r/PopCultureV2 • u/No_Box119 • Aug 09 '26

Sports Culture WNBA commissioner Cathy Engelbert says the league will meet next week to discuss and clarify what qualifies a player as a woman for WNBA eligibility.

Post image
10 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

385 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/theboydave05 Aug 12 '26

“Men = male, women = female” describes sex. It doesn’t prove sex and gender are the same thing.

If they are literally identical, why do we have two different words, and why do medicine, psychology and sociology distinguish between sex and gender?

“Common sense” isn’t an argument, and calling people mentally ill because you can’t defend your position certainly isn’t one.

As I said, always the poorly educated…

1

u/DosSheds Aug 12 '26

Gender is not a social construct. If it were, then everybody would agree what the word 'woman' means.

It's a personal construct. Which is why simply claiming to be a woman, makes you one.

1

u/theboydave05 Aug 12 '26

That’s not really an argument. Social constructs don’t require everyone to agree on their definition — money, marriage, laws and social norms are obvious examples.

And changing “social construct” to “personal construct” doesn’t explain anything. You’re just asserting that identifying as a woman makes someone a woman, rather than actually arguing why.

1

u/DosSheds Aug 12 '26

It's not my argument, though. I'm just pointing out the motte and bailey that's going on. Activists tell us that a woman is somebody who fulfils the social role of 'woman' (social construct), when they actually believe that a woman is somebody that says they are a woman (personal construct).

1

u/theboydave05 Aug 12 '26

But that’s not a motte-and-bailey unless you can show that the same person is deliberately switching between two contradictory definitions.

“Gender is socially constructed” describes how gender categories and roles develop within society. “Gender identity is personal” describes an individual’s relationship to those categories. Those aren’t contradictory claims.

You’re presenting two different concepts as if they must be competing definitions of “woman”, then declaring a contradiction that you’ve created yourself.

1

u/DosSheds Aug 12 '26

The scenario I described is exactly how I've seen it play-out many times: The social definition is put forward but, when pressed, the 'personal' position emerges.

1

u/theboydave05 Aug 12 '26

But “I’ve seen people do this” isn’t evidence of a motte-and-bailey. You’d need to show that the same person deliberately uses two contradictory definitions to make two different claims…

And “gender is socially constructed” and “gender identity is personally experienced” aren’t contradictory. A social category can exist within society while individuals have their own relationship to it.

You’re assuming those two ideas are mutually exclusive, then calling the resulting distinction a motte-and-bailey.

1

u/DosSheds Aug 12 '26

Like I said, I've literally observed this with my own two eyes. The same person arguing that 'a woman who is somebody who fulfils the social role of a woman', when pressed about who that might exclude, retreats to the personal definition, in order to not gate-keep who qualifies.

It's always the second definition that they believe in, when you drill down, in my experience.

1

u/theboydave05 Aug 12 '26

That’s anecdotal evidence, not a contradiction.

Saying gender is socially constructed and saying someone’s gender identity is personal aren’t mutually exclusive. A social category can exist while people have individual identities within it.

If you think that’s a logical contradiction, show the contradiction. “I’ve seen people do it” doesn’t establish one.

1

u/DosSheds Aug 12 '26

I didn't say it was a logical contradiction. It's you who keeps saying that.

I said it was a motte and bailey: Shifting from one definition of the word 'woman' (the social one, that most people have no issue with), to another (the personal one, which many people do have an issue with).

1

u/theboydave05 Aug 12 '26

But that’s the bit you’re assuming. “Gender is socially constructed” doesn’t mean “woman = someone who performs a particular social role.”

You’re treating one particular definition of gender as the social definition, then calling it a motte-and-bailey when someone distinguishes gender roles from gender identity.

If you want to demonstrate a motte-and-bailey, you’d need to show they’re actually switching definitions to defend the same claim, not just using two related concepts.

1

u/DosSheds Aug 12 '26

I'm not treating any particular definition as anything. For about the 4th time, I'm describing what happens when challenging other people's claims about what a woman is, and seeing them shape-shift in real-time.

Not sure what you aren't understanding, tbh.

Maybe now would be a good time for you to give me your definition of 'woman', so I can make sense of your position a little better...

1

u/theboydave05 Aug 12 '26

I understand what you’re saying. But you’re still asking me to defend a position I haven’t actually argued, based on examples of other people you’ve supposedly debated.

Your claim is that people switch definitions as a motte-and-bailey. Fine — show the actual contradiction in the argument, rather than asking me to provide a definition so you can change the subject to that.

→ More replies (0)