Yeah, that's what I got. You were crystal clear.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @IrisVanRooij and
Seems strange to question intent rather than the claim itself.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Is it not important to understand each other well? (Especially when trying to have intelligible discussion on twitter).
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @IrisVanRooij @seanrife and
No such thing as statement itself, and JP (linguist and communication researcher) knows. This is/was my common ground with him.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @IrisVanRooij @o_guest and
Fine, but in all this we've become derailed. What is your empirical argument against JP's statement? Is there one or is it ethical?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @seanrife @IrisVanRooij and
I interpret his statement (in contxt) to mean there is no evidence that essentialism is not true. But then who has the burden of proof?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JCSkewesDK @seanrife and
Again, ethically AND scientifically
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @JCSkewesDK @IrisVanRooij and
I'm a scientist. Not an ethicist.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @seanrife @JCSkewesDK and
If one is really interested purely in scientific questions re: 'gender', then I would recommend start with developing a scientific notion,
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @IrisVanRooij @seanrife and
which isn't binary. The very question of 'what causes sex (=m/f) differences?' presupposes binary notion, & indeed probably essensialism.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
