|
Post by marsexplorer on Mar 16, 2017 20:52:28 GMT
We're living in an age of such entitled narcissism that people desperately want to conflate individuality with biological distinctiveness. They've dyed their hair, they've got the tats, they've got the piercings and yet the world still isn't noticing them. What else can they do to demand that the world acknowledges their uniqueness? Well, they can be so unique as to deserve their own gender. That's top trumps for biological distinctiveness. There are two genders. This is a biological fact. That individuals may deviate from them does not mean we send them to the gulag or the concentration camps, it simply means there are biological norms. Human beings have two eyes. If someone is born with one or three (or even born with two but identifies as a three eyed person), this does not result in a new biologically distinct life-form -- it results in a deviation from the biological norm. That doesn't mean we hate them or want to stop them from working in the local green grocers. It simply means that there are deviations from the norm. The zealous ideology that we must create a society where every single unique individual is scientifically recognised for their uniqueness is ludicrous. If you want to identify as zeeba and reject the biological norm of your existence, that's fine (no-one's stopping you) but please... for the love of God, do not expect (or demand) that the rest of society adhere to that identity lest it be branded hateful and bigoted. Your individuality is not the same as biological distinctiveness. Anyone who says otherwise does not understand (and is a threat to) science. Thank you for that, thank you very much. My day has been filled with idiots and senseless individuals, you are neither of those.
|
|
bd74
Junior Member
#WalkAway
@bd74
Posts: 1,522
Likes: 659
|
Post by bd74 on Mar 16, 2017 21:46:14 GMT
We're living in an age of such entitled narcissism that people desperately want to conflate individuality with biological distinctiveness. Painbow, your posts are hysterical. My favorite:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 21:54:52 GMT
I'll assume you're a bit slow.
|
|
|
Post by woozlewuzzle on Mar 17, 2017 6:06:25 GMT
Please cite any scientific sources that prove there are 49 genders. Thanks. I haven't made that claim. Or any claim. You made a claim, though. can you back it up, or can you not? So far it's not. No no Spanky, let's see that source for 49 genders existing. Go on: we're waiting.
|
|
|
Post by woozlewuzzle on Mar 17, 2017 6:08:23 GMT
We're living in an age of such entitled narcissism that people desperately want to conflate individuality with biological distinctiveness. They've dyed their hair, they've got the tats, they've got the piercings and yet the world still isn't noticing them. What else can they do to demand that the world acknowledges their uniqueness? Well, they can be so unique as to deserve their own gender. That's top trumps for biological distinctiveness. There are two genders. This is a biological fact. That individuals may deviate from them does not mean we send them to the gulag or the concentration camps, it simply means there are biological norms. Human beings have two eyes. If someone is born with one or three (or even born with two but identifies as a three eyed person), this does not result in a new biologically distinct life-form -- it results in a deviation from the biological norm. That doesn't mean we hate them or want to stop them from working in the local green grocers. It simply means that there are deviations from the norm. The zealous ideology that we must create a society where every single unique individual is scientifically recognised for their uniqueness is ludicrous. If you want to identify as zeeba and reject the biological norm of your existence, that's fine (no-one's stopping you) but please... for the love of God, do not expect (or demand) that the rest of society adhere to that identity lest it be branded hateful and bigoted. Your individuality is not the same as biological distinctiveness. Anyone who says otherwise does not understand (and is a threat to) science. It's sad that you would actually have to explain this but good job.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 17, 2017 10:57:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by woozlewuzzle on Mar 17, 2017 11:32:15 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 12:45:05 GMT
When real science just happens to be the science that affirms your political ideology, you might want to examine your ability to understand science. The article itself begins by accepting the science of biological deviation then goes on to produce a political interpretation of that deviation. You, and other believers are welcome to put your ideological interpretation on science. Just as the rest of us are welcome to laugh at you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 13:38:37 GMT
I haven't made that claim. Or any claim. You made a claim, though. can you back it up, or can you not? So far it's not. No no Spanky, let's see that source for 49 genders existing. Go on: we're waiting. Do you have reading comprehension issues? As I said, you're asking me to support a statement I haven't made or said I believe. But you have said that according to science there's only two. Why won't you provide a scientific source for your claim?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 17, 2017 16:37:38 GMT
When real science just happens to be the science that affirms your political ideology, you might want to examine your ability to understand science. The article itself begins by accepting the science of biological deviation then goes on to produce a political interpretation of that deviation. You, and other believers are welcome to put your ideological interpretation on science. Just as the rest of us are welcome to laugh at you. Sorry, cupcake, but the politics are all on your end. You made an entire post consisting of a childish rant about people in culture you don't like, then claimed in was about science, yet the one and only scientific statement you made was utterly refuted by a purely scientific and non-political article in one of the world's highest regarded journals of science. Science does not support your position, which is not scientific but political and cultural. Grow up and face the facts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 16:42:29 GMT
When real science just happens to be the science that affirms your political ideology, you might want to examine your ability to understand science. The article itself begins by accepting the science of biological deviation then goes on to produce a political interpretation of that deviation. You, and other believers are welcome to put your ideological interpretation on science. Just as the rest of us are welcome to laugh at you. Sorry, cupcake, but the politics are all on your end. You made an entire post consisting of a childish rant about people in culture you don't like, then claimed in was about science, yet the one and only scientific statement you made was utterly refuted by a purely scientific and non-political article in one of the world's highest regarded journals of science. Science does not support your position, which is not scientific but political and cultural. Grow up and face the facts. Science entirely supports my position because my position is... scientific evidence trumps a political interpretation of scientific evidence. You obviously didn't read your own link. It begins by accepting the norm (two genders) as well as the deviations from that norm. Reading will help you.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 18, 2017 14:00:32 GMT
Science entirely supports my position because my position is... scientific evidence trumps a political interpretation of scientific evidence. You obviously didn't read your own link. It begins by accepting the norm (two genders) as well as the deviations from that norm. Reading will help you. No, science does not support your position. The article, which you clearly didn't understand, says that according to the science of biology, gender is a spectrum, not binary, and that culture and society are lagging behind on this issue. This is in direct contradiction to your ignorant, science-free assertion. Absolutely no part of the article supports you. Reading will help you. But not if you are scientifically illiterate, or so deeply in the grip of political ideology that you simply ignore science when it disagrees with what you already believe. Grow up and face the facts: you are on the wrong side of the issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 14:13:56 GMT
Science entirely supports my position because my position is... scientific evidence trumps a political interpretation of scientific evidence. You obviously didn't read your own link. It begins by accepting the norm (two genders) as well as the deviations from that norm. Reading will help you. No, science does not support your position. The article, which you clearly didn't understand, says that according to the science of biology, gender is a spectrum, not binary, and that culture and society are lagging behind on this issue. This is in direct contradiction to your ignorant, science-free assertion. Absolutely no part of the article supports you. Reading will help you. But not if you are scientifically illiterate, or so deeply in the grip of political ideology that you simply ignore science when it disagrees with what you already believe. Grow up and face the facts: you are on the wrong side of the issue. You're clearly a little unhinged. The article is about DSDs. It explores the complexity of gender issues using that as its foundation. At no point does it suggest that gender is anything other than a biological binary but with a culturally influential interpretation of that binary. It explores the deviation from that perspective but still acknowledges that it is dealing with a biological deviation. You might want to read it again but perhaps calm down and approach it with a more subjective, less ideological eye. The article itself concludes with a paragraph that accepts the cultural influence above and beyond the scientific ... Why would one need to ask if the science has confirmed it?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 19, 2017 15:04:28 GMT
No, I'm just a a scientifically literate person dealing with someone who lets political and cultural ideology trump reason and science.
You haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. The biologist who linked the article, which is how I found it, explicitly introduced it as something which says sex is "non-binary", and the very headline calls your binary thinking "simplistic". The article makes a point of saying that the science of gender runs counter to cultural norms which mistakenly believe there are just two genders rather than a spectrum. Get that? Your position is cultural, not scientific.
That's what you need to do, sparky. Only someone deeply in the grip of a highly irrational ideology is going to read that piece and not come away knowing that the notion there are only two genders is rejected by the science.
Boy, it all just went right over your head, didn't it?
The point of that passage, which you didn't get, was that since science shows genders non-binary and exists in a spectrum, for people in the middle of that spectrum, which binary sex they identify with can involve personal choice which science cannot inform in a completely non-arbitrary way.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 19, 2017 15:06:29 GMT
I am not sexist at all but this new feminism that is out today is anti - women. Maybe not sexist, but definitely not very bright or well informed, that's for sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 17:51:39 GMT
No, I'm just a a scientifically literate person dealing with someone who lets political and cultural ideology trump reason and science. You haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. The biologist who linked the article, which is how I found it, explicitly introduced it as something which says sex is "non-binary", and the very headline calls your binary thinking "simplistic". The article makes a point of saying that the science of gender runs counter to cultural norms which mistakenly believe there are just two genders rather than a spectrum. Get that? Your position is cultural, not scientific. That's what you need to do, sparky. Only someone deeply in the grip of a highly irrational ideology is going to read that piece and not come away knowing that the notion there are only two genders is rejected by the science. Boy, it all just went right over your head, didn't it? The point of that passage, which you didn't get, was that since science shows genders non-binary and exists in a spectrum, for people in the middle of that spectrum, which binary sex they identify with can involve personal choice which science cannot inform in a completely non-arbitrary way. Once more, a little unhinged. You seem upset that the science doesn't support your political outlook. That could be a problem for you. I urge you to read the article again then post a quote where any scientists says that beyond being a complex issue, there are anything other than two fixed genders which the deviations stem from. Perhaps you should first examine what a DSD is (especially the use of the word disorder) and explore the possibility that while what they're saying sounds like it supports your ideology, it does in fact reject it as a cultural interpretation of deviation. The reason one needs to ask is because culturally, people may choose to identify outside of those established parameters (parameters firmly established by biological science) but that doesn't mean anyone else has to accept that self-identity. Your individuality is not a scientific marker. Science never has and never will indulge people to that extent. You'll have to get used to that, I'm afraid. When a three eyed boy is born we might discuss the complexity of individual identity, the role of and subversion of norms, the treatment, discrimination and oppression of such a boy (and we may even do it through a scientific debate that pays lip service to those who want to push for that cultural understanding) but ultimately, it will always be a boy who... deviated from the norm. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 20, 2017 16:52:32 GMT
No, I'm just a a scientifically literate person dealing with someone who lets political and cultural ideology trump reason and science. You haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. The biologist who linked the article, which is how I found it, explicitly introduced it as something which says sex is "non-binary", and the very headline calls your binary thinking "simplistic". The article makes a point of saying that the science of gender runs counter to cultural norms which mistakenly believe there are just two genders rather than a spectrum. Get that? Your position is cultural, not scientific. That's what you need to do, sparky. Only someone deeply in the grip of a highly irrational ideology is going to read that piece and not come away knowing that the notion there are only two genders is rejected by the science. Boy, it all just went right over your head, didn't it? The point of that passage, which you didn't get, was that since science shows genders non-binary and exists in a spectrum, for people in the middle of that spectrum, which binary sex they identify with can involve personal choice which science cannot inform in a completely non-arbitrary way. Once more, a little unhinged. You seem upset that the science doesn't support your political outlook. That could be a problem for you. I urge you to read the article again then post a quote where any scientists says that beyond being a complex issue, there are anything other than two fixed genders which the deviations stem from. Perhaps you should first examine what a DSD is (especially the use of the word disorder) and explore the possibility that while what they're saying sounds like it supports your ideology, it does in fact reject it as a cultural interpretation of deviation. The reason one needs to ask is because culturally, people may choose to identify outside of those established parameters (parameters firmly established by biological science) but that doesn't mean anyone else has to accept that self-identity. Your individuality is not a scientific marker. Science never has and never will indulge people to that extent. You'll have to get used to that, I'm afraid. When a three eyed boy is born we might discuss the complexity of individual identity, the role of and subversion of norms, the treatment, discrimination and oppression of such a boy (and we may even do it through a scientific debate that pays lip service to those who want to push for that cultural understanding) but ultimately, it will always be a boy who... deviated from the norm. Nothing more, nothing less. The article clearly refuted your ignorant claim, and the biologist who linked to it--who understands science far better than you-- explicitly described it as explaining that sex is non-binary. That is the verdict of science, whether it suits your backwards, Neanderthal politics or not. Case closed. All you are doing is acting like a child with his hands over his ears and eyes telling "La-la-la" instead of paying attention to what was put in front of him. Continue to display your bottomless ignorance in public. I'm done with you, having already made my case with a scientific citation you choose to distort and ignore. You could have acted like a mature adult and just admitted you had spoken in error. You chose to make a fool of yourself instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 17:05:22 GMT
Once more, a little unhinged. You seem upset that the science doesn't support your political outlook. That could be a problem for you. I urge you to read the article again then post a quote where any scientists says that beyond being a complex issue, there are anything other than two fixed genders which the deviations stem from. Perhaps you should first examine what a DSD is (especially the use of the word disorder) and explore the possibility that while what they're saying sounds like it supports your ideology, it does in fact reject it as a cultural interpretation of deviation. The reason one needs to ask is because culturally, people may choose to identify outside of those established parameters (parameters firmly established by biological science) but that doesn't mean anyone else has to accept that self-identity. Your individuality is not a scientific marker. Science never has and never will indulge people to that extent. You'll have to get used to that, I'm afraid. When a three eyed boy is born we might discuss the complexity of individual identity, the role of and subversion of norms, the treatment, discrimination and oppression of such a boy (and we may even do it through a scientific debate that pays lip service to those who want to push for that cultural understanding) but ultimately, it will always be a boy who... deviated from the norm. Nothing more, nothing less. The article clearly refuted your ignorant claim, and the biologist who linked to it--who understands science far better than you-- explicitly described it as explaining that sex is non-binary. That is the verdict of science, whether it suits your backwards, Neanderthal politics or not. Case closed. All you are doing is acting like a child with his hands over his ears and eyes telling "La-la-la" instead of paying attention to what was put in front of him. Continue to display your bottomless ignorance in public. I'm done with you, having already made my case with a scientific citation you choose to distort and ignore. You could have acted like a mature adult and just admitted you had spoken in error. You chose to make a fool of yourself instead. It's difficult to debate with someone who lacks reason but I'll keep trying because it's important. No scientists ever has or ever will describe gender has anything other than male and female with a spectrum of "identities" between them BUT that is not non-binary -- it is a spectrum with fixed points of male and female. No scientist will ever say that there is a third or fourth gender (not without becoming a laughing stock). They will discuss and debate the complexities and use the cultural spectrum as a method of doing so but they will NEVER claim that there are anything but two genders. At best, your political ideology will bully them into accepting the concept of a cultural spectrum as a compromise but this will not change the fact that biologically, there are two genders and the act of patting ideological zealots on the head with that compromise will not change that. Where in the article do they say there are three or four genders? They don't. They address complexity (via use of the term DSD... does the word disorder suggest to you that they're on board with your politics?) by acknowledging the concept of a spectrum -- important to ideological zealots -- but go no further. Science cannot be held at gun point by your politics (even when they compromise). Read the article again and QUOTE where the say there are biologically three, four, five genders. You're seeing something that isn't there because you want to see it. Spectrum and non-binary are words designed to placate a very specific group of people. You surely know that.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 20, 2017 21:36:33 GMT
We're living in an age of such entitled narcissism that people desperately want to conflate individuality with biological distinctiveness. They've dyed their hair, they've got the tats, they've got the piercings and yet the world still isn't noticing them. What else can they do to demand that the world acknowledges their uniqueness? Well, they can be so unique as to deserve their own gender. That's top trumps for biological distinctiveness. There are two genders. This is a biological fact. That individuals may deviate from them does not mean we send them to the gulag or the concentration camps, it simply means there are biological norms. Human beings have two eyes. If someone is born with one or three (or even born with two but identifies as a three eyed person), this does not result in a new biologically distinct life-form -- it results in a deviation from the biological norm. That doesn't mean we hate them or want to stop them from working in the local green grocers. It simply means that there are deviations from the norm. The zealous ideology that we must create a society where every single unique individual is scientifically recognised for their uniqueness is ludicrous. If you want to identify as zeeba and reject the biological norm of your existence, that's fine (no-one's stopping you) but please... for the love of God, do not expect (or demand) that the rest of society adhere to that identity lest it be branded hateful and bigoted. Your individuality is not the same as biological distinctiveness. Anyone who says otherwise does not understand (and is a threat to) science. You've confused gender (a social construct) with sex (a biological construct).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 22:34:14 GMT
We're living in an age of such entitled narcissism that people desperately want to conflate individuality with biological distinctiveness. They've dyed their hair, they've got the tats, they've got the piercings and yet the world still isn't noticing them. What else can they do to demand that the world acknowledges their uniqueness? Well, they can be so unique as to deserve their own gender. That's top trumps for biological distinctiveness. There are two genders. This is a biological fact. That individuals may deviate from them does not mean we send them to the gulag or the concentration camps, it simply means there are biological norms. Human beings have two eyes. If someone is born with one or three (or even born with two but identifies as a three eyed person), this does not result in a new biologically distinct life-form -- it results in a deviation from the biological norm. That doesn't mean we hate them or want to stop them from working in the local green grocers. It simply means that there are deviations from the norm. The zealous ideology that we must create a society where every single unique individual is scientifically recognised for their uniqueness is ludicrous. If you want to identify as zeeba and reject the biological norm of your existence, that's fine (no-one's stopping you) but please... for the love of God, do not expect (or demand) that the rest of society adhere to that identity lest it be branded hateful and bigoted. Your individuality is not the same as biological distinctiveness. Anyone who says otherwise does not understand (and is a threat to) science. You've confused gender (a social construct) with sex (a biological construct). A meaningless distinction. You could just as easily say I've confused black people with imaginary black people. Semantics will no doubt play a big role in the coming debate though.
|
|