All things Transgender related

rgambs

An equal isn't quite right, because I don't keep detailed enough records...but he doesn't consider what I do on my little farm to be legit science.

ecdanc

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

I disagree, please elaborate.  The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same.  The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.

What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist?  Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?

Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....

And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time. 

You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment"
I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system.  Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.

Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!

Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science?  That's what science is.  Period.

"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science." 

All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science.  The degree of sophistication is the variant.
I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off.  Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University.  Yes, I am very jealous.
They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants.  I am just a farmer.  The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting.  He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.

You're not going to convince me that all organized thought is science. I also don't think scientists are going to be particularly keen on an English professor being granted honorary scientist status (a status I don't want). 

rgambs

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

I disagree, please elaborate.  The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same.  The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.

What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist?  Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?

Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....

And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time. 

You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment"
I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system.  Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.

Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!

Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science?  That's what science is.  Period.

"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science." 

All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science.  The degree of sophistication is the variant.
I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off.  Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University.  Yes, I am very jealous.
They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants.  I am just a farmer.  The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting.  He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.

You're not going to convince me that all organized thought is science. I also don't think scientists are going to be particularly keen on an English professor being granted honorary scientist status (a status I don't want). 

It's far less preposterous than your apparent position that all organized thought is a social construct.

ecdanc

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

I disagree, please elaborate.  The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same.  The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.

What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist?  Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?

Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....

And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time. 

You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment"
I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system.  Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.

Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!

Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science?  That's what science is.  Period.

"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science." 

All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science.  The degree of sophistication is the variant.
I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off.  Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University.  Yes, I am very jealous.
They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants.  I am just a farmer.  The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting.  He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.

You're not going to convince me that all organized thought is science. I also don't think scientists are going to be particularly keen on an English professor being granted honorary scientist status (a status I don't want). 

It's far less preposterous than your apparent position that all organized thought is a social construct.

"He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me." Not extending me the same deference?

mickeyrat

create a science vs. xxx  thread and debate this there.

rgambs

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

I disagree, please elaborate.  The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same.  The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.

What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist?  Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?

Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....

And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time. 

You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment"
I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system.  Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.

Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!

Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science?  That's what science is.  Period.

"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science." 

All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science.  The degree of sophistication is the variant.
I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off.  Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University.  Yes, I am very jealous.
They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants.  I am just a farmer.  The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting.  He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.

You're not going to convince me that all organized thought is science. I also don't think scientists are going to be particularly keen on an English professor being granted honorary scientist status (a status I don't want). 

It's far less preposterous than your apparent position that all organized thought is a social construct.

"He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me." Not extending me the same deference?

PhD in English?  Nope lol. This has been fun.
Actually though, I am a HUGE (and hugely amateur) lover of literature. 
Can you give me a sampling of your favorite literary figures?
To bring it back to the topic, was there ever any part of your English professor side that grappled with using a traditionally (though never exclusively) plural pronoun for your singular child?

ecdanc

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

I disagree, please elaborate.  The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same.  The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.

What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist?  Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?

Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....

And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time. 

You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment"
I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system.  Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.

Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!

Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science?  That's what science is.  Period.

"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science." 

All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science.  The degree of sophistication is the variant.
I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off.  Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University.  Yes, I am very jealous.
They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants.  I am just a farmer.  The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting.  He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.

You're not going to convince me that all organized thought is science. I also don't think scientists are going to be particularly keen on an English professor being granted honorary scientist status (a status I don't want). 

It's far less preposterous than your apparent position that all organized thought is a social construct.

"He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me." Not extending me the same deference?

PhD in English?  Nope lol. This has been fun.
Actually though, I am a HUGE (and hugely amateur) lover of literature. 
Can you give me a sampling of your favorite literary figures?
To bring it back to the topic, was there ever any part of your English professor side that grappled with using a traditionally (though never exclusively) plural pronoun for your singular child?

I see: you like experts when they say nice things about you; otherwise not.

I'll give you a sampling of important intellectuals on which my work relies: Immanuel Kant, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Jacques Derrida, Antonio Gramsci, and Louis Althusser, amongst others. They're all part of the intellectual tradition you're (unwittingly, I believe) dismissing. 

As for your last question: no. 

rgambs

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

I disagree, please elaborate.  The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same.  The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.

What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist?  Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?

Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....

And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time. 

You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment"
I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system.  Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.

Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!

Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science?  That's what science is.  Period.

"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science." 

All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science.  The degree of sophistication is the variant.
I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off.  Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University.  Yes, I am very jealous.
They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants.  I am just a farmer.  The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting.  He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.

You're not going to convince me that all organized thought is science. I also don't think scientists are going to be particularly keen on an English professor being granted honorary scientist status (a status I don't want). 

It's far less preposterous than your apparent position that all organized thought is a social construct.

"He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me." Not extending me the same deference?

PhD in English?  Nope lol. This has been fun.
Actually though, I am a HUGE (and hugely amateur) lover of literature. 
Can you give me a sampling of your favorite literary figures?
To bring it back to the topic, was there ever any part of your English professor side that grappled with using a traditionally (though never exclusively) plural pronoun for your singular child?

I see: you like experts when they say nice things about you; otherwise not.

I'll give you a sampling of important intellectuals on which my work relies: Immanuel Kant, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Jacques Derrida, Antonio Gramsci, and Louis Althusser, amongst others. They're all part of the intellectual tradition you're (unwittingly, I believe) dismissing. 

As for your last question: no. 

Damn, you must be a real hoot at parties lol 

what dreams

Thank God my English major days are over. It's exactly this kind of discussion that has led to the decline of the humanities in universities. I spent four years of my formative life listening to this Marxist-feminist-intersectional drivel, writing bull... papers parroting my professors thinking just to get an A so I could move on. Drove all pleasure in reading out of the discussion. It wasn't until I sat in a conference almost a decade after a fact that a well-regarded professor of Shakespeare (Stephen Greenblatt) finally said the obvious -- "People read because it gives them pleasure. Let's for a moment just focus on what's pleasurable about Shakespeare's language" He got an applause.

Just so I stay on topic. Cross dressing and gender switching in Shakespeare was very much a thing. There may not have been the actual word homosexuality, but it was a thing. Pinning it all on the Victorians is just not accurate. 

ecdanc

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

I disagree, please elaborate.  The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same.  The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.

What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist?  Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?

Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....

And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time. 

You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment"
I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system.  Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.

Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!

Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science?  That's what science is.  Period.

"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science." 

All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science.  The degree of sophistication is the variant.
I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off.  Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University.  Yes, I am very jealous.
They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants.  I am just a farmer.  The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting.  He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.

You're not going to convince me that all organized thought is science. I also don't think scientists are going to be particularly keen on an English professor being granted honorary scientist status (a status I don't want). 

It's far less preposterous than your apparent position that all organized thought is a social construct.

"He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me." Not extending me the same deference?

PhD in English?  Nope lol. This has been fun.
Actually though, I am a HUGE (and hugely amateur) lover of literature. 
Can you give me a sampling of your favorite literary figures?
To bring it back to the topic, was there ever any part of your English professor side that grappled with using a traditionally (though never exclusively) plural pronoun for your singular child?

I see: you like experts when they say nice things about you; otherwise not.

I'll give you a sampling of important intellectuals on which my work relies: Immanuel Kant, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Jacques Derrida, Antonio Gramsci, and Louis Althusser, amongst others. They're all part of the intellectual tradition you're (unwittingly, I believe) dismissing. 

As for your last question: no. 

Damn, you must be a real hoot at parties lol 

Yeah, I get pissed when people shit on stuff they don't understand at parties too. 

mickeyrat

what dreams said:

Thank God my English major days are over. It's exactly this kind of discussion that has led to the decline of the humanities in universities. I spent four years of my formative life listening to this Marxist-feminist-intersectional drivel, writing bull... papers parroting my professors thinking just to get an A so I could move on. Drove all pleasure in reading out of the discussion. It wasn't until I sat in a conference almost a decade after a fact that a well-regarded professor of Shakespeare (Stephen Greenblatt) finally said the obvious -- "People read because it gives them pleasure. Let's for a moment just focus on what's pleasurable about Shakespeare's language" He got an applause.

Just so I stay on topic. Cross dressing and gender switching in Shakespeare was very much a thing. There may not have been the actual word homosexuality, but it was a thing. Pinning it all on the Victorians is just not accurate. 

within the works themselves or primarily in the production of same?

ecdanc

what dreams said:

Thank God my English major days are over. It's exactly this kind of discussion that has led to the decline of the humanities in universities. I spent four years of my formative life listening to this Marxist-feminist-intersectional drivel, writing bull... papers parroting my professors thinking just to get an A so I could move on. Drove all pleasure in reading out of the discussion. It wasn't until I sat in a conference almost a decade after a fact that a well-regarded professor of Shakespeare (Stephen Greenblatt) finally said the obvious -- "People read because it gives them pleasure. Let's for a moment just focus on what's pleasurable about Shakespeare's language" He got an applause.

Just so I stay on topic. Cross dressing and gender switching in Shakespeare was very much a thing. There may not have been the actual word homosexuality, but it was a thing. Pinning it all on the Victorians is just not accurate. 

This post is unintentionally hilarious. Greenblatt is one of the people most responsible for the shift you lament. 

ecdanc

mickeyrat said:

what dreams said:

Thank God my English major days are over. It's exactly this kind of discussion that has led to the decline of the humanities in universities. I spent four years of my formative life listening to this Marxist-feminist-intersectional drivel, writing bull... papers parroting my professors thinking just to get an A so I could move on. Drove all pleasure in reading out of the discussion. It wasn't until I sat in a conference almost a decade after a fact that a well-regarded professor of Shakespeare (Stephen Greenblatt) finally said the obvious -- "People read because it gives them pleasure. Let's for a moment just focus on what's pleasurable about Shakespeare's language" He got an applause.

Just so I stay on topic. Cross dressing and gender switching in Shakespeare was very much a thing. There may not have been the actual word homosexuality, but it was a thing. Pinning it all on the Victorians is just not accurate. 

within the works themselves or primarily in the production of same?

Both. But cross dressing is NOT the same thing as transgender identity. 

rgambs

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

I disagree, please elaborate.  The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same.  The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.

What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist?  Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?

Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....

And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time. 

You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment"
I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system.  Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.

Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!

Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science?  That's what science is.  Period.

"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science." 

All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science.  The degree of sophistication is the variant.
I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off.  Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University.  Yes, I am very jealous.
They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants.  I am just a farmer.  The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting.  He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.

You're not going to convince me that all organized thought is science. I also don't think scientists are going to be particularly keen on an English professor being granted honorary scientist status (a status I don't want). 

It's far less preposterous than your apparent position that all organized thought is a social construct.

"He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me." Not extending me the same deference?

PhD in English?  Nope lol. This has been fun.
Actually though, I am a HUGE (and hugely amateur) lover of literature. 
Can you give me a sampling of your favorite literary figures?
To bring it back to the topic, was there ever any part of your English professor side that grappled with using a traditionally (though never exclusively) plural pronoun for your singular child?

I see: you like experts when they say nice things about you; otherwise not.

I'll give you a sampling of important intellectuals on which my work relies: Immanuel Kant, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Jacques Derrida, Antonio Gramsci, and Louis Althusser, amongst others. They're all part of the intellectual tradition you're (unwittingly, I believe) dismissing. 

As for your last question: no. 

Damn, you must be a real hoot at parties lol 

Yeah, I get pissed when people shit on stuff they don't understand at parties too. 

Not a fair assumption that someone who values things differently doesn't understand that which you value.

ecdanc

I sometimes imagine you all at the physician: 

Doc: Sir, you have a fatal disease.

Patient: What makes you such an expert?

Doc: .......

Patient: Agree to disagree. 

rgambs

Do you read anything lighter for fun?

rgambs

Do you read anything lighter for fun?

ecdanc

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

I disagree, please elaborate.  The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same.  The rates of progress and current conclusions are variably influenced by society, but that's a different topic, in my mind.

What other methods of understanding and manipulating the natural world exist?  Obviously spontaneous "luck" breakthroughs will always occur sometimes, but what else?

Religion (a bunch of different ones); philosophy (several variations there); "common sense" (infinite variations there)....

And this part "The methods used to understand and manipulate physical reality are always the same" is just objectively false. They have evolved over time. 

You say that, but you don't present an alternative to "observe, hypothesize, experiment"
I'd like to know how, as an example, humans came to learn the medicinal effects of plants that are dangerous with another system.  Even the most basic form of trial and error is a scientific endeavor that is not a social construct.

Wait, you want to claim all observation, all hypothesization, and all experimentation for science? I'm a fucking scientist, y'all!!

Wait, you want to claim an alternate definition for science?  That's what science is.  Period.

"All science is observation" does not mean "all observation is science." 

All observation followed by hypothesis and experimentation that results in greater understanding, and eventually greater ability to manipulate is science.  The degree of sophistication is the variant.
I know your comment about being a scientist was tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't far off.  Two of my dearest friends are lepidopterists who make a living hiking the Sierra Nevada and Great Basin around Tahoe butterfly hunting for University.  Yes, I am very jealous.
They consider me an equal, though I hold no degree and have no grants.  I am just a farmer.  The truth is that I am constantly making observations, hypothesizing, and experimenting.  He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me.

You're not going to convince me that all organized thought is science. I also don't think scientists are going to be particularly keen on an English professor being granted honorary scientist status (a status I don't want). 

It's far less preposterous than your apparent position that all organized thought is a social construct.

"He's a PhD, so good enough for him is good enough for me." Not extending me the same deference?

PhD in English?  Nope lol. This has been fun.
Actually though, I am a HUGE (and hugely amateur) lover of literature. 
Can you give me a sampling of your favorite literary figures?
To bring it back to the topic, was there ever any part of your English professor side that grappled with using a traditionally (though never exclusively) plural pronoun for your singular child?

I see: you like experts when they say nice things about you; otherwise not.

I'll give you a sampling of important intellectuals on which my work relies: Immanuel Kant, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Jacques Derrida, Antonio Gramsci, and Louis Althusser, amongst others. They're all part of the intellectual tradition you're (unwittingly, I believe) dismissing. 

As for your last question: no. 

Damn, you must be a real hoot at parties lol 

Yeah, I get pissed when people shit on stuff they don't understand at parties too. 

Not a fair assumption that someone who values things differently doesn't understand that which you value.

I'm not assuming; I'm deducing. 

rgambs

ecdanc said:

I sometimes imagine you all at the physician: 

Doc: Sir, you have a fatal disease.

Patient: What makes you such an expert?

Doc: .......

Patient: Agree to disagree. 

Hah!  Just because we don't recognize your expertise (outside of your field) doesn't mean we don't recognize intellectual authority at all.
Clearly you are a very intelligent person, but the desire to be immediately recognized as an authority by strangers on the internet is not a good look.

ecdanc

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

I sometimes imagine you all at the physician: 

Doc: Sir, you have a fatal disease.

Patient: What makes you such an expert?

Doc: .......

Patient: Agree to disagree. 

Hah!  Just because we don't recognize your expertise (outside of your field) doesn't mean we don't recognize intellectual authority at all.
Clearly you are a very intelligent person, but the desire to be immediately recognized as an authority by strangers on the internet is not a good look.

The social constructedness of discourse is not outside my field.