Here’s the article on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

In short, this fallacy is when you combine an argument that is easy to proove (motte) with another that is more difficult to prove (bailey). When someone refutes the bailey, one would say that they are refuting the motte (which isn’t true)

The first example given is what I’m talking about in reference to gender:

An example given by Shackel is the statement “morality is socially constructed”. In this example, the motte is that our beliefs about right and wrong are socially constructed, while the bailey is that there is no such thing as right and wrong.

    • nullOP
      1·
      1 month ago

      The “gender (as in gender norms) is socialy constructed” and “gender (as in gender identity) is not real” statement.

      It’s often used to argue why trans people shouldn’t transition (for example, if we would erase gender norms, dysphoria wouldn’t be a thing). Or even that trans women are gender non-conforming men and vice-versa for trans men.

      The example that was provided in the article reminded me of the above claims.

      Edit: I also forgot. I tend to not explain myself well and write all over the place. I’m not the best at saying what I mean. So if anything I say is confusing, or even flat out wrong, please let me know.

        • nullOP
          1·
          1 month ago

          Precisely. I’m just saying that it’s often used to argue that something is not real or not important.