All things Transgender related

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.

LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:

Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?

And how do you establish these tests and proofs?

there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then. 

it was "oooh oooh OOOH". 

What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science? 

you don't need bunson burners to "do science". 

So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is. 

you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.

With the strength of your argument, I should probably just succumb, but I'll press on nonetheless: please tell me a moment of science that precedes and is entirely detached from the social? 

Whoa, wait.  This is a different argument.  How do you say something is completely detached from a social construct?  Every species has a social construct of some sort.  So because science and society operate together, in parallel, this is an un-provable argument.  

Not entirely: if they coexist as you say they do, how did you become certain of the exact relationship between the two?

You can't possibly be certain.  I'm saying they have co-existed since the dawn of time.  Man has used science, and the method for... I don't know how many eons.  And what they could not explain through their version of the scientific method, they chalked up to gods, God, demons, bad humors, and possessed barber/doctor.  As man has advanced, the ratio of science to these myths has adjusted.  We still hold myths/religion in high regard today, as a social construct.  This has all moved together.  

Yet people here express certainty that science isn't a social construct....

Perhaps we're beginning to see why Simon Young, (potentially fake) PhD compared science to religion.  

And I'm not saying it is.  But your challenge of "show me something in science detached from the social construct" does not mean that science is purely an output of social construct and that if we had a different construct, some fundamental laws of physics would not be true any longer.  Can you really say that if we evolved to be open about gender identity in a way that was consistent with the Greeks, then perhaps the First Law of Thermodynamics may not longer be true?  Of course not.  That's silly.  But it's essentially what you're saying to us.  

Again, you’re conflating science with the reality it explores

So if science is successfully (some times at least) exploring reality, and communicating that reality to us, then how can science only be a product of the social construct?  Maybe I'm missing something here, but you're making a statement and then moving the goal posts around, quite a bit.  

Edit - if that were the case, then when the construct changes, the science would have to change.  Yet that's not the case. 

Two very quick things:

I didn't say it was a product of the social construct, I said it is a social construct. If I wanted to be more precise, I'd say it's a "discourse," but I'm using that word in a highly specific way, so I've tried to avoid it for clarity. 

And, umm...science has changed a shit ton, so....yeah. 

Science changes because more knowledge gained, not because the social construct changes.  You're skipping really important words in my sentence.  That's intellectually dishonest.  

No, science also changes because society changes. 

Okay again.. so if society starts welcoming trans, the first law of thermodynamics may change.  And that's cause and effect.  

Did science become less racist because of facts it discovered or because society changed?

chicken and the egg.  Did scientists begin to understand that there were no physiological differences between 'races'?  Yes.  Did humanity move forward at a somewhat similar pace and determine that all men were created equal?  Maybe.  No one is disputing that science has not had racist or societal influences.  But you would have to believe there were no immutable laws to say that science is a social construct.  For it to BE a social construct, it has to be true all the time.  And the immutable laws of science, such as we know them today, will survive the societal changes. 

Now you answer.  Could trans rights affect the first law of thermodynamics?  Will that law no longer be true if trans athletes get to compete against cis woman?  Let's bring it all back to the beginning here.  

I don’t know any other way to say this: you continue to confuse science with the object of science’s study. Science describes things/phenomena; it does not produce them. 

No one is confusing anything.  I didn't say science produced the law I'm speaking of, it was recognized.  Your statement about social construct and science is not exactly widely accepted.  So I don't know why you would think that you would be able to convince people on the board of this hypothesis when it isn't exactly mainstream.  Certainly you can pull examples where it is true, but your statement is not true all the time.  You ignore the counter-examples and make glib statements that are incomplete to what the point was.  

No, amongst scholars, mine is the more common position. 

Ha!  Okay, scholar.  You really showed your chops today. 

cincybearcat

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

I kinda feel that this whole thread has become 1 person telling everyone else they are wrong without ever stating anything of their own.  That always bugs me.

Or it has become several people telling one person he is wrong without saying anything. A matter of perspective?

no, we express our opinion. you are telling us that scientists would let out a collective groan if they were to see this thread. see the difference?

You don’t get an opinion on this. More accurately, your opinion doesn’t matter. I can have the opinion that throwing spaghetti at my car will make it run better, but that doesn’t mean I’m saying anything about auto repair. 

HAHA. 

You can laugh if you want, but if you can't recognize the difference between an opinion and a claim/argument, you'll never be able to have an actual intellectual conversation. 

Ummm you should probably chill with your condescending bullshit. 

How is that condescending? It’s a straightforward fact. 

So let me get this straight. You’ve said nothing but facts and everyone else would be laughed at by transgenders, scientists, and ibabies or whatever you call a baby just to feel special (since baby itself has no gender already)?

mcgruff10

I have five kids (four boys and one girl) and honestly do not care who they marry as long as they are are happy. However I can’t imagine not calling them he/she, girl/boy, dude, bro, etc.   To me that is way too extreme.  To each their own.  
@mrussel1 that was one funny ass story you
told about your son.  

ecdanc

mcgruff10 said:

I have five kids (four boys and one girl) and honestly do not care who they marry as long as they are are happy. However I can’t imagine not calling them he/she, girl/boy, dude, bro, etc.   To me that is way too extreme.  To each their own.  
@mrussel1 that was one funny ass story you
told about your son.  

Is it too extreme for you to? Or so extreme you don’t think anyone should do it?

mickeyrat

who here is age

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60 to older than dirt

it may help bring some type of understanding as to where folks are coming from.

ecdanc

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

I kinda feel that this whole thread has become 1 person telling everyone else they are wrong without ever stating anything of their own.  That always bugs me.

Or it has become several people telling one person he is wrong without saying anything. A matter of perspective?

no, we express our opinion. you are telling us that scientists would let out a collective groan if they were to see this thread. see the difference?

You don’t get an opinion on this. More accurately, your opinion doesn’t matter. I can have the opinion that throwing spaghetti at my car will make it run better, but that doesn’t mean I’m saying anything about auto repair. 

HAHA. 

You can laugh if you want, but if you can't recognize the difference between an opinion and a claim/argument, you'll never be able to have an actual intellectual conversation. 

Ummm you should probably chill with your condescending bullshit. 

How is that condescending? It’s a straightforward fact. 

So let me get this straight. You’ve said nothing but facts and everyone else would be laughed at by transgenders, scientists, and ibabies or whatever you call a baby just to feel special (since baby itself has no gender already)?

He was the one laughing at me. 

mickeyrat

mickeyrat said:

who here is age

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60 to older than dirt

it may help bring some type of understanding as to where folks are coming from.

50-59 here. 51 to be exact.

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

mickeyrat said:

who here is age

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60 to older than dirt

it may help bring some type of understanding as to where folks are coming from.

50-59 here. 51 to be exact.

47... 

mcgruff10

ecdanc said:

mcgruff10 said:

I have five kids (four boys and one girl) and honestly do not care who they marry as long as they are are happy. However I can’t imagine not calling them he/she, girl/boy, dude, bro, etc.   To me that is way too extreme.  To each their own.  
@mrussel1 that was one funny ass story you
told about your son.  

Is it too extreme for you to? Or so extreme you don’t think anyone should do it?

I did say to each their own but yes it is too extreme for me and my wife.  
Me:42. Wife:44

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.

LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:

Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?

And how do you establish these tests and proofs?

there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then. 

it was "oooh oooh OOOH". 

What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science? 

you don't need bunson burners to "do science". 

So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is. 

you are the one who called science a "social construct", which is absolutely wrong no matter what angle you look at it.

With the strength of your argument, I should probably just succumb, but I'll press on nonetheless: please tell me a moment of science that precedes and is entirely detached from the social? 

Whoa, wait.  This is a different argument.  How do you say something is completely detached from a social construct?  Every species has a social construct of some sort.  So because science and society operate together, in parallel, this is an un-provable argument.  

Not entirely: if they coexist as you say they do, how did you become certain of the exact relationship between the two?

You can't possibly be certain.  I'm saying they have co-existed since the dawn of time.  Man has used science, and the method for... I don't know how many eons.  And what they could not explain through their version of the scientific method, they chalked up to gods, God, demons, bad humors, and possessed barber/doctor.  As man has advanced, the ratio of science to these myths has adjusted.  We still hold myths/religion in high regard today, as a social construct.  This has all moved together.  

Yet people here express certainty that science isn't a social construct....

Perhaps we're beginning to see why Simon Young, (potentially fake) PhD compared science to religion.  

And I'm not saying it is.  But your challenge of "show me something in science detached from the social construct" does not mean that science is purely an output of social construct and that if we had a different construct, some fundamental laws of physics would not be true any longer.  Can you really say that if we evolved to be open about gender identity in a way that was consistent with the Greeks, then perhaps the First Law of Thermodynamics may not longer be true?  Of course not.  That's silly.  But it's essentially what you're saying to us.  

Again, you’re conflating science with the reality it explores

So if science is successfully (some times at least) exploring reality, and communicating that reality to us, then how can science only be a product of the social construct?  Maybe I'm missing something here, but you're making a statement and then moving the goal posts around, quite a bit.  

Edit - if that were the case, then when the construct changes, the science would have to change.  Yet that's not the case. 

Two very quick things:

I didn't say it was a product of the social construct, I said it is a social construct. If I wanted to be more precise, I'd say it's a "discourse," but I'm using that word in a highly specific way, so I've tried to avoid it for clarity. 

And, umm...science has changed a shit ton, so....yeah. 

Science changes because more knowledge gained, not because the social construct changes.  You're skipping really important words in my sentence.  That's intellectually dishonest.  

No, science also changes because society changes. 

Okay again.. so if society starts welcoming trans, the first law of thermodynamics may change.  And that's cause and effect.  

Did science become less racist because of facts it discovered or because society changed?

chicken and the egg.  Did scientists begin to understand that there were no physiological differences between 'races'?  Yes.  Did humanity move forward at a somewhat similar pace and determine that all men were created equal?  Maybe.  No one is disputing that science has not had racist or societal influences.  But you would have to believe there were no immutable laws to say that science is a social construct.  For it to BE a social construct, it has to be true all the time.  And the immutable laws of science, such as we know them today, will survive the societal changes. 

Now you answer.  Could trans rights affect the first law of thermodynamics?  Will that law no longer be true if trans athletes get to compete against cis woman?  Let's bring it all back to the beginning here.  

I don’t know any other way to say this: you continue to confuse science with the object of science’s study. Science describes things/phenomena; it does not produce them. 

No one is confusing anything.  I didn't say science produced the law I'm speaking of, it was recognized.  Your statement about social construct and science is not exactly widely accepted.  So I don't know why you would think that you would be able to convince people on the board of this hypothesis when it isn't exactly mainstream.  Certainly you can pull examples where it is true, but your statement is not true all the time.  You ignore the counter-examples and make glib statements that are incomplete to what the point was.  

No, amongst scholars, mine is the more common position. 

Ha!  Okay, scholar.  You really showed your chops today. 

Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?

Like no.  Who could possibly deny that but Trump?  I deny that you've made your case with any efficacy whatsoever.  You move goalposts and cherry pick sentences.  You disparage the motives of others, call them bigots, tell them to go fuck themselves, and everything in between.  Yet you can't understand why people just...won't....buy...your arguments.  It's because they are weak and ineffectual, not because we aren't 'scholars' like you.  And by the way, several of us have advanced degrees.  

ecdanc

mcgruff10 said:

ecdanc said:

mcgruff10 said:

I have five kids (four boys and one girl) and honestly do not care who they marry as long as they are are happy. However I can’t imagine not calling them he/she, girl/boy, dude, bro, etc.   To me that is way too extreme.  To each their own.  
@mrussel1 that was one funny ass story you
told about your son.  

Is it too extreme for you to? Or so extreme you don’t think anyone should do it?

I did say to each their own but yes it is too extreme for me and my wife.  
Me:42. Wife:44

That’s fair. I’m 40, wife 36. We don’t personally know anyone else raising their kids gender neutral. 

amethgr8

I am 53, female.  Raised very traditionally, married to a male.  And maybe a little bit of wanting to be married with children like a good wife.  But four of us raised the same environment, but two boys and two girls,boys got motor cycles and we got horses. They had to shovel the do lawn and we cleaned and cook.

I hated wearing dresses and have never worn make up.  There may have been a little envy, boys could do so much different.  But now I see maybe they could have looked at us the same, who knows.  I don't think it matters much, kids grow and do what they want as adults, there has to be a baseline.  

I think 50 years from now, all the labels will be gone, people will have little pretense about what they or their parts "should" look like as they all deliver intimatcy, love and organism.  It will just be people that can carry babies and people that don't.

IDK, I got thru 6pages of this post and had to give my 2cents.

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?

Like no.  Who could possibly deny that but Trump?  I deny that you've made your case with any efficacy whatsoever.  You move goalposts and cherry pick sentences.  You disparage the motives of others, call them bigots, tell them to go fuck themselves, and everything in between.  Yet you can't understand why people just...won't....buy...your arguments.  It's because they are weak and ineffectual, not because we aren't 'scholars' like you.  And by the way, several of us have advanced degrees.  

The ground of the argument has shifted slightly, as I've adapted to the various statements thrown at me (e.g., appeals to science as a sort of infallible arbiter required us to go down the rabbit hole we now find ourselves). But it's you who have actually tried to shift not so much the grounds of the argument, but it's rules: you assert that since mine is the less common position, I bear the burden of convincing you. When I say, "that's not true amongst scholars," I'm not making an argument; I'm stating a fact. It is not convincing or unconvincing; it is true or false. To clarify the exact nature of my factual statement, I'd like to be precise about what I'm saying. We find ourselves right now primarily discussing whether science is a social construction. That is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical one. More exactly, it's a question explored by philosophers of science. Science does not consider it's own nature--that's largely outside the scope of it's epistemology. All I can tell you, then, is that quite certainly mine is the dominant position amongst scholars who consider this question. I can't speak for what is more common amongst all people, and will not try to do so, but I find it absurd to defer to "common" understanding (as that which must be overturned) rather than the general understanding of people who study the topic. 

amethgr8

Common in this context is a matter of perspective, regarding upbringing, experience, education etc that brings anyone to their own view.

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?

Like no.  Who could possibly deny that but Trump?  I deny that you've made your case with any efficacy whatsoever.  You move goalposts and cherry pick sentences.  You disparage the motives of others, call them bigots, tell them to go fuck themselves, and everything in between.  Yet you can't understand why people just...won't....buy...your arguments.  It's because they are weak and ineffectual, not because we aren't 'scholars' like you.  And by the way, several of us have advanced degrees.  

The ground of the argument has shifted slightly, as I've adapted to the various statements thrown at me (e.g., appeals to science as a sort of infallible arbiter required us to go down the rabbit hole we now find ourselves). But it's you who have actually tried to shift not so much the grounds of the argument, but it's rules: you assert that since mine is the less common position, I bear the burden of convincing you. When I say, "that's not true amongst scholars," I'm not making an argument; I'm stating a fact. It is not convincing or unconvincing; it is true or false. To clarify the exact nature of my factual statement, I'd like to be precise about what I'm saying. We find ourselves right now primarily discussing whether science is a social construction. That is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical one. More exactly, it's a question explored by philosophers of science. Science does not consider it's own nature--that's largely outside the scope of it's epistemology. All I can tell you, then, is that quite certainly mine is the dominant position amongst scholars who consider this question. I can't speak for what is more common amongst all people, and will not try to do so, but I find it absurd to defer to "common" understanding (as that which must be overturned) rather than the general understanding of people who study the topic. 

You made the statement,  so yeah it's up to you to make the case.  That's kind of how arguments work. 

brianlux

amethgr8 said:

I am 53, female.  Raised very traditionally, married to a male.  And maybe a little bit of wanting to be married with children like a good wife.  But four of us raised the same environment, but two boys and two girls,boys got motor cycles and we got horses. They had to shovel the do lawn and we cleaned and cook.

I hated wearing dresses and have never worn make up.  There may have been a little envy, boys could do so much different.  But now I see maybe they could have looked at us the same, who knows.  I don't think it matters much, kids grow and do what they want as adults, there has to be a baseline.  

I think 50 years from now, all the labels will be gone, people will have little pretense about what they or their parts "should" look like as they all deliver intimatcy, love and organism.  It will just be people that can carry babies and people that don't.

IDK, I got thru 6pages of this post and had to give my 2cents.

On the other hand (and I know I will get clawed by some cat for saying this), but on the other hand, some of this reminds me of the way some of my generation thought back in the sixties- all that age of Aquarius bullshit and living on communes etc.  Many of my peers thought they were "enlightened" and shoved these ideas onto their kids, gave then weird names like Wavy Gravy did (who also did some fine work, so I'm not saying it was all b.s.), or brought them up in squalor and that that was groovy.  But then a lot of these kids grew up and rejected theirs parents notions a far fetched, and some (and I know some of these people well, so this is not conjecture), some even hated their parents for a time for raising them under conditions that they later considered  questionable at best.  Young parents would do well to consider that not everything they believe will be seen as gold by their kids as they grow up. 

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?

Like no.  Who could possibly deny that but Trump?  I deny that you've made your case with any efficacy whatsoever.  You move goalposts and cherry pick sentences.  You disparage the motives of others, call them bigots, tell them to go fuck themselves, and everything in between.  Yet you can't understand why people just...won't....buy...your arguments.  It's because they are weak and ineffectual, not because we aren't 'scholars' like you.  And by the way, several of us have advanced degrees.  

The ground of the argument has shifted slightly, as I've adapted to the various statements thrown at me (e.g., appeals to science as a sort of infallible arbiter required us to go down the rabbit hole we now find ourselves). But it's you who have actually tried to shift not so much the grounds of the argument, but it's rules: you assert that since mine is the less common position, I bear the burden of convincing you. When I say, "that's not true amongst scholars," I'm not making an argument; I'm stating a fact. It is not convincing or unconvincing; it is true or false. To clarify the exact nature of my factual statement, I'd like to be precise about what I'm saying. We find ourselves right now primarily discussing whether science is a social construction. That is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical one. More exactly, it's a question explored by philosophers of science. Science does not consider it's own nature--that's largely outside the scope of it's epistemology. All I can tell you, then, is that quite certainly mine is the dominant position amongst scholars who consider this question. I can't speak for what is more common amongst all people, and will not try to do so, but I find it absurd to defer to "common" understanding (as that which must be overturned) rather than the general understanding of people who study the topic. 

You made the statement,  so yeah it's up to you to make the case.  That's kind of how arguments work. 

I don't even know to what statement you're referring here. 

ecdanc

brianlux said:

amethgr8 said:

I am 53, female.  Raised very traditionally, married to a male.  And maybe a little bit of wanting to be married with children like a good wife.  But four of us raised the same environment, but two boys and two girls,boys got motor cycles and we got horses. They had to shovel the do lawn and we cleaned and cook.

I hated wearing dresses and have never worn make up.  There may have been a little envy, boys could do so much different.  But now I see maybe they could have looked at us the same, who knows.  I don't think it matters much, kids grow and do what they want as adults, there has to be a baseline.  

I think 50 years from now, all the labels will be gone, people will have little pretense about what they or their parts "should" look like as they all deliver intimatcy, love and organism.  It will just be people that can carry babies and people that don't.

IDK, I got thru 6pages of this post and had to give my 2cents.

On the other hand (and I know I will get clawed by some cat for saying this), but on the other hand, some of this reminds me of the way some of my generation thought back in the sixties- all that age of Aquarius bullshit and living on communes etc.  Many of my peers thought they were "enlightened" and shoved these ideas onto their kids, gave then weird names like Wavy Gravy did (who also did some fine work, so I'm not saying it was all b.s.), or brought them up in squalor and that that was groovy.  But then a lot of these kids grew up and rejected theirs parents notions a far fetched, and some (and I know some of these people well, so this is not conjecture), some even hated their parents for a time for raising them under conditions that they later considered  questionable at best.  Young parents would do well to consider that not everything they believe will be seen as gold by their kids as they grow up. 

It's true. I'm still miffed that my parents raised me with such strict and antiquated notions of gender. 

mcgruff10

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

amethgr8 said:

I am 53, female.  Raised very traditionally, married to a male.  And maybe a little bit of wanting to be married with children like a good wife.  But four of us raised the same environment, but two boys and two girls,boys got motor cycles and we got horses. They had to shovel the do lawn and we cleaned and cook.

I hated wearing dresses and have never worn make up.  There may have been a little envy, boys could do so much different.  But now I see maybe they could have looked at us the same, who knows.  I don't think it matters much, kids grow and do what they want as adults, there has to be a baseline.  

I think 50 years from now, all the labels will be gone, people will have little pretense about what they or their parts "should" look like as they all deliver intimatcy, love and organism.  It will just be people that can carry babies and people that don't.

IDK, I got thru 6pages of this post and had to give my 2cents.

On the other hand (and I know I will get clawed by some cat for saying this), but on the other hand, some of this reminds me of the way some of my generation thought back in the sixties- all that age of Aquarius bullshit and living on communes etc.  Many of my peers thought they were "enlightened" and shoved these ideas onto their kids, gave then weird names like Wavy Gravy did (who also did some fine work, so I'm not saying it was all b.s.), or brought them up in squalor and that that was groovy.  But then a lot of these kids grew up and rejected theirs parents notions a far fetched, and some (and I know some of these people well, so this is not conjecture), some even hated their parents for a time for raising them under conditions that they later considered  questionable at best.  Young parents would do well to consider that not everything they believe will be seen as gold by their kids as they grow up. 

It's true. I'm still miffed that my parents raised me with such strict and antiquated notions of gender. 

Why? Do you think you would have turned out different or maybe think you missed out on something?