All things Transgender related

benjs · February 2020

ecdanc said:

benjs said:

ecdanc said:

mickeyrat said:

oftenreading said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

dignin said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

i have read what was written. no point was missed. people here need to come to the realization that just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean a point was missed, or, as dignin so elegantly put it, as usual, is "fucking weak".

So you didn’t miss the part where I explained that gender expression starts around 3 years old?

I remember you pointing that out. As a father of two boys, one who just turned 3 a few months ago, this sounds about right. Also lines up with all my family and friends experiences who have kids around a similar age.

So most kids will be expressing their gender well before they encounter the roving gangs of cruel five-year-olds.

first, the 5 year old thing was talking about identity, not bullying. but that doesn't match up with the attempt at clever quips.

second, i guess we can tell all those people out there transitioning at age 17, 22, 35, 47, and 69, that they are well behind the curve of modern 3 year olds.

I think this and similar posts show a lack of understanding of what ecdanc is proposing. He's not talking about raising the child in a gender neutral fashion forever, just until the child starts to express/generate their own gender identity, at which point they will raise the child congruent with that gender (presumably while trying to avoid gender stereotypes). All the talk about the child or its little compatriots being "confused" by the lack of gender expectations misses the point, which is that infants and toddlers and preschoolers generally aren't confused by this, or more precisely, they are as confused by this as they are by pretty much everything else, because it's all new and they are just trying to absorb it all. There isn't really any bullying at this age, at least for anything other than "I want that toy so I'm going to take it". By the time the kids reach the age where bullying about perceived differences starts, the child will be expressing their gender identity already.

Those people of 17, 22, 35 or 69 that you're using as examples - they're exactly the ones that would have benefited from this approach. They wouldn't have had to struggle for years or decades with incongruencies between their assigned gender and the gender they perceive themselves to be.

you my friend are a far better advocate for these and other issues....

I feel spoken to. Engaged with.

Not spoken at.

thank you.

And he actually read my posts! (username checks out)

Thanks, oftenreading.

Are you this defensive about your general lack of clarity in a classroom setting as well? This has nothing to do with the reading audience, which hasn't changed, and everything to do with the author.

Dude, fourteen pages ago I said "we're not expecting P to stay gender neutral forever. We're waiting for them to express their gender identity." Was that unclear?

It was on page 1 out of 30 (and counting) that you raised your initial objection. It took you 14 pages of arguing back and forth with individuals to get the same message across that oftenreading did in one post. No, that doesn't exude initial clarity to me. To add to this, I think you probably did a good job of dissuading anyone from reading your subsequent comments by being argumentative, arrogant, and condescending to any with the audacity to disagree or not understand your point.

FWIW, I wanted to mention that while I clearly have no passion for the way you debate/discuss on here, I find it really admirable how you're raising your child to be gender-neutral until they present their own gender to you as parents; that's a major commitment to letting your child walk their own walk.

brianlux · February 2020

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

I think some of y'all take this toddler gender business way too seriously. Some parents give their boys toy trucks to play with and girls dolls (I'm a guy and as an infant, I had both)- so what? Some do the opposite. So what? I know a woman who lived next door to a famous drummer who has a son who wanted to wear a pink dress to school the first day he ever went to school. So what? (I though that was funny as hell- cute!) They are infants. They don't give two shits about this stuff. Jesus, just let them be kids.

You have a full list of the child-rearing issues we should take seriously and those we shouldn’t?

For infants, take seriously:
Loving them
Good nutrition
Safe and clean environment
The health of the planet (they will inherit this ailing earth)

For infants, don't take serious:
Gender issues. Infants don't give two shits about gender issues.

dignin said:

brianlux said:

I think some of y'all take this toddler gender business way too seriously. Some parents give their boys toy trucks to play with and girls dolls (I'm a guy and as an infant, I had both)- so what? Some do the opposite. So what? I know a woman who lived next door to a famous drummer who has a son who wanted to wear a pink dress to school the first day he ever went to school. So what? (I though that was funny as hell- cute!) They are infants. They don't give two shits about this stuff. Jesus, just let them be kids.

Who do you think is taking it too seriously?

The way I see it, the parents being neutral and raising their kids with no pressure to be one or the other are being less serious. Is that how you feel?

I'm only going to talk about the subject. Not in a hurry to get banned.

My infant also seems uninterested in climate change. What am I doing wrong?

Your infant will inherit the earth. It's you who would do well to be concerned about the planet. It's yours and my responsibility to do what we can to help lesson our negative impact on environment for their sake. And I never even reproduced, so you parents especially might want to be concerned about the state of the planet.

Oh, I am concerned. Terrified, in fact. Just can’t seem to get P to care. I tell them about climate change and they just say “ba, ba, grrrrrr.” Since I’m only supposed to focus on the things they give a shit about right now, I’m in a bind. Please advise.

I'm very concerned and this place give me good reason to be concerned. I'm fairly certain this is a forum on which people are generally more environmentally concerned than the average person posting on the internet. And yet, even here, look at the concern level of climate change compared to gender issue:

All Thing Transgender Related thread:
Amount of time it has been on AMT: Less than one month.
Number of responses: 876

The all-purpose, heavy duty Global Warming/ Climate Change thread:
Amount of time it has been on AMT: 8 months
Number of responses: 226

Yeah, that concerns me very, very much.

How many of those 226 posts are from people who don’t think climate change is a problem?

I don't have time to count but look at the stats- the point I made is about what people are more concerned or interested in. I think that's very plane to see. Climate change involves less drama and is less sensationalist than gender issues. Our priorities leave me scratching my head.

ecdanc · February 2020

benjs said:

ecdanc said:

benjs said:

ecdanc said:

mickeyrat said:

oftenreading said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

dignin said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

i have read what was written. no point was missed. people here need to come to the realization that just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean a point was missed, or, as dignin so elegantly put it, as usual, is "fucking weak".

So you didn’t miss the part where I explained that gender expression starts around 3 years old?

I remember you pointing that out. As a father of two boys, one who just turned 3 a few months ago, this sounds about right. Also lines up with all my family and friends experiences who have kids around a similar age.

So most kids will be expressing their gender well before they encounter the roving gangs of cruel five-year-olds.

first, the 5 year old thing was talking about identity, not bullying. but that doesn't match up with the attempt at clever quips.

second, i guess we can tell all those people out there transitioning at age 17, 22, 35, 47, and 69, that they are well behind the curve of modern 3 year olds.

I think this and similar posts show a lack of understanding of what ecdanc is proposing. He's not talking about raising the child in a gender neutral fashion forever, just until the child starts to express/generate their own gender identity, at which point they will raise the child congruent with that gender (presumably while trying to avoid gender stereotypes). All the talk about the child or its little compatriots being "confused" by the lack of gender expectations misses the point, which is that infants and toddlers and preschoolers generally aren't confused by this, or more precisely, they are as confused by this as they are by pretty much everything else, because it's all new and they are just trying to absorb it all. There isn't really any bullying at this age, at least for anything other than "I want that toy so I'm going to take it". By the time the kids reach the age where bullying about perceived differences starts, the child will be expressing their gender identity already.

Those people of 17, 22, 35 or 69 that you're using as examples - they're exactly the ones that would have benefited from this approach. They wouldn't have had to struggle for years or decades with incongruencies between their assigned gender and the gender they perceive themselves to be.

you my friend are a far better advocate for these and other issues....

I feel spoken to. Engaged with.

Not spoken at.

thank you.

And he actually read my posts! (username checks out)

Thanks, oftenreading.

Are you this defensive about your general lack of clarity in a classroom setting as well? This has nothing to do with the reading audience, which hasn't changed, and everything to do with the author.

Dude, fourteen pages ago I said "we're not expecting P to stay gender neutral forever. We're waiting for them to express their gender identity." Was that unclear?

It was on page 1 out of 30 (and counting) that you raised your initial objection. It took you 14 pages of arguing back and forth with individuals to get the same message across that oftenreading did in one post. No, that doesn't exude initial clarity to me. To add to this, I think you probably did a good job of dissuading anyone from reading your subsequent comments by being argumentative, arrogant, and condescending to any with the audacity to disagree or not understand your point.

FWIW, I wanted to mention that while I clearly have no passion for the way you debate/discuss on here, I find it really admirable how you're raising your child to be gender-neutral until they present their own gender to you as parents; that's a major commitment to letting your child walk their own walk.

C'mon, that's a gross mischaracterization of this thread. The first few pages had nothing to do with gender neutral parenting. We got to that topic on p. 4, where you'll find my post that says:

"Children are not born with a gender identity they can express. They are assigned a gender at birth (or, often now, before birth). I’m purposely sidestepping “sex” here to focus on gender, but generally speaking the assigned gender aligns with the child’s genitals (penis = boy, etc.). Gender identity comes later—while there isn’t a great deal of research in this area, some experts suggest this happens as early as three years old. So, while I’m oversimplifying things slightly, a child will express their identity at the same age, regardless of whether they are assigned a gender at birth. Does that help make things clearer?"

Am I being argumentative, arrogant, and/or condescending there? Trolls, my friend.

And FWIW, thank you.

ecdanc · February 2020

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

I think some of y'all take this toddler gender business way too seriously. Some parents give their boys toy trucks to play with and girls dolls (I'm a guy and as an infant, I had both)- so what? Some do the opposite. So what? I know a woman who lived next door to a famous drummer who has a son who wanted to wear a pink dress to school the first day he ever went to school. So what? (I though that was funny as hell- cute!) They are infants. They don't give two shits about this stuff. Jesus, just let them be kids.

You have a full list of the child-rearing issues we should take seriously and those we shouldn’t?

For infants, take seriously:
Loving them
Good nutrition
Safe and clean environment
The health of the planet (they will inherit this ailing earth)

For infants, don't take serious:
Gender issues. Infants don't give two shits about gender issues.

dignin said:

brianlux said:

I think some of y'all take this toddler gender business way too seriously. Some parents give their boys toy trucks to play with and girls dolls (I'm a guy and as an infant, I had both)- so what? Some do the opposite. So what? I know a woman who lived next door to a famous drummer who has a son who wanted to wear a pink dress to school the first day he ever went to school. So what? (I though that was funny as hell- cute!) They are infants. They don't give two shits about this stuff. Jesus, just let them be kids.

Who do you think is taking it too seriously?

The way I see it, the parents being neutral and raising their kids with no pressure to be one or the other are being less serious. Is that how you feel?

I'm only going to talk about the subject. Not in a hurry to get banned.

My infant also seems uninterested in climate change. What am I doing wrong?

Your infant will inherit the earth. It's you who would do well to be concerned about the planet. It's yours and my responsibility to do what we can to help lesson our negative impact on environment for their sake. And I never even reproduced, so you parents especially might want to be concerned about the state of the planet.

Oh, I am concerned. Terrified, in fact. Just can’t seem to get P to care. I tell them about climate change and they just say “ba, ba, grrrrrr.” Since I’m only supposed to focus on the things they give a shit about right now, I’m in a bind. Please advise.

I'm very concerned and this place give me good reason to be concerned. I'm fairly certain this is a forum on which people are generally more environmentally concerned than the average person posting on the internet. And yet, even here, look at the concern level of climate change compared to gender issue:

All Thing Transgender Related thread:
Amount of time it has been on AMT: Less than one month.
Number of responses: 876

The all-purpose, heavy duty Global Warming/ Climate Change thread:
Amount of time it has been on AMT: 8 months
Number of responses: 226

Yeah, that concerns me very, very much.

How many of those 226 posts are from people who don’t think climate change is a problem?

I don't have time to count but look at the stats- the point I made is about what people are more concerned or interested in. I think that's very plane to see. Climate change involves less drama and is less sensationalist than gender issues. Our priorities leave me scratching my head.

And my point is, the number of posts in this thread doesn't imply more people are concerned about transgender people/issues than climate change. I'd say the number of posts here suggests the exact opposite--a whole bunch of people explaining why they aren't concerned.

mickeyrat · February 2020

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

I think some of y'all take this toddler gender business way too seriously. Some parents give their boys toy trucks to play with and girls dolls (I'm a guy and as an infant, I had both)- so what? Some do the opposite. So what? I know a woman who lived next door to a famous drummer who has a son who wanted to wear a pink dress to school the first day he ever went to school. So what? (I though that was funny as hell- cute!) They are infants. They don't give two shits about this stuff. Jesus, just let them be kids.

You have a full list of the child-rearing issues we should take seriously and those we shouldn’t?

For infants, take seriously:
Loving them
Good nutrition
Safe and clean environment
The health of the planet (they will inherit this ailing earth)

For infants, don't take serious:
Gender issues. Infants don't give two shits about gender issues.

dignin said:

brianlux said:

I think some of y'all take this toddler gender business way too seriously. Some parents give their boys toy trucks to play with and girls dolls (I'm a guy and as an infant, I had both)- so what? Some do the opposite. So what? I know a woman who lived next door to a famous drummer who has a son who wanted to wear a pink dress to school the first day he ever went to school. So what? (I though that was funny as hell- cute!) They are infants. They don't give two shits about this stuff. Jesus, just let them be kids.

Who do you think is taking it too seriously?

The way I see it, the parents being neutral and raising their kids with no pressure to be one or the other are being less serious. Is that how you feel?

I'm only going to talk about the subject. Not in a hurry to get banned.

My infant also seems uninterested in climate change. What am I doing wrong?

Your infant will inherit the earth. It's you who would do well to be concerned about the planet. It's yours and my responsibility to do what we can to help lesson our negative impact on environment for their sake. And I never even reproduced, so you parents especially might want to be concerned about the state of the planet.

Oh, I am concerned. Terrified, in fact. Just can’t seem to get P to care. I tell them about climate change and they just say “ba, ba, grrrrrr.” Since I’m only supposed to focus on the things they give a shit about right now, I’m in a bind. Please advise.

I'm very concerned and this place give me good reason to be concerned. I'm fairly certain this is a forum on which people are generally more environmentally concerned than the average person posting on the internet. And yet, even here, look at the concern level of climate change compared to gender issue:

All Thing Transgender Related thread:
Amount of time it has been on AMT: Less than one month.
Number of responses: 876

The all-purpose, heavy duty Global Warming/ Climate Change thread:
Amount of time it has been on AMT: 8 months
Number of responses: 226

Yeah, that concerns me very, very much.

How many of those 226 posts are from people who don’t think climate change is a problem?

I don't have time to count but look at the stats- the point I made is about what people are more concerned or interested in. I think that's very plane to see. Climate change involves less drama and is less sensationalist than gender issues. Our priorities leave me scratching my head.

fully half of the posts in this thread are useless to the overall topic and conversation imo. some of which I own too so I'm not slinging mud just to sling it.

I had hoped for better discourse though. We've seen its possible ........

Spiritual_Chaos · February 2020

I have had a 90-95% quality level on my posts in this thread. I am proud to say.

my board average is 63%.

cincybearcat · February 2020

Spiritual_Chaos said:

I have had a 90-95% quality level on my posts in this thread. I am proud to say.

my board average is 63%.

Fake news

Spiritual_Chaos · February 2020

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

I have had a 90-95% quality level on my posts in this thread. I am proud to say.

my board average is 63%.

Fake news

No need to try to tank your average like this cincy.

mrussel1 · February 2020

brianlux said:

I changed it to "some people" so no one will think I'm talking about YOU. I'm not.

This whole thread occupies way more space than I would really think is justifiable in a world with so many more pressing issues... like, your planet if being fucked and your kids will have to deal with that!

.6%

mrussel1 · February 2020

Spiritual_Chaos said:

I have had a 90-95% quality level on my posts in this thread. I am proud to say.

my board average is 63%.

This is funny. I dare to say that maybe I like the new SC.

dignin · February 2020

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

I think some of y'all take this toddler gender business way too seriously. Some parents give their boys toy trucks to play with and girls dolls (I'm a guy and as an infant, I had both)- so what? Some do the opposite. So what? I know a woman who lived next door to a famous drummer who has a son who wanted to wear a pink dress to school the first day he ever went to school. So what? (I though that was funny as hell- cute!) They are infants. They don't give two shits about this stuff. Jesus, just let them be kids.

You have a full list of the child-rearing issues we should take seriously and those we shouldn’t?

For infants, take seriously:
Loving them
Good nutrition
Safe and clean environment
The health of the planet (they will inherit this ailing earth)

For infants, don't take serious:
Gender issues. Infants don't give two shits about gender issues.

dignin said:

brianlux said:

I think some of y'all take this toddler gender business way too seriously. Some parents give their boys toy trucks to play with and girls dolls (I'm a guy and as an infant, I had both)- so what? Some do the opposite. So what? I know a woman who lived next door to a famous drummer who has a son who wanted to wear a pink dress to school the first day he ever went to school. So what? (I though that was funny as hell- cute!) They are infants. They don't give two shits about this stuff. Jesus, just let them be kids.

Who do you think is taking it too seriously?

The way I see it, the parents being neutral and raising their kids with no pressure to be one or the other are being less serious. Is that how you feel?

I'm only going to talk about the subject. Not in a hurry to get banned.

My infant also seems uninterested in climate change. What am I doing wrong?

Your infant will inherit the earth. It's you who would do well to be concerned about the planet. It's yours and my responsibility to do what we can to help lesson our negative impact on environment for their sake. And I never even reproduced, so you parents especially might want to be concerned about the state of the planet.

Oh, I am concerned. Terrified, in fact. Just can’t seem to get P to care. I tell them about climate change and they just say “ba, ba, grrrrrr.” Since I’m only supposed to focus on the things they give a shit about right now, I’m in a bind. Please advise.

I'm very concerned and this place give me good reason to be concerned. I'm fairly certain this is a forum on which people are generally more environmentally concerned than the average person posting on the internet. And yet, even here, look at the concern level of climate change compared to gender issue:

All Thing Transgender Related thread:
Amount of time it has been on AMT: Less than one month.
Number of responses: 876

The all-purpose, heavy duty Global Warming/ Climate Change thread:
Amount of time it has been on AMT: 8 months
Number of responses: 226

Yeah, that concerns me very, very much.

How many of those 226 posts are from people who don’t think climate change is a problem?

I don't have time to count but look at the stats- the point I made is about what people are more concerned or interested in. I think that's very plane to see. Climate change involves less drama and is less sensationalist than gender issues. Our priorities leave me scratching my head.

I care way more about climate issues. Posting in a thread is a terrible metric to measure how much people care.

cincybearcat · February 2020

Spiritual_Chaos said:

cincybearcat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

I have had a 90-95% quality level on my posts in this thread. I am proud to say.

my board average is 63%.

Fake news

No need to try to tank your average like this cincy.

No we are both dropping

mickeyrat · February 2020

I wonder what, if any , accommodations will be made once he reaches prison. Would assume he starts out in a juvenile facility intil 18.......

16-Year-Old Pleads Guilty to Murder in Colorado School Shooting https://nyti.ms/3898e0t

rgambs · February 2020

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 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?

Yes, because they tested and learned. It's rudimentary and incomplete, but the baby used empirical data to decide not to touch the fire again. I feel like you're mixing philosophy and science here a bit though. Empiricism is more classically contrasted with rationalism, not science.

Historically, most science is empirical. Not universally, but most of it.

What I'm about to say is tongue-in-cheek, but there's a real point in here, as well: are you really comfortable defending science as the definitive source of knowledge if it's something a baby can do?

It was your example, not mine. The scientific method, if we're speaking the same language, is a simple what... 6/7 step process? How deeply in each of those steps is related to the complexity of the problem. That's true for most everything you do in your life. You have a more analytical, information driven decision tree for buying a car than buying a used Styx record. And it's mostly because of the risk and size of the investment. So the baby uses some of the scientific method, as did humans 3500 years ago when inventing the wheel. Still science, in my opinion.

Sorry, man, this isn't an area you get an opinion. You deciding what you're going to buy is not science. And, since you seem to like science, that's a good thing for you.

I'm drawing a correlation to how the baby, or our ancestors used science, not saying buying an album is science. You said that until someone recognized and articulated the scientific method, it didn't exist. At least that was my interpretation earlier. I'm saying humans used the method to varying degrees even though they did not recognize it as such, nor follow every step completely.

Again, scientists everywhere are cringing.

Dude, no they aren't lol
I know a few naturalists and a population geneticist and they would laugh at what you are saying and tell you to drink a beer, burn one, put down the philosophy books and get your hands dirty lol

ecdanc · February 2020

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 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?

Yes, because they tested and learned. It's rudimentary and incomplete, but the baby used empirical data to decide not to touch the fire again. I feel like you're mixing philosophy and science here a bit though. Empiricism is more classically contrasted with rationalism, not science.

Historically, most science is empirical. Not universally, but most of it.

What I'm about to say is tongue-in-cheek, but there's a real point in here, as well: are you really comfortable defending science as the definitive source of knowledge if it's something a baby can do?

It was your example, not mine. The scientific method, if we're speaking the same language, is a simple what... 6/7 step process? How deeply in each of those steps is related to the complexity of the problem. That's true for most everything you do in your life. You have a more analytical, information driven decision tree for buying a car than buying a used Styx record. And it's mostly because of the risk and size of the investment. So the baby uses some of the scientific method, as did humans 3500 years ago when inventing the wheel. Still science, in my opinion.

Sorry, man, this isn't an area you get an opinion. You deciding what you're going to buy is not science. And, since you seem to like science, that's a good thing for you.

I'm drawing a correlation to how the baby, or our ancestors used science, not saying buying an album is science. You said that until someone recognized and articulated the scientific method, it didn't exist. At least that was my interpretation earlier. I'm saying humans used the method to varying degrees even though they did not recognize it as such, nor follow every step completely.

Again, scientists everywhere are cringing.

Dude, no they aren't lol
I know a few naturalists and a population geneticist and they would laugh at what you are saying and tell you to drink a beer, burn one, put down the philosophy books and get your hands dirty lol

Huh. So if everyone is doing science, why should anyone listen to scientists?

rgambs · February 2020

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.

Maybe amongst scholars who talk about science and research, but not likely among those who actually engage in scientific research...

rgambs · February 2020

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 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?

Yes, because they tested and learned. It's rudimentary and incomplete, but the baby used empirical data to decide not to touch the fire again. I feel like you're mixing philosophy and science here a bit though. Empiricism is more classically contrasted with rationalism, not science.

Historically, most science is empirical. Not universally, but most of it.

What I'm about to say is tongue-in-cheek, but there's a real point in here, as well: are you really comfortable defending science as the definitive source of knowledge if it's something a baby can do?

It was your example, not mine. The scientific method, if we're speaking the same language, is a simple what... 6/7 step process? How deeply in each of those steps is related to the complexity of the problem. That's true for most everything you do in your life. You have a more analytical, information driven decision tree for buying a car than buying a used Styx record. And it's mostly because of the risk and size of the investment. So the baby uses some of the scientific method, as did humans 3500 years ago when inventing the wheel. Still science, in my opinion.

Sorry, man, this isn't an area you get an opinion. You deciding what you're going to buy is not science. And, since you seem to like science, that's a good thing for you.

I'm drawing a correlation to how the baby, or our ancestors used science, not saying buying an album is science. You said that until someone recognized and articulated the scientific method, it didn't exist. At least that was my interpretation earlier. I'm saying humans used the method to varying degrees even though they did not recognize it as such, nor follow every step completely.

Again, scientists everywhere are cringing.

Dude, no they aren't lol
I know a few naturalists and a population geneticist and they would laugh at what you are saying and tell you to drink a beer, burn one, put down the philosophy books and get your hands dirty lol

Huh. So if everyone is doing science, why should anyone listen to scientists?

Well, because they are much better at it than everyone else, of course.
I'm a pretty good cook, I still use recipes from top chefs. I used to do my own taxes, I never thought of myself as an economist. I am pretty insightful with the emotions of my friends and family, I don't claim to be a psychiatrist.

ecdanc · February 2020

rgambs 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.

Maybe amongst scholars who talk about science and research, but not likely among those who actually engage in scientific research...

Read the entire thread. You’re agreeing with me.

ecdanc · February 2020

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 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?

Yes, because they tested and learned. It's rudimentary and incomplete, but the baby used empirical data to decide not to touch the fire again. I feel like you're mixing philosophy and science here a bit though. Empiricism is more classically contrasted with rationalism, not science.

Historically, most science is empirical. Not universally, but most of it.

What I'm about to say is tongue-in-cheek, but there's a real point in here, as well: are you really comfortable defending science as the definitive source of knowledge if it's something a baby can do?

It was your example, not mine. The scientific method, if we're speaking the same language, is a simple what... 6/7 step process? How deeply in each of those steps is related to the complexity of the problem. That's true for most everything you do in your life. You have a more analytical, information driven decision tree for buying a car than buying a used Styx record. And it's mostly because of the risk and size of the investment. So the baby uses some of the scientific method, as did humans 3500 years ago when inventing the wheel. Still science, in my opinion.

Sorry, man, this isn't an area you get an opinion. You deciding what you're going to buy is not science. And, since you seem to like science, that's a good thing for you.

I'm drawing a correlation to how the baby, or our ancestors used science, not saying buying an album is science. You said that until someone recognized and articulated the scientific method, it didn't exist. At least that was my interpretation earlier. I'm saying humans used the method to varying degrees even though they did not recognize it as such, nor follow every step completely.

Again, scientists everywhere are cringing.

Dude, no they aren't lol
I know a few naturalists and a population geneticist and they would laugh at what you are saying and tell you to drink a beer, burn one, put down the philosophy books and get your hands dirty lol

Huh. So if everyone is doing science, why should anyone listen to scientists?

Well, because they are much better at it than everyone else, of course.
I'm a pretty good cook, I still use recipes from top chefs. I used to do my own taxes, I never thought of myself as an economist. I am pretty insightful with the emotions of my friends and family, I don't claim to be a psychiatrist.

Those scientists do not conflate reality and science. That’s where in this conversation you’ve intervened.

rgambs · February 2020

ecdanc said:

rgambs 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.

Maybe amongst scholars who talk about science and research, but not likely among those who actually engage in scientific research...

Read the entire thread. You’re agreeing with me.

Maybe, but I don't generally give much credence to the opinions of "experts" who don't actually engage in their field of "study"
I grew tired of philosophy in my teens, it's a big circle-jerk that leads nowhere. It can be a ton of fun to run in circles, but that gets old. Ontology and epistemology are the most classic examples of intellectualism put to no use at all.

All things Transgender related

Comments

Categories