I haven't spent too much time listening to political pundits, or Charlie Kirk. But if Kirk makes the arguments he does in this article, and he is indeed a median level of reasonableness amongst political pundits, I'm glad I don't spend any time listening to them.
Possibly annoying but: In fact, you can’t generally tell various animal fetuses and human fetuses apart just by looking at them
This is only true extremely early in development. And the pictures you’ve probably seen where this is most apparently true are artistic reproductions and not photographs. Source: I worked in a developmental biology lab in college.
Also, if you were unaware gametogenesis is what most developmental biologists use to type male and female.
Something you learn very quickly when studying biology in depth is that finding sharp, carving-reality-at-the-joints definitions is often difficult or impossible. Everything is smooth gradients and exceptions within exceptions. We don't have, and probably never will, a clear definition of "species", and we can barely draw a sharp distinction between life and non-life.
I presume you meant to include a link to anti-Carter people engaging in terrorism in this sentence, but instead you just linked against to Charlie Kirk’s post: “Jimmy Carter spent his life after his presidency eradicating poverty and disease in the developing world while those who hate him are engaging in terrorism.”
"Everything about this clip is stupid. First of all, a woman is obviously not someone with XX chromosomes as some people (e.g. those with Swyer syndrome) who obviously don’t count as male—having breasts, vaginas, and sometimes even the ability to give birth—have XY chromosomes. This is why even philosophers who think one can’t change their gender deny this definition."
Please pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't strictly speaking such people be intersex, not female *per se*?
Would have been interesting to see such a person who is attracted to women challenge a same-sex marriage ban in a country that still has such bans. “Hey guys, I’m XY, so it’s all OK!” ;)
No. In biology, it has traditionally been understood that there are two sexes. Male and female. Every sexually reproducing organism is either female, male, or, in some cases, both. A female is defined as an organism that produces—or is structured to produce—large gametes (eggs), while a male produces small gametes (sperm).
Of course, there are more complex biological systems. For instance, garden snails are simultaneous hermaphrodites, possessing both male and female reproductive organs. Meanwhile, species like the scarlet skunk cleaner shrimp (Lysmata amboinensis) exhibit sequential hermaphroditism, starting life as males and later developing ovarian tissue to produce eggs.
In humans, intersex conditions involve variations in sexual development, but they do not constitute a distinct third sex. Intersex individuals are typically male or female, though in some cases, it is more difficult to determine which type of gamete-producing pathway their anatomy has followed. In the most complex cases, we simply do not have a definitive answer regarding their sex.
Ate any of these statements actual arguments? These seem to be examples of pure rhetoric. If Charlie is trying to make an argument at all, I don’t think he succeeded.
I think you're being unfair, on the ultrasound-comparison argument.
Obviously, if his argument was literally that they look the same, so they should have the same rights, then yes that would be stupid. But the *implied* argument, I think quite clearly, is that there *is* no difference between the two foetuses, so the rights we should afford them are the same. The fact they are identical to look at is just a way to rhetorically emphasise this.
I don't find the argument convincing, because I am a consequentialist, and think that whether aborting a foetus is right or wrong depends on things other than just its interests; we also should consider for example the rights of the mother, for whom bearing the child of her rapist might be immeasurably worse than just a child unwanted for other reasons.
But if one were more deontologically-inclined, and simply thought killing an unborn child is always wrong in the way that people generally think killing a born child is always wrong (or if you were a consequentialist who placed much more value on the life and welfare of a foetus), the argument suddenly doesn't seem bad at all. It conveys the fairly important point that being the product of rape is not a relevant moral fact *about the baby*, and doesn't affect its moral patiency or the importance of its welfare.
It likely seems silly to you because you (correctly, in my view), do *not* think the welfare and interests of the foetus are the most important factor. And of course, it's on Charlie Kirk to make his arguments and assumptions more explicit, so that we don't need to make these inferences in order to make sense of his argument.
But I don't think this was a particularly difficult inference to make. It would be far more productive to make that tiny inferential leap to the completely reasonable argument he obviously was making, rather than railing against the obviously-stupid argument that only an obtusely literal interpretation of his words could possibly provide.
Kirk made the argument that they literally are the same and therefore deserve the same rights. This alone, without the deontological justification, is a terrible argument. You can't just imply all the analysis
Presently obese people shouldn't be heading up health agencies. It sets a bad example and it clearly shows that they don't know how to tackle one of the most important preventable public health problems in the US.
With respect to the "what is a woman issue," I think Kirk actually comes close to making a valid point. The distinction between men and women is socially and politically important in a way that defining a cat is not. Granted, Kirk could have been sharper in his analysis and choice of words, but I think most people listening to him assumed he was saying something like this.
I like the argument that since animal fetuses look like human fetuses, we should give animals much more regard than we currently do. Also, it is possible that Jonas Salk had a sleeper build and MASSIVE muscles underneath that lab-coat, while RFK is on steroids.
> Few people think that it’s okay to kill Peter Dinklage.
Never seen Game of Thrones, but isn't the whole point of the show that this isn't true?
Otherwise, great post, agreed with all of it!
It's an open question as to whether they thought it was okay to kill him because he's small, or because he keeps making fun of them!
I haven't spent too much time listening to political pundits, or Charlie Kirk. But if Kirk makes the arguments he does in this article, and he is indeed a median level of reasonableness amongst political pundits, I'm glad I don't spend any time listening to them.
Possibly annoying but: In fact, you can’t generally tell various animal fetuses and human fetuses apart just by looking at them
This is only true extremely early in development. And the pictures you’ve probably seen where this is most apparently true are artistic reproductions and not photographs. Source: I worked in a developmental biology lab in college.
Also, if you were unaware gametogenesis is what most developmental biologists use to type male and female.
Good, but you are missing this song about Charlie Kirk:
ONE WEIRD TRICK to Solve the Euthyphro (a song)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMWZKcV-APU
Something you learn very quickly when studying biology in depth is that finding sharp, carving-reality-at-the-joints definitions is often difficult or impossible. Everything is smooth gradients and exceptions within exceptions. We don't have, and probably never will, a clear definition of "species", and we can barely draw a sharp distinction between life and non-life.
I aspire to one day be as humble as you are
Great article.
I presume you meant to include a link to anti-Carter people engaging in terrorism in this sentence, but instead you just linked against to Charlie Kirk’s post: “Jimmy Carter spent his life after his presidency eradicating poverty and disease in the developing world while those who hate him are engaging in terrorism.”
I was surprised to hear that Charlie Kirk makes arguments. After reading this it turns out he doesn’t, really.
"Everything about this clip is stupid. First of all, a woman is obviously not someone with XX chromosomes as some people (e.g. those with Swyer syndrome) who obviously don’t count as male—having breasts, vaginas, and sometimes even the ability to give birth—have XY chromosomes. This is why even philosophers who think one can’t change their gender deny this definition."
Please pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't strictly speaking such people be intersex, not female *per se*?
AAt the very least they wouldn't be male.
Would have been interesting to see such a person who is attracted to women challenge a same-sex marriage ban in a country that still has such bans. “Hey guys, I’m XY, so it’s all OK!” ;)
No. In biology, it has traditionally been understood that there are two sexes. Male and female. Every sexually reproducing organism is either female, male, or, in some cases, both. A female is defined as an organism that produces—or is structured to produce—large gametes (eggs), while a male produces small gametes (sperm).
Of course, there are more complex biological systems. For instance, garden snails are simultaneous hermaphrodites, possessing both male and female reproductive organs. Meanwhile, species like the scarlet skunk cleaner shrimp (Lysmata amboinensis) exhibit sequential hermaphroditism, starting life as males and later developing ovarian tissue to produce eggs.
In humans, intersex conditions involve variations in sexual development, but they do not constitute a distinct third sex. Intersex individuals are typically male or female, though in some cases, it is more difficult to determine which type of gamete-producing pathway their anatomy has followed. In the most complex cases, we simply do not have a definitive answer regarding their sex.
How would you cash out structured to produce talk?
But people with Swyer’s syndrome generally (with a couple of exceptions) don’t produce their own eggs, no?
We typically know they are female because their anatomy developed to produce female gametes.
Developed and yet failed to do so.
No, they don't.
Ate any of these statements actual arguments? These seem to be examples of pure rhetoric. If Charlie is trying to make an argument at all, I don’t think he succeeded.
He treats them as if he's thus destroyed the other person with some argument.
I think you're being unfair, on the ultrasound-comparison argument.
Obviously, if his argument was literally that they look the same, so they should have the same rights, then yes that would be stupid. But the *implied* argument, I think quite clearly, is that there *is* no difference between the two foetuses, so the rights we should afford them are the same. The fact they are identical to look at is just a way to rhetorically emphasise this.
I don't find the argument convincing, because I am a consequentialist, and think that whether aborting a foetus is right or wrong depends on things other than just its interests; we also should consider for example the rights of the mother, for whom bearing the child of her rapist might be immeasurably worse than just a child unwanted for other reasons.
But if one were more deontologically-inclined, and simply thought killing an unborn child is always wrong in the way that people generally think killing a born child is always wrong (or if you were a consequentialist who placed much more value on the life and welfare of a foetus), the argument suddenly doesn't seem bad at all. It conveys the fairly important point that being the product of rape is not a relevant moral fact *about the baby*, and doesn't affect its moral patiency or the importance of its welfare.
It likely seems silly to you because you (correctly, in my view), do *not* think the welfare and interests of the foetus are the most important factor. And of course, it's on Charlie Kirk to make his arguments and assumptions more explicit, so that we don't need to make these inferences in order to make sense of his argument.
But I don't think this was a particularly difficult inference to make. It would be far more productive to make that tiny inferential leap to the completely reasonable argument he obviously was making, rather than railing against the obviously-stupid argument that only an obtusely literal interpretation of his words could possibly provide.
Kirk made the argument that they literally are the same and therefore deserve the same rights. This alone, without the deontological justification, is a terrible argument. You can't just imply all the analysis
It’s almost as if Charlie Kirk never went to college to learn what the definition of argument even is…
Do you think Ben Shapiro and Michael Knowles are also partisan hacks?
Presently obese people shouldn't be heading up health agencies. It sets a bad example and it clearly shows that they don't know how to tackle one of the most important preventable public health problems in the US.
With respect to the "what is a woman issue," I think Kirk actually comes close to making a valid point. The distinction between men and women is socially and politically important in a way that defining a cat is not. Granted, Kirk could have been sharper in his analysis and choice of words, but I think most people listening to him assumed he was saying something like this.
I like the argument that since animal fetuses look like human fetuses, we should give animals much more regard than we currently do. Also, it is possible that Jonas Salk had a sleeper build and MASSIVE muscles underneath that lab-coat, while RFK is on steroids.
That's a terrible argument.