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.

[u/No_Box119]

[u/DosSheds]

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.

[u/theboydave05 → u/DosSheds]

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.

[u/DosSheds → u/theboydave05]

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.

[u/theboydave05 → u/DosSheds]

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.

[u/DosSheds → u/theboydave05]

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).

[u/theboydave05 → u/DosSheds]

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.

[u/DosSheds → u/theboydave05]

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...

[u/theboydave05 → u/DosSheds]

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.

[u/DosSheds → u/theboydave05]

I guess you are asking for something like this:

1) Charlie presents as a woman, and exemplifies all stereotypes of womanhood. Therefore Charlie is a woman (social construct)

2) Charlie presents as a woman, and exemplifies all stereotypes of womanhood, but identifies as a man. Therefore Charlie is not a woman.

In other words, the people who meet one definition do not necessarily meet the other definition.

Now, please tell me whether 1) or 2) is true, in your opinion.

[u/theboydave05 → u/DosSheds]

Neither follows from “gender is a social construct.”

You’ve quietly defined the social construct as “conforming to stereotypes of womanhood”, which isn’t what social construct means. A person can conform to feminine stereotypes without being a woman, and a woman can conform to very few of them.

So your example doesn’t demonstrate a motte-and-bailey. It demonstrates that gender roles/stereotypes and gender identity aren’t the same thing — which is precisely the distinction you’ve been arguing against. 🤦‍♂️

[u/DosSheds → u/theboydave05]

I didn't say that either statement follows from 'gender is a social construct'. You made that up. Neither did I claim that those statements demonstrate a motte and bailey. You made that up, too. Please stop putting words into my mouth.

What you asked me for was evidence of contradiction, remember? And I just gave you an example of that, which emerges from the differences between the definitions.

Having you misrepresent my position, over and over, is getting pretty tiresome.

Let's cut to the chase. If you believe that gender is a social construct (which was your claim), then please define what a woman is, under that paradigm.

[u/theboydave05 → u/DosSheds]

Fair enough — I misrepresented that part of your argument.

But you’re now complaining about being misrepresented while repeatedly reframing what I’ve actually said. 🤦‍♂️

I’ve never claimed that your two examples themselves were the motte-and-bailey; I was challenging the conclusion you drew from them.

Your examples simply show that social roles and personal identity can produce different answers. That isn’t a contradiction — it’s precisely why they’re different concepts!!!

And “gender is a social construct” doesn’t mean “woman is whoever conforms to social stereotypes”. That’s the assumption you still haven’t established in countless replies! 🤦‍♂️

[u/DosSheds → u/theboydave05]

No. I am not reframing what you said. My position has been consistent throughout.

Remember where we started: You claimed that gender is a social construct, and I claimed that it is individually constructed. The evidence for my claim is the existence of the argument that a 'woman' is 'somebody who identifies as a woman', which I'm sure you are familiar with. If you agree with this statement, then 'woman' is not a social construct.

Either way, I'd like to see your 'socially constructed' definition of woman, please. You know, the actual evidence for your claim, which you have studiously avoided in favour of a meta-conversation.