Chabot College Science Is Helping Understanding Gender Question Paper Please see the attached files and the links for materials https://www.theatlantic.co
Chabot College Science Is Helping Understanding Gender Question Paper Please see the attached files and the links for materials
Answer each questions below at least 300 words.
1. Rethinking Gender (also called, in the online version, How Science Is Helping us Understand Gender) offers scientific information about the nature of gender identity. What is some of this scientific information and how might it help us understand people who are transgender or intersex? Does it challenge any of your own ideas about gender and gender identity? If so, how so?
2. What would you say is the main argument of When Children Say Theyre Trans? What does Jesse Sangal want us to think? Who disagrees with her argument? What do you think of the argument? Is it persuasive? Why or why not?
3. How might oversimplification be a problem for people debating issues of gender identity? How might complex issues or topics in the two articles you read this week be oversimplified? Can you think of any oversimplified arguments that people have made about gender identity? Have you heard any oversimplification fallacies in people’s arguments about gender or gender identity? Oversimpli cation
Oversimplification means more or less what its name implies: to make something seem simpler than
it is. There are several ways that oversimplification shows up in argumentative writing.
Sometimes writers make arguments about the causes of a phenomenon. If a phenomenon has
multiple causes, but the writer insists that there is only one cause, the writer is guilty of causal
oversimplification, also called the fallacy of a single cause. For instance, someone might argue that
crime is caused by the breakdown of the traditional family. The breakdown of the family may be one
factor, but certainly there are other possible causes: poverty, drugs, mental illness, violence on
television, the easy availability of guns, etc. It’s reasonable to argue that one cause is more
significant than others. But to pretend that the other causes don’t exist is to be guilty of causal
Another kind of oversimplification is the hasty generalization. This involves jumping to a conclusion
on the basis of very little evidence. Imagine a visitor from another planet were to come to earth and
immediately encounter a drag queen. If he reached the conclusion that human males usually wear
dresses, he would be jumping to a false conclusion, wouldn’t he? Usually, one example doesn’t prove
that something is generally true. (Nor do a small number of examples.) People who only use isolated
examples to prove their points are often criticized for using “anecdotal” evidence–that is, evidence
based on a story or two. Scholars generally prefer evidence based on studies, either from natural or
social scientists, that look at a lot of information in order to draw conclusions. It’s not that examples
are bad evidence, but in isolation they often don’t prove much. A distinction is also often made
between qualitative and quantitative evidence. Quantitative involves studying large numbers of
people or animals (or whatever is being studied), while qualitative looks closely at specific examples.
Sometimes looking closely at specific details provides insights that numeric data can’t fully explain.
The best arguments usually include both kinds of evidence.
The fallacy of exclusion involves ignoring significant evidence because it doesn’t “fit” your argument.
Here’s an example from the “Wise Geek” website: “In the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004,
Florida went to Bush, so it must be a Republican state. In fact, the evidence from 1996, which I
purposely excluded from the sentence above, shows that Florida went to Clinton [a Democrat] in that
election, making this, too, a fallacy of insufficient evidence. By choosing to begin with the data from
2000, I was able to exclude evidence that contradicted the conclusion I wished to draw for the sake
of this exercise.”
Finally, there’s the “straw man” argument. This involves distorting or oversimplifying another person’s
argument, and then refuting the distorted or oversimplified version of the argument. For instance, if
someone said, “In Raising Cain, Michael Thompson and Dan Kindlon argue that gender
characteristics are completely cultural and never have any basis in biology,” that would be a straw
man argument because it’s a misrepresentation of Kindlon and Thompson’s point of view.
Purchase answer to see full