What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Gender Studies I

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fishman'81 said:
No hatred on my end. There never has been.

In fact, Miss T and I (note the irony) seem to be the only ones on this thread who don't hate, and who don't have an egotistical axe to grind.

The manner in which gender-identity will be legislated is a fascinating topic, and one that is far from settled. Exploring that issue is the sole reason that I check in here on occasion.

I am routinely attacked, but have yet to hear any of the highbrows here put forth a cogent argument against the (apparently) insane notion of establishing legal gender on the basis of anatomy.

Intellectual Fascism is still Fascism.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Fishman'81 said:
Fishman'81 said:
No hatred on my end. There never has been.

In fact, Miss T and I (note the irony) seem to be the only ones on this thread who don't hate, and who don't have an egotistical axe to grind.

The manner in which gender-identity will be legislated is a fascinating topic, and one that is far from settled. Exploring that issue is the sole reason that I check in here on occasion.

I am routinely attacked, but have yet to hear any of the highbrows here put forth a cogent argument against the (apparently) insane notion of establishing legal gender on the basis of anatomy.

Intellectual Fascism is still Fascism.
Click to expand...

Establishing "legal gender" (what does that even mean?) on the basis of anatomy isn't insane - it's morally wrong. There's no reason to put forth that standard other than hate and fear.

How, exactly, would society be worse off if everyone were free to live their best lives in alignment with the person they have discovered themselves to be? What "evil" do you imagine you'd be preventing by focusing on anatomy instead of identity?
Click to expand...
 
LynahFan said:
Fishman'81 said:
Establishing "legal gender" (what does that even mean?) on the basis of anatomy isn't insane - it's morally wrong. There's no reason to put forth that standard other than hate and fear.

How, exactly, would society be worse off if everyone were free to live their best lives in alignment with the person they have discovered themselves to be? What "evil" do you imagine you'd be preventing by focusing on anatomy instead of identity?
Click to expand...

There is no inherent "morality" connection to anatomy.

And I've never used the word "evil" on this largely silly thread.

Furthermore, I have never suggested that people shouldn't be free to live as they choose, within broad limits. But, consider the myriad of social and legai issues...

You OK with the Lia Model in womens' sports? Should men be allowed free access to the Ladies' room/showers whenever they choose to identify as female? Can someone merely purport to be of African heritage and qualify to head the NAACP? Can one claim to "identify" as vaccinated, just by decree, a la Aaron Rodgers?

That's all happened. It's all cut from the same cloth, and it's beyond dumb
Click to expand...
 
Fishman'81 said:
LynahFan said:
There is no inherent "morality" connection to anatomy.

And I've never used the word "evil" on this largely silly thread.

Furthermore, I have never suggested that people shouldn't be free to live as they choose, within broad limits. But, consider the myriad of social and legai issues...

You OK with the Lia Model in womens' sports? Should men be allowed free access to the Ladies' room/showers whenever they choose to identify as female? Can someone merely purport to be of African heritage and qualify to head the NAACP? Can one claim to "identify" as vaccinated, just by decree, a la Aaron Rodgers?

That's all happened. It's all cut from the same cloth, and it's beyond dumb
Click to expand...

“whenever?” Still stuck on that? “Hetero men are creeps, so we should deny trans women their rights.”

That’s the same thinking that brought us some classics like, “hetero men are creeps, so women should wear Elizabethan collars.” Or, “hetero men are creeps, so she was asking for it.”

What’s next? How about, “creepy dudes might install hidden cameras in bathrooms, so we should outlaw cameras?”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I find it comical that society as a whole has evolved and people like Fishy are starting to realize that they are in a minority now. And it's almost as if they are realizing that is kind of sucks to be part of a minority that everyone appears to openly hate...
 
Looking at Fish's responses convinces me that it's like conservatives constantly projecting about pedophilia. When a person is constantly harping on bizarre terrors, you begin to suspect it's not an accusation. It's a confession.
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
Looking at Fish's responses convinces me that it's like conservatives constantly projecting about pedophilia. When a person is constantly harping on bizarre terrors, you begin to suspect it's not an accusation. It's a confession.
Click to expand...

Same time, every night. Only thread he posts on.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Same time, every night. Only thread he posts on.
Click to expand...

Conservatives are just deeply screwed up. They were raised on misogynistic taboos and can only regard women as objects of male desire: virgins or sluts. They fear that without the threat of laws or a fantasy of eternal torment, they would go into little girl's locker rooms and prey on them. And then they generalize their pathology outwards to the world, not realizing that they are abnormal.

The solution seems obvious. Merge GOP registrations with the registered sex offender list.
 
Elsewhere on the internet I was participating in a discussion about people's aggressive refusal to accept new data, specifically if it refutes old data. Take this subject for example. Previously, we thought that simple X and Y chromosomes 100% determined sex and gender. Then, bit by bit, we learned that gender is more of a social construct and can easily be peeled off that. Also, we learned that while X and Y are determining factors into anatomical sex, they aren't the sole determining factors, and that anatomical sex is far more complicated than a simple "do you have this or this set of genes".

But since we have the entire human history built around religion and social order that is counter to this information, we stick our head in the sand and whine about fake news and deride the people - that have always been there - who are actually acting upon said new information.

Outdated science often takes an entire generation to be fully discarded, even when it's proven wrong. It's fascinating. Perhaps more scary than fascinating to many.
 
Swansong said:
Outdated science often takes an entire generation to be fully discarded, even when it's proven wrong. It's fascinating. Perhaps more scary than fascinating to many.
Click to expand...

It's not just stupid people, either. One of Kuhn's revelations in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) was that science does not progress because better evidence leads scientists to reevaluate their ideas. The reason science progresses is older scientists, who cling to their ideas throughout their lives despite new evidence, die.

This is exactly how racism and misogyny are passing away, and how homophobia and transphobia will. The Fish of the world will never learn, they will die. They will attempt to pass their poison to their children but either it won't take or their children, carrying on with the diseased ideas, will eventually die. Insular, idiotic communities like some conservative cults will probably continue to carry the toxin -- this is how conservatives religious communities keep their garbage long after the world has rejected it. But they are punching against the waves and eventually they will disappear.
 
Kepler said:
It's not just stupid people, either. One of Kuhn's revelations in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) was that science does not progress because better evidence leads scientists to reevaluate their ideas. The reason science progresses is older scientists, who cling to their ideas throughout their lives despite new evidence, die.

This is exactly how racism and misogyny are passing away, and how homophobia and transphobia will. The Fish of the world will never learn, they will die. They will attempt to pass their poison to their children but either it won't take or their children, carrying on with the diseased ideas, will eventually die. Insular, idiotic communities like some conservative cults will probably continue to carry the toxin -- this is how conservatives religious communities keep their garbage long after the world has rejected it. But they are punching against the waves and eventually they will disappear.
Click to expand...

None other than Max Planck himself said somewhat famously that "Science progresses one funeral at a time".
 
Kepler said:
I thought "sex" was simply chromosomes. Gender is socially constructed and completely arbitrary.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty far out over my skis on this but it's my understanding that it's largely chromosomal - because everything is - but it isn't as simple as an XX vs. XY thing. Those have a big say in the anatomy/sex, but there are bits of a number of other chromosomes that regulate hormone production, bone structure, organ development and all the other parts of what make an animal an animal. You could have XY - and thus be "male", however your body could have the rest of the genetic structure that's indicating "female", and the results would vary substantially.

Suffice it to say, it is scientifically untrue to declare "there are only two anatomical sexes" because the very definition of "sex" has been misunderstood. And again, this isn't even particularly new research and doesn't at all get into the sociological research into gender constructs.
 
Swansong said:
I'm pretty far out over my skis on this but it's my understanding that it's largely chromosomal - because everything is - but it isn't as simple as an XX vs. XY thing. Those have a big say in the anatomy/sex, but there are bits of a number of other chromosomes that regulate hormone production, bone structure, organ development and all the other parts of what make an animal an animal. You could have XY - and thus be "male", however your body could have the rest of the genetic structure that's indicating "female", and the results would vary substantially.
Click to expand...

Right but I was actually saying the opposite: sex is XX vs XY, and then sexual characteristics float above that and are only a matter of probability in their assignment to actual sex. So, if you've got a XX you're a chick, even if you have a dick.

AFAIC the biologists tell us what sex is, and we decide what our gender is. There is no other court to appeal to. Each person gets to decide that and the rest of us can suck it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top