• metic@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “That is not how biological scientists define the word ‘drive’.”

    Her argument basic boils down to semantics.

  • BlueNine@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This all seems fine. But it seems, i don’t know, sort of small ball. Like, define the terms and do the work, but how does this matter? In this case the language has a broadly understood term: sex drive. But, we don’t say food drive or sleep drive. As a descriptivist, I start in a dubious position.

    I never thought sex drive meant I would die if I didn’t get laid, nobody thinks that. I never thought using the word drive meant that there was entitlement.

    If people are angry at Dr Nagoski for putting this idea out there, maybe she is hitting at SOMETHING that matters. Or, people are just angry at her for insisting this language matters at all. Hard to say I guess. I am pretty sure shitty people who do shitty things because they feel entitled to other peoples bodies, probably won’t become better if they use different words.

    I’m fairness, she explicitly downplays the importance of this idea at one point in the video saying it is the oldest and simplest piece of science in her book. Perhaps she is only belaboring it due to the reactions the idea receives.