Reddit reviews The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences

Honestly, once you read up enough on anti-psychiatry/pro-psychiatry you start to realise that they're not really ideological positions and more pro/anti establishment movements that borrow each others ideas.

Given you're heavy on the biology side of things, you might find some value reading up on the biopsychsocial model.

Your anarchist/communist leanings will help you on the sociological side of things, although getting to grips with Foucault won't hurt. Don't know enough to make specific recommendations on him, but History of Madness, The Order of Things and The Birth of the Clinic might be relevant.

On the psychology side of things, try reading up on the Power Threat Vulnerability Framework. It argues powerfully against reductionism, although unfortunately that means you really need to read it in detail to fully get it.

I'm going to go point by point, because you just have the order of things so completely wrong that it is not funny and no longer productive.

> No, philosophers have no expertise to talk on matters of biology.

That might matter if this was about some biological principal. It's not. It's about characterizations of things. Which is wholly philosophical. This is not about the chromosomal mechanism that orders pairs from XX to XY or abnormalities that create XO and XXY or even XXX. This is not about that. This is about when we call something (something that does not have axiomatic criteria to begin with) male and when we call something female and why that does or does not matter. That. Is. Philosophy. The philosophy OF language. The philosophy OF biology. The philosophy OF mathematics. They are all aspects of philosophy. I'm sorry you don't know just how expansive philosophy is, but please stop pretending like you know what you are talking about.

> There is key subject matter knowledge in other disciplines that a philosopher has no grasp on nor understanding of.

Ironic...

> I don’t know what your obsession with Michel Foucault is. Is he the only writer you know of? You can stop linking his books because I’m not reading them. I don’t care about what a philosopher has to say about any of this. These are questions for the hard sciences to answer.

If you want to have any discussion of sex or sexuality without Michel Foucault you will be laughed out of every academic setting that will ever exist. Also, as a side note, Foucault would never have called himself a philosopher. He was a theorist.

> hard sciences

You are a caricature.

> Bingo! The exact same thing can be said about the basic defining characteristics of both sexes.

I have never said anything to the contrary. In general, evolutionarily, it is most common for humans to identify in accordance with the two most conventionally accepted sexual identities.

> We don’t eliminate the possible that genetic defects can occur, but it’s overwhelmingly true that the human species has two sexes that each share the same general characteristics (different internal and external organs, hormones, etc)

Wrong. It is overwhelmingly true that most humans identify in ways that have conventionally been considered male and female. However, that is a VERY loaded statement entailing aspects of biology, sociology, philosophy, epistemology, ontology, etc. Whether or not a majority of humans fall within those "categories" is irrelevant as to whether those "categories" are real. Realness is a very odd concept. In this sense Foucault would call these "transactional realities" or things that aren't real but have real effects. You can start here for that. Or I could send you on the hunt for something By Judith Butler or Althusser if you'd rather. Maybe Engels is more up your alley?

Honestly I'm not sure. Enoch Powell wrote it, so I'd start by researching him, his education, and his works.

My first take on that line, knowing that Powell at the least spoke English, Greek, and Latin, was to think about the differences in how people communicate in different languages, the differences in the way they express ideas. I speak four different languages ranging from fluent to semi-fluent to just passable when I'm in the country. One of the things that most interests me when speaking different languages is when I translate for someone else I hardly ever do a 1 to 1 translation, I interpret what they say, and say it in English to deliver the same meaning, but not with the same dictionary translated words. If you reference a thing, an object, or event in English by naming it or describing it, you're only doing just enough so that the sounds you make with your mouth can be interpreted by the ears of the listener to place an idea in their brain. If I say the word ball, you and I could each picture different sized and colored balls in our head, there's nothing absolute about the word ball, yet it's a very simple concept. Both you and the listener's understanding of the object in the ball case is solely based in English. So if two native speakers of the same language carry divergent concepts of what a simple thing such as a ball is, consider the differences two people might have when discussing abstract concepts that have no tangible basis in reality such as laws and politics.

Have you ever come to an agreement with someone on a plan, then found you both went about executing it in different ways?

Words, or the sounds we make with our mouths, aren't absolute things. Or rather, the words we use hardly ever encapsulate 100% of the things we say or talk about.

Now that I think about it, this book kind of deals with this subject - https://www.amazon.com/Order-Things-Archaeology-Human-Sciences/dp/0679753354