I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
I'm very confused; "cis" and "trans" are antonyms in the context of gender.
ReplyDeleteShonk: Well, yes, formally, they are antonyms everywhere; my point is that in the context of gender it gets a bit confusing.
ReplyDeleteI'm certainly confused, though not, I think, but what these words actually mean. A cissexual is someone who identifies as a gender which matches their genetic sex; a transsexual is someone who identifies as a gender which does not match their genetic sex. So how do these "mean pretty much the same thing", exactly?
ReplyDeleteProblem with discussion brought to the forum just because they are confusion is that they are, and the participants, are confused. I'm going to lie down.
Delete