are supposedly the topic of the thread, so I do not think they are irrelevant to it.

Nobody said they are. Use technical jargon all you please -- it's a free country. Doesn't make the people who choose to talk about the sciences in plain English wrong.

(And whether the stuff anthropologists and sociologists say qualifies as science or just "cargo-cult science" varies with the phase of the moon. Photochemistry it ain't.)

 

[Politesse]

I quoted the dictionary because you implied that using "sex" and "gender" interchangeably is no longer common usage and went out with corsets.

How did you get that? I acknowledged they are often used as synonyms.

 

[Toni]

There is no such thing as a ‘factual’ hypothesis. Or an unfactual one. Only supported or unsupported.

And the hypothesis that is consistently supported is that males and females are different in some important ways. Much of that has little or nothing to do with socializing.
Tom

The second part is not supported.

It's not supported by the information that you prefer to be true. That's the problem you have.
Tom

No, it’s not the problem I have. I have an issue with people mis-using words and not being willing or perhaps being unable to understand the difference between hypothesis and fact, or evidence and fact.

 

[Bomb#20]

There is no such thing as a ‘factual’ hypothesis. Or an unfactual one. Only supported or unsupported.

Why did you write that? I told you what I meant by the phrase and you quoted it back to me. Are you seriously contending that there's no such thing as a hypothesis about a matter of fact? Or are you just insisting that "factual hypothesis" must only be used to refer to whichever nonexistent thing you have in mind and never to the existing thing we're discussing in the thread? If the latter, hey, use the phrase however you like. It's a free country. ( Linguistic prescriptivists [/mutter] )

<empty insult snipped>

Words have meaning. You are not using the term hypothesis correctly.

Then neither are you.

Here is a wiki link that might provide some understanding. I’m not holding my breath, tho.

Hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A hypothesis (pl.: hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. A scientifichypothesis must be based on observationsand make a testable and reproducibleprediction about reality, in a process beginning with an educated guess or thought.

That's not an argument for there being no such thing as a factual hypothesis; that's an argument for factual hypotheses being the only kind of hypotheses there are. Your cite implies my specifying "about a matter of fact" was redundant, not incorrect.

 

[Politesse]

(And whether the stuff anthropologists and sociologists say qualifies as science or just "cargo-cult science" varies with the phase of the moon. Photochemistry it ain't.)

No, but its popularity certainly waxes and wanes along with whether priests anf politicians think it supports or refutes their projects at the moment. Our methods and standards have remained roughly similar since the advent of the social sciences, with occasional periods of refinement in certain areas.

I welcome your vigorous and no doubt well-informed critique of anthropological research methods... in another, more appropriate thread.

 

[TomC]

No, it’s not the problem I have. I have an issue with people mis-using words and not being willing or perhaps being unable to understand the difference between hypothesis and fact, or evidence and fact.

Yes, as a matter of fact the problem you and I are having in this discussion is your unwillingness to recognize that there are some huge differences in the instinctive behavior of males and that of females.

Dancing around your semantics doesn't change that. Men and women are different, over all, in some profound ways. The evidence for that observation is gigantic and goes back for millennium.
Tom

 

[Toni]

No, it’s not the problem I have. I have an issue with people mis-using words and not being willing or perhaps being unable to understand the difference between hypothesis and fact, or evidence and fact.

Yes, as a matter of fact the problem you and I are having in this discussion is your unwillingness to recognize that there are some huge differences in the instinctive behavior of males and that of females.

Dancing around your semantics doesn't change that. Men and women are different, over all, in some profound ways. The evidence for that observation is gigantic and goes back for millennium.
Tom

And yet you cite no evidence except whatever you just pulled out of your ass.

 

[Toni]

There is no such thing as a ‘factual’ hypothesis. Or an unfactual one. Only supported or unsupported.

Why did you write that? I told you what I meant by the phrase and you quoted it back to me. Are you seriously contending that there's no such thing as a hypothesis about a matter of fact? Or are you just insisting that "factual hypothesis" must only be used to refer to whichever nonexistent thing you have in mind and never to the existing thing we're discussing in the thread? If the latter, hey, use the phrase however you like. It's a free country. ( Linguistic prescriptivists [/mutter] )

<empty insult snipped>

Words have meaning. You are not using the term hypothesis correctly.

Then neither are you.

Here is a wiki link that might provide some understanding. I’m not holding my breath, tho.

Hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A hypothesis (pl.: hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. A scientifichypothesis must be based on observationsand make a testable and reproducibleprediction about reality, in a process beginning with an educated guess or thought.

That's not an argument for there being no such thing as a factual hypothesis; that's an argument for factual hypotheses being the only kind of hypotheses there are. Your cite implies my specifying "about a matter of fact" was redundant, not incorrect.

I’m sorry I’m not able to help you with remedial reading.

 

[TomC]

No, it’s not the problem I have. I have an issue with people mis-using words and not being willing or perhaps being unable to understand the difference between hypothesis and fact, or evidence and fact.

Yes, as a matter of fact the problem you and I are having in this discussion is your unwillingness to recognize that there are some huge differences in the instinctive behavior of males and that of females.

Dancing around your semantics doesn't change that. Men and women are different, over all, in some profound ways. The evidence for that observation is gigantic and goes back for millennium.
Tom

And yet you cite no evidence except whatever you just pulled out of your ass.

Lemme just ask you flat out.

Do you think that men and women are the same in all important things?
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

I quoted the dictionary because you implied that using "sex" and "gender" interchangeably is no longer common usage and went out with corsets.

How did you get that?

From

But you and your "gender-critical" friends insist on replacing the word gender with sex, seemingly in all cases, because you never studied the social sciences and aren't familiar with the terminology you're using. Whatever. Bring back the 19th century, I guess. Enjoy your corsets?
​

This isn't rocket science. Nobody made you try to associate their usage with the 19th century.

I acknowledged they are often used as synonyms.

And insinuated it was ignorant.

 

[Politesse]

I quoted the dictionary because you implied that using "sex" and "gender" interchangeably is no longer common usage and went out with corsets.

How did you get that?

From

​

But you and your "gender-critical" friends insist on replacing the word gender with sex, seemingly in all cases, because you never studied the social sciences and aren't familiar with the terminology you're using. Whatever. Bring back the 19th century, I guess. Enjoy your corsets?​

​

This isn't rocket science. Nobody made you try to associate their usage with the 19th century.

I acknowledged they are often used as synonyms.

And insinuated it was ignorant.

Because it is. I don't think it's ignorant when little old Mrs. Maisie down the street who never studied the issue conflates the two, that's just the natural ebb and flow of dialectic speech. But if a "gender critical" political activist (or a Scottish court of law that just reviewed testimony from several doctors and scientists) makes the mistake, they know what they are doing and intentionally choosing to reject or the current terminological conventions.

 

[seanie]

And what is your understanding of the definition of “gender”?

In this context, where sex and gender are being used differently.

 

[Bomb#20]

Here is a wiki link that might provide some understanding. I’m not holding my breath, tho.

A hypothesis (pl.: hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. A scientifichypothesis must be based on observationsand make a testable and reproducibleprediction about reality, in a process beginning with an educated guess or thought.

That's not an argument for there being no such thing as a factual hypothesis; that's an argument for factual hypotheses being the only kind of hypotheses there are. Your cite implies my specifying "about a matter of fact" was redundant, not incorrect.

I’m sorry I’m not able to help you with remedial reading.

You appear to be claiming there's a distinction I'm missing between what I said: "about a matter of fact", and what Wikipedia said: "about reality"? I'm unsurprised you're not able to help clarify that.

If this is still about the phrase "factual hypothesis", Merriam-Webster can help us here as well.

factual adjective
fac·tu·al ˈfak-chə-wəl -chəl, -chü-əl, ˈfaksh-wəl
1: of or relating to facts
a factual error
the factual aspects of the case
2: restricted to or based on fact
a factual statement
She tried to separate what is factual from what is not.​

I was using sense 1; perhaps you assumed I was using sense 2.

 

[Politesse]

And what is your understanding of the definition of “gender”?

In this context, where sex and gender are being used differently.

By the current conventions of the sciences in the anglophone world, "sex" refers to anatomical and physiological aspects of all organisms in which sex distinctions occur. "Gender" refers to the social and psychological constructions that have been built around perceptions of sex in all known human societies. A tree can be correctly described in terms of sex, but not by gender. Menstruation is a phenomenon occasioned by sex, but is surrounded by a complex and diverse array of cultural perceptions, traditions, and behaviors: gender identity, gender ideology and gender roles, respectively.

 

[seanie]

By social and psychological constructions do you mean socially constructed stereotypes?

 

[seanie]

Socially constructed stereotypes built off the underlying reality of biological sex?

 

[Bomb#20]

Menstruation is a phenomenon occasioned by sex, but is surrounded by a complex and diverse array of cultural perceptions, traditions, and behaviors: gender identity, gender ideology and gender roles, respectively.

You keep saying that. Unless you're using "respectively" in some Humpty-Dumpty sense, it's ridiculous. Cultural perceptions are not gender identity. Gender identity is how an individual perceives herself, not how her culture perceives her. Gender ideology systematically commits equivocation fallacies by sweeping the difference under the rug.

(ETA: You also appear to be using "gender ideology" in an unusual sense, but I think I take your meaning.)