John Freestone
Graduate Poster
This. Is. Your. Whole. ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Problem.Then think about it briefly.
This. Is. Your. Whole. ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Problem.Then think about it briefly.
Here's some reading for @p0lkaFor more on this, check out the story of biologist, Colin Wright, hounded off his professional jobs forum for arguing that sex is binary.
dailynexus.com
quillette.com
I did.who said any of the ridicule was to silence the other?
I would argue that psychological reactance is the more likely outcome of online ridicule, but since it is pointless to argue with an entire group of people who've crossed over from good faith engagement to ridicule and pile-ons, the person will leave the thread having been reaffirmed in their prior beliefs.The longer ridiculous opinions are ridiculed, the more likely are people to recognise the ridiculousness of them.
This would be a significant improvement in places like New Jersey where the state levies penalties against gyms or spas who continue to segregate by sex rather than gender.I do so love police staying out of our lives and letting us run ourselves.
I haven't read the response yet I will do so after this. A simple response to the SA article is that they reference a one off instance then move on to mention the difficulty of some parents having the difficulty of having to choose whether they bring up their child as boy or girl (gender indoctrination, let them be themselves) according to someone. Then they continue in that vein citing 'some studies' 'some researchers' some person I happened to meet on the street that agrees with me. It's not serious, it's a joke of an article.Here's one of them I've had thrust at me several times - Scientific American, no less. There were others, but I'm on my phone and it's tricky to lay my hands on them. I gather you've not been down this particular rabbit hole very deeply. Just about all the TRAs I've had the pleasure of meeting told me this. Binary sex is old science; we've moved on.
As explained, I used "science" to mean the academic community. Many of the papers, like the above, are mere opinion pieces rather than experimental results, but their authors are meant to have expertise, as are the peer reviewers, and it is those types who have been increasingly educated in woke universities where political correctness subjugated scientific rigor and personal ethics. For more on this, check out the story of biologist, Colin Wright, hounded off his professional jobs search forum for arguing that sex is binary.
A nice response to the SA paper is this.
Yeah, I have to ignore the overwhelm urge to just accept it cos it agrees with me as that way lies madness, but yeah that's a good response.A nice response to the SA paper is this.
That's the way to do it.All claims are directly cited with peer-reviewed biology literature. Refer to the citation number and see the bibliography at the end for the full citation.
Inevitably there will be a separation between sex and gender culturally, it's just taking a longer time than expected.Some people use those words as gendered terms, some people will use them as sexed terms. The law uses them however they are defined. And in the UK, they are defined as sex terms, not gender terms.
Stop with this delusion that the fight is due to ambiguity. It is not, and never has been. It's a pathetic copout and frankly an insult to BOTH sides to argue that people just don't understand what they want.
The same exact thing that's happening now, because this was never driven by word choice. It was always driven by desired outcome.
Why would that be inevitable? This idea seems to be a matter of faith, like the idea that civilization only progresses in one direction. There is no reason to believe it's true. And even if it happens, there's no reason to think it will be perpetual.Inevitably there will be a separation between sex and gender culturally, it's just taking a longer time than expected.
It sounds like a war the way you put it?You are impossibly naive. You do not understand the extent to which the people you are talking about are unhinged and totally disconnected from reality. These are people who truly believe that a male can become a female because he thinks it.
TRAs don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ about facts, science or evidence.
TRA's have infiltrated the rank and file of academia, mainstream media and the political left.
TRAs change the meanings of words to mean whatever suits them, and then claim that was what they always meant.
TRAs are ultra-focused on getting exactly what they want - no exceptions or compromises, and at whatever the cost.
TRAs hate dissenters, they will doxx, swat, threaten to kill and do actual violence on them.
TRAs behave in a cult-like fashion - detransitioners are publicly mocked and vilified.
These are not people that can be reasoned with. Changing signs in toilets, or pointing towards facts and science has ZERO effect on them.
Of course it's a joke. That's the whole point of bringing it up. You've basically been claiming that people can't argue absurdities. But they demonstrably will. Which is why your idea that we can fix the issue with sex labels is delusional.It's not serious, it's a joke of an article.
What belief am I trying to protect in the face of evidence? I'm genuinely curious as I learn things about myself all the time.Why would that be inevitable? This idea seems to be a matter of faith, like the idea that civilization only progresses in one direction. There is no reason to believe it's true. And even if it happens, there's no reason to think it will be perpetual.
Perhaps we are touching on what I described earlier, your belief which you are trying to protect in the face of evidence.
It was brought up as an example of a claim that 'top scientific journals' had been promoting the idea that sex wasn't binary. I'm glad you agree it's a joke.Of course it's a joke. That's the whole point of bringing it up. You've basically been claiming that people can't argue absurdities. But they demonstrably will. Which is why your idea that we can fix the issue with sex labels is delusional.
I don't know. I'm not sure you know. But you're emotionally invested in a factually wrong claim, and you won't let go of it. And the only motivation I can think of for why you would do that is that letting go of your wrong claim threatens some core belief of yours. Possibly connected to the idea that there's an arrow to history, that it only goes "forward" not "backward" (this is in relation to "social advancement", not time travel). But that part is speculation, it might be something else. Maybe you'll be able to figure it out, but you probably have to come to terms with being wrong first, and I doubt you're ready to do that yet.What belief am I trying to protect in the face of evidence? I'm genuinely curious as I learn things about myself all the time.
Yes. That matches what I said. And it contradicts your position that the TRA's can't argue absurdities. They have proven very capable of doing exactly that. Which is why the idea you've been pushing, that relabelling things "female" instead of "women" would fix anything, is factually and obviously wrong.It was brought up as an example of a claim that 'top scientific journals' had been promoting the idea that sex wasn't binary. I'm glad you agree it's a joke.
What is my factually wrong claim? Do you think that I think that the these spooky TRA's (that have infiltrated everything apparently) can't argue absurdities? Not at all? I'm of the opinion that if someone starts saying science things that are not backed up by science then you can just ignore it until it's actually backed up. Not that people cant argue absurdities, but that you can ignore people that do.I don't know. I'm not sure you know. But you're emotionally invested in a factually wrong claim, and you won't let go of it. And the only motivation I can think of for why you would do that is that letting go of your wrong claim threatens some core belief of yours. Possibly connected to the idea that there's an arrow to history, that it only goes "forward" not "backward" (this is in relation to "social advancement", not time travel). But that part is speculation, it might be something else. Maybe you'll be able to figure it out, but you probably have to come to terms with being wrong first, and I doubt you're ready to do that yet.
Yes. That matches what I said. And it contradicts your position that the TRA's can't argue absurdities. They have proven very capable of doing exactly that. Which is why the idea you've been pushing, that relabelling things "female" instead of "women" would fix anything, is factually and obviously wrong.
Free rein, rein it in, toe the line, there are lots of misplaced homonyms out there that make my brain itch.Free REIN. The opposite of "hold your horses".
I just told you: the claim that changing labels from "women" to "female" will do anything to fix the problem or even improve the situation.What is my factually wrong claim?
Ignoring political power doesn't work. It's got nothing to do with whether or not their claims are correct. Being wrong, even demonstrably wrong, has never actually been an impediment to political power.I'm of the opinion that if someone starts saying science things that are not backed up by science then you can just ignore it until it's actually backed up.
Very much this.I'm new in this thread, of course, so take with a pinch of salt, but this reminds me how many people find the cult's assertions so absolutely insane they can't grok it, and instead think we've somehow misunderstood some nuance. It took me a while to accept some people believe they're literally born in the wrong body.
You've said that if people make the claim that sex is a spectrum, just laugh, they can't argue it, and now you're suggesting we ignore it. Unfortunately, that has been causing dreadful damage, so no can do, sorry.What is my factually wrong claim? Do you think that I think that the these spooky TRA's (that have infiltrated everything apparently) can't argue absurdities? Not at all? I'm of the opinion that if someone starts saying science things that are not backed up by science then you can just ignore it until it's actually backed up. Not that people cant argue absurdities, but that you can ignore people that do.
If the people in power didn't accept the core ideas of gender ideology a decade or two ago, it's worth asking how they were persuaded to do so—or at least pretend to do so.TRA's have a seat at the table not because anything they say makes sense, not because their concept of gender as separate from sex is in any way useful, not because "woman" refers to gender and not sex, but because they have political power.
It is. You really have no idea!It sounds like a war the way you put it?
StrawmanDo you really think there's been infiltration of everything that's not you?
Then you're not looking hard enough.I don't see these TRas anywhere yet you see them everywhere and they're a violent threat to society?