Verv wrote:It wouldn't be deceptive or tricky to have a straight forward debate about gender roles like all of the West was doing in the sixties and seventies.
It is deceptive and tricky to say that all of these other genders exist which don't exist and to never put forward any effort into unpacking everything that it entails. It is also a bit odd because no one wants to talk about the depths that biological gender influences physical reality.
For instance, the universality by which men are more likely to be violent criminals or the way in which they dominate the chess world in spite of it being a purely mental sport are very much things worth discussing, and they are also very much things influenced by the biological reality of having testosterone and a masculine mental profile... but no one wants to discuss it, and that is never the talking point.
But you have a point: is it really necessarily fair to say that the media, academia, etc., are being deceptive? What if they are just bad at being objective and this isn't intentional?
In that regard, sure, I am not so heavily committed to the idea of saying that it is all perpetrated through willful deception.
However, to assert that dozens of genders exist without unpacking them or pointing to some real, actual basis seems... like a bad take on reality.
And when people say that this is science, and elites say this is science, and Bill Nye says this is science, I think they are actually being deceptive.
ii. I think traditional gender roles also shifted from generation to generation, but never shifted as extremely as they have now. I think there are natural changes in how we perceive the relationships between men and women, and the role of women within the household.
I also think it is entirely excusable to say that these would have to change a lot because of the fundamental shift in the division of labor.
But these are things that all operate in the male/female basic concept of gender and labor. I think these don't have that much to do with the topic at hand of non-binary.
All of what you have written here is irrelevant.
You claimed that elites in academia and the media were tricking people.
I pointed out that people do not need to be tricked in order to give up outdated traditional gender roles.
None of what you have written addresses my point.
And it doesn't matter to me if you agree, either. It's about restoring people to sanity.l
No, it is about ending discrimination against non binary people.
It is commonly said that conservative Republican people do not act int heir self interest by voting Republican.
No one acts in their self-interest by convincing themselves they're pangender or non-binary.
Actually, people do act in their self interest when they express themselves honestly and accept themselves for who they are.
... But why would this campaign have to be paid for if the bulk of people involved are in agreement? And this is not even an organized campaign.
If you make a gender studies department an LGBTQ related sociology department, what do you think those people are going to do with their free time? And what will result when we have plenty of kids learning these things for decades?
A whole wing of people in society that believe these things.
And, of course, it will also result in well funded PACs and other organizations, right, but that's beyond the point. There's actually a good video from Mass Resist that talks about how the LGBTQ movement has not been grassroots for a long time, and there really is a lot of money involved in it, but that isn't what I am here to say.
I am here only to say that the bias does exist, and that these people do advocate for this because it is what they are ideologically committed to.
There doesn't have to be a meaningful material sacrifice when the bulk of people have been brought onto this over the decades through education.
Are you now dismissing your own argument about how media and academia tricked everyone?
Good. That argument sucked and made no sense.
You are being really obtuse here, POD:
They are deceiving themselves int he same sense that it is said that Christians deceive themselves by convincing themselves of the truth of the Gospels. It's a turn of phrase -- not a complicated discussion about psychological realities.
You have gone from insulting all non binary people to insulting mem all non binary people, and religious people.
But you still have no argument.
layman wrote:Sure but then trans people are insisting that they live in the body of the wrong gender and want to live the gender role opposite to their biological sex.
And you really expected people to believe you were ignorant to these fundamental contradictions in non binary, trans and feminist ideas?
How are these contradictions?
Drlee wrote:@Godstud @Pants-of-dog
Pull back for a moment and look at what Verve (and I for that matter) are saying.
We do not contend that any INDIVIDUAL who presents him/herself as "binary"
Here is what Gender-Wiki describes as Non-binary:
Have an androgynous (both masculine and feminine) gender identity, such as androgyne.
Have an identity between male and female, such as intergender.
Have a neutral or unrecognized gender identity, such as agender, neutrois, or most xenogenders.
Have multiple gender identities, such as bigender or pangender.
Have a gender identity which varies over time, known as genderfluid.
Have a weak or partial connection to a gender identity, known as demigender.
Are intersex and identify as intersex, know as amalgagender
Have a culturally specific gender identity which exists only within their or their ancestor's culture.
Some states have allowed a "no-gender" response on official documents.
Is this supposed to be an argument or rebuttal to anything?
Now lets talk about the medical community. The medical community has far harder decisions to make about gender assignment than does a group of people trying to be "inclusive". Lee as a private citizen could, and does, simply say "what's it to me?" Let them be whatever they want to be. BUT....
If any one of those above presents to a medical/mental health professional the situation changes. Using trans people as an example (because POD is incapable of understanding the above it would appear) the practitioner is called upon to make profound medical choices for/with his patient. The powerful drugs required to transition someone from one sex to the other are not over the counter. These drugs not only affect secondary sexual traits but also are powerfully psychoactive drugs too. Giving a woman testosterone without careful medical and psychiatric care can be fatal.
Changing sex assignment in children is particularly disturbing for the practitioner. We see parents presenting children for gender reassignment treatment long before that child can make an informed decision for themselves. And this in the face of the clinical evidence which concludes that most gender dysphoria resolves itself to birth gender by the age of 18 medically untreated.
So for a practitioner the question is not what to "believe". It is what to do. Sometimes 'nothing' is the correct answer. Sometimes 'I don't know' is the correct answer. Always referring the patient to an expert is what to do when the physician is out of his comfort zone. But look at the above. Many of these are so vanishingly rare that there really aren't experts. That is not to say that there are not physicians who will not treat. It is to say that they are treating on a belief or political position and not on good science. For me that is the very definition of a scam.
This thread is based upon the posting of one individual but it is not a bad example. Why? Because all patients presenting with these issues are individuals. One thing is clear. The physicians he was dealing with began treatment without sufficient science on the subject or reliable psychiatric care for this individual. And it led to a train wreck. Of course it did.
So practitioners must not shoot from the hip about this nor should they simply accede to the whims of their patient no matter how passionately they insist. ALL of these individuals should be presumed to have serious underlying psychiatric issues and referred for treatment. That is what the APA says to do. That is what any reasonable practitioner would do. Are these real things or made up? Doesn't matter. It may be "cool" to call yourself an androgyne but is it scientifically supportable? Or is it a treatable mental disorder? To reject the later simply because it is not trendy is unscientific and could lead not only to an unhappy mentally ill patient but could lead others to misdiagnose themselves.
At the end of the day, people are free to call themselves whatever they like. They are free to act out however they like providing that they do not harm themselves or others. But when they bang into the medical community it is the science that takes over and not the politician or some ad hoc support group. There is the very real possibility that any of the above are treatable conditions with the "cure" leading to the patient dropping the very notion that they are "that" and resuming their biologically determined identity. How do we know? Because it happens in the majority of early presentation gender dysphoria. That's how.
Am I supposed to read this?
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...