Your Truth is Not True Unless I Say it's True // Variant Perception #19

What is truth?

This question has bounced around in philosopher’s brains for millennia. It’s actually a core question that created philosophers in the first place.

It’s a question humans still tear at the fabric of reality to try and solve (they’re literally doing this with large particle accelerators). Our study of physics, chemistry, medicine, and religion is all motivated by this same question. It’s a difficult question, too. Mostly because truth carries multiple definitions for separating fact from fiction. Many of them contradict one another. They allow for plenty of flexibility in determining what is and what is not truth.

I’ve found seven definitions so far. Three I’m going to talk about today. These four different definitions probably lead to more arguments than any other because when you argue over what is true you may not even be arguing about the “facts” of the matter. You could instead be having a philosophical discussion over these four different definitions of truth.

I bring this up because recently, on Twitter, the documentary What is a Woman? by Matt Walsh was shared. Some people laud it as a massive win in the discovery of truth and reclaiming rational sense. Others characterize it as a transphobic hit-piece that only serves to spread Walsh’s ideological agenda.

Now, Dear Reader, I hope you’ve been reading long enough to recognize both of those frames as being biased half-truths. It’s not an either/or judgement. There’s truth in both of those statements.

The premise of the documentary is Matt’s journey to finding the answer to the simple question, “What is a woman?” Walsh journeys across the world speaking to mothers, professors, politicians, psychiatrists, doctors, and even the Maasai people to get answers.

The majority of the people Walsh asks cannot give him a definition. Then, if they do, they use a circular definition saying “a woman is someone who identifies as a woman. Why do you care so much??”

Now, obviously Walsh selects the interviews that build the narrative he wants to reveal. It’s his documentary. However, what this documentary fundamentally questions is not “What is a woman?” it is “What is truth?”

So, I felt it would be a good exercise to see how people much smarter than me have defined truth.

Gender ideology tends to be grounded in the constructivist theory of truth as well as the pragmatic theory.

The constructivist theory of truth suggests our understanding of reality is created through our perceptions and social interactions. In the context of gender, it could mean the concept of gender is created through social interactions and cultural norms.

This frame sees humans as getting conditioned into our gender identities by cultural norms, practices, and expectations. Societies and cultures create and enforce gender norms which people then internalize and express. This perspective was notably advanced by Judith Butler in "Gender Trouble" (1990), where she argues that gender is performative and doesn't have an inherent, independent reality.

The pragmatic theory of truth shares that a statement or belief is true if it produces practical results or is useful. When applied to gender studies, it might mean that certain beliefs about gender (like the existence of non-binary genders) can be considered true if they have practical implications that are useful. Does someone identifying as non-binary or trans confer them any benefits.

Both of these definitions take the perspective that someone’s subjective and personal reality form truth. Contrary to that, Walsh argues that a woman has a clear and simple definition, an adult human female, which he shares at the end of the documentary. To him, a biological, physical observation of reality holds the ultimate truth. Truth, in this definition, is not subjective or personal. It is objective.

This is known as the “Correspondence Theory of Truth” which posits that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes that world. When applied to the discussion of gender, this could imply that the truth about gender would be determined by an objective observation, often biological or physical.

Walsh argues that there are fundamentally two genders, corresponding to the two main biological sexes, and that these biological categories define or strongly influence gender identity and roles. He plants his flag in objective reality.

Now, I don’t believe either Walsh or the people he interviewed will come to a mutual agreement on the question “what is a woman?” because they’re not looking through the same lens of truth. They hold different weights for each. Walsh heavily values physical observation. The majority of the doctors and psychiatrists who are pro gender-affirming care more heavily weight how social and personal experiences create truth.

So, do these different definitions of truth cancel one another out? Does that mean it will be impossible for us to ever come to a conclusion?

Of course not. While there may be multiple definitions and theories on truth that does not mean that truth is impossible to define. However, for me, it does mean that it’s important is to know which truth-defining lens to pick for which situations.

That’s why it’s important to know how you form your own truths. How do you weight your personal, subjective experience compared to physical observations? When do you more heavily rely on your personal experience versus physical observations? Knowing how to swap these lenses within our own pursuit for truth helps us to create a more whole understanding of the world.

The truth is what’s most important is understanding our own frameworks for developing truth, knowing when we use those frameworks, and then, of course, seeking to understand and respect the frames other people use.

My current thought is that different definitions of truth are appropriate in different contexts. I don’t think it’s helpful or fair to use the correspondence theory when someone talks about their spiritual beliefs. Spiritual beliefs are never objective. Spirituality and religion build authority through the constructivist and the pragmatic lenses of truth. Your internal and social experience forms your truth.

Compare that to chemistry or physics. I don’t think any Nobel prize winner would argue that chemistry creates truth through subjective experience. Of course not. Truth in chemistry comes from an observation and measurement of physical reality.

Understanding and navigating the complex landscape of truth is an essential part of our intellectual and emotional lives. By recognizing that different frameworks of truth are more fitting in certain contexts, we can foster not only our own growth and understanding, but also cultivate empathy and respect for the differing perspectives of others.

Stay Truthful,

-Jared