Byrne's argument fails on its own terms because his distinction between biological and social categories does not establish that 'woman' picks out a biological rather than a social kind.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
Byrne(as the author of the argument being critiqued)
A philosopher whose argument is being evaluated in this statement; without more context, this likely refers to David Byrne or another contemporary philosopher who has written about what categories like 'woman' actually refer to.
Distinction between biological and social categories(as the core of Byrne's argument)
The separation between things defined by physical/scientific facts (like DNA or anatomy) versus things defined by society's rules and meanings (like cultural roles or social identity).
On its own terms(describing how the argument is being evaluated)
Using only the internal logic, assumptions, and standards of a particular theory or argument, without bringing in outside ideas.
kind(Boyd's homeostatic property cluster (HPC) theory, applied to both natural and social kinds)
A cluster of entities that stably have similar properties, with those similarities sustained by a causal homeostatic mechanism
picks out(as used in language and reference)
Selects or refers to; in other words, what specific things a word is meant to point to or identify.
Robin Dembroff (2021) responds to Byrne and highlights various problems with Byrne’s argument. First, framing: Byrne assumes from the start that gender terms like ‘woman’ have a single invariant meaning thereby failing to discuss the possibility of terms like ‘woman’ having multiple meanings – something that is a familiar claim made by feminist theorists from various disciplines. Moreover, Byrne (according to Dembroff) assumes without argument that there is a single, universal category of woman
Extraction notes
Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks