I find the "No True Scotsman" fallacy no less fallacious when applied as "No real man".
By
Eilonwy
on July 08, 2007
The wikipedia article on 'no true Scotsman'.
I bring this up because I hear it a lot with regards to gender.
Not only is the idea 'real man' used in plenty of ugly ways in our society (in opposition to 'boy', as constructed here, it's pretty mild -- it's when it's in opposition to woman or gay man that it gets particularly coercive), but this particular 'no real man would do that!' usage is just rather useless. I understand the urge, I really do. I'm constantly upset that I share, for example, a nationality with George W. Bush. But I do, and I can't get rid of him by saying he's "not a true American". In the same way, while it may be pleasing to distance yourself from the objectionable members of your gender, you can't get rid of them by redefining your gender. Both 'men' and 'women', as groups, include horrible individuals, and we can't escape it by throwing them out of the clubs.
After all, by Sturgeon's Law, 90% of people are crud...
Agreed
16
2
88.9% 11.1%This claim was inspired by
- Cobra Baghdad's comment on The speed with which men go from "you sound awesome" to "how do you trim your bush" is appalling and off-putting.
Discussion (5)
Except "real man" means something specific.
"true scotsman" doesn't.
I didn't say real man. I said man, implying adulthood as opposed to boy, both by word choice and by context. I think distinctions between adulthood and childhood are meaningful.
I also use distinction like man vs. guy all the time. It's not about redefining gender, it's about categorizing people based on their behaviors.
It's simply a way of expressing your definition of the subject: some people don't consider gay men "real" men; being one, I'm not entirely sure I disagree, the point if disagreement is more in that people using that argument usually consider not being a "real" man to be a bad thing. Obviously, I don't agree with that. And then there's the whole stereotyping thing and that fact that there are a lot of gay men out there those types *would* consider "real men". But that's another claim...
While the current Bush is technically an American, given that he's done more to destroy what America stands for than any previous administration, I'd be inclined to say he's no "True American".
Anyhow, the point of these examples is as I said at the beginning: this "argument" isn't so much a real argument as it is a way of clarifying one's point of view.
Cobra, when making a legitimate distinction between a man and something else, it isn't a fallacy.
I don't find the concept of a "real man" inherently problematic.