Talk:biotruth

RFV discussion: July–September 2022
A misunderstanding or misrepresentation that is purported to be an inescapable or inherent product of biology.. Theknightwho (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * So, is this term used by people who support or oppose biological essentialism, or both? The 'derogatory' label and updated definition ("misunderstanding or misrepresentation") implies it would be used by opponents, but the example sentence sounds like what a supporter of biological essentialism would say. 98.170.164.88 20:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Until now I wasnt familiar with the term biological essentialism, but   it seems to be very close to the definition except that it's not a countable noun, whereas our word is. Would "a statement in support of biological essentialism" be a good rewording of our current definition?  I agree it doesnt seem like the type of thing that people would do sarcastically unless their whole personality was built around sarcasm (e.g. some notorious social media personalities). — Soap — 20:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I suspect the term has seen occasional use by people who are not aware of its origins and thinking they're coining a new word. The original and novel senses might make the definition difficult to pin down, unless we just stick to the original sense from the Gor novels. Incidentally, the Google Books link no longer works, so they may have removed it. — Soap — 20:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @98.170.164.88 I think it originated as a way of mockingly imitating the pseudo-scientific, jargon-filled language that some people like to use in arguments, but because the term was (probably) never actually used by anyone espousing those views, it simply became an automatic signal that whoever was saying it didn't actually believe it.
 * It's important to separate the etymology from the definition/usage. If you imagine it said "biomisconception" instead, then the definition and usage pair up more intuitively, but for whatever reason it come about that way. I suspect that's why it hasn't had much staying power, though.
 * @Soap I would be surprised if there were any sincere uses of this in support of biological essentialism, to be honest. Theknightwho (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Gor series of fantasy novels takes place in a world where women are hormonally bound to serve men and to enjoy it, and as such, men have no need to feel guilt for what they do. It's a biotruth in the clearest possible sense.  I wrote this in my original response and then deleted it thinking it might be a distraction. The book's text has been removed from Google Books, so I can't show it in full context.  But I am very confident that the original definition used by the author, who I would say likely coined the term, was sincere and not intended for sarcastic use.  The term may have slept for quite some time, used by fans of the novels, until spreading with the rise of the Internet and contact with people holding opposite opinions. — Soap — 12:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up: Knight changed the definition immediately before RFVing it! It still needs cites though. Equinox ◑ 06:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that’s because me, you and Brittletheories were all interpreting the old definition in different ways, and it wasn’t at all clear how it was supposed to be derogatory. I did a bit of digging into the term, and this is how several people explained it in different places. Theknightwho (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up: Knight changed the definition immediately before RFVing it! It still needs cites though. Equinox ◑ 06:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that’s because me, you and Brittletheories were all interpreting the old definition in different ways, and it wasn’t at all clear how it was supposed to be derogatory. I did a bit of digging into the term, and this is how several people explained it in different places. Theknightwho (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see why this has found itself in the crosshairs of WT:DEROGATORY. This term is critical of a particular political philosophy. WT:DEROG applies to terms that denigrate a named individual or a class of people. And in the latter case it is limited to terms that denigrate people on the basis of "ancestry, ethnicity, gender or sex, religion, or sexual orientation." I don't think it was meant to encompass things like or.
 * I first encountered this circa 2013 on Reddit communities and blogs critical of the sort of evolutionary psychology-based views on women and gender espoused within PUA/MRA/incel circles. I suspect it was deliberately borrowed from the Gor novels for the connotation of extreme cavemanny male chauvinism. Beyond that, I think it is used to convey the idea of science wielded as dogma, as received truth that reifies pre-existing conceptions of the world. "There aren't as many women in STEM careers because females brains are evolutionarily hardwired for empathizing over systemizing" is arguably a secular iteration of "God made women to be wives and mothers."
 * I prefer the definition I used when I made the citations page eight years ago (wow!). It's simple but broad enough to encompass a range of ideas and philosophies. Plus it scans as mostly value-neutral to me. Anyway, this is almost certainly attestable by now, so I'll have to rummage around for newer cites. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Cited this under the countable sense (see the citations page). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The citations at Citations:biotruth support the definition given there, so all we have to do is to revert the strange current definition at biotruth to that and then call this RFV-passed. Overlordnat1 (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)