Safe Schools or is it?

[coerced]

How many angles are you going to take on this issue?

Just come out and say you don't like homosexuals or transgenders...

It's not like Safe Schools is a competing unit that opposes numeracy and literacy. It's a short term educational program.

Do you honestly think the addition of safe schools will have any adverse effect on NAPLAN results? Of course you don't.


Didn't you also say you were against gay marriage, because it would increase child abuse and pedophilia? Or something along those lines?

You don't give a s**t about the NAPLAN results in this context.
It's just the new shadow you can hide in.

The person who came up with the gender roles nonsense that is taught in Safe Schools was Dr John Money

You can read about one his experiments here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dr_money_prog_summary.shtml

As i asked earlier, why is this stuff not discredited like lobotomies, phrenology, etc and other psychology mumbo-jumbo?

Why should this nonsense take up valuable teacher time and resources?

You're on the side of science right? What does science say about gender fluidity?

 

[DemonTim]

The person who came up with the gender roles nonsense that is taught in Safe Schools was Dr John Money

You can read about one his experiments here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dr_money_prog_summary.shtml

As i asked earlier, why is this stuff not discredited like lobotomies, phrenology, etc and other psychology mumbo-jumbo?

Why should this nonsense take up valuable teacher time and resources?

You're on the side of science right? What does science say about gender fluidity?

THere's a start on it
http://www.sciencealert.com/brain-gender-is-more-fluid-than-originally-thought-research-reveals

 

[coerced]

THere's a start on it
http://www.sciencealert.com/brain-gender-is-more-fluid-than-originally-thought-research-reveals

Nice googling, but rats aren't human.

 

[DemonTim]

Nice googling, but rats aren't human.

It's true, it is rats. I guess you disagree with the scientists on the implications though (you seem to have issues with google and wikipedia, you do realise if the information is from a relevant source, it doesn't matter if it's googled or wiki'd. the referencing matters, not the carrier)

Plenty more:
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/appsych/opus/issues/2011/spring/gender_identity_development

But we all know you don't actually care about any research done into it. You'll find a reason why you're right even if it was proven.

 

[coerced]

In fact I'm struggling to see the connection between human gender roles being socially constructed and 10 day old rats having steroids injected into the brain.

 

[DemonTim]

In fact I'm struggling to see the connection between human gender roles being socially constructed and 10 day old rats having steroids injected into the brain.

So you disagree with the researchers then?

 

[coerced]

So you disagree with the researchers then?

Disagree with what?

The original paper says nothing about gender fluidity

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v18/n5/full/nn.3988.html

 

[DemonTim]

Disagree with what?

The original paper says nothing about gender fluidity

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v18/n5/full/nn.3988.html

So you paid for the paper I take it?

 

[coerced]

So you paid for the paper I take it?

I have access to Springer, Elsevier, etc journals, yes.

 

[DemonTim]

I have access to Springer, Elsevier, etc journals, yes.

Well that's weird. Considering one of the authors said:
"Our work shows that sex differences in brain and behaviour are epigenetically regulated, meaning that sex differences are not hardwired in our DNA but programmed during development."

Or did you just ctrl+f "gender fluidity".

 

[coerced]

Well that's weird. Considering one of the authors said:
"Our work shows that sex differences in brain and behaviour are epigenetically regulated, meaning that sex differences are not hardwired in our DNA but programmed during development."

Or did you just ctrl+f "gender fluidity".

'Programmed' by injecting steroids directly into the brain.

Not programmed by being socialised into rats.

 

[DemonTim]

'Programmed' by injecting steroids directly into the brain.

Not programmed by being socialised into rats.

Planning on competing in Rio with this backpedaling

What does science say about gender fluidity?
Provide research saying, "Our work shows that sex differences in brain and behaviour are epigenetically regulated, meaning that sex differences are not hardwired in our DNA but programmed during development." Sounds pretty fluid

Changes to:
In fact I'm struggling to see the connection between human gender roles being socially constructed and 10 day old rats having steroids injected into the brain.

Shouldn't expect much more from you. I mean when you were questioned on what NAPLAN has to do with safe schools, you replied with:
The person who came up with the gender roles nonsense that is taught in Safe Schools was Dr John Money

You can read about one his experiments here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dr_money_prog_summary.shtml

As i asked earlier, why is this stuff not discredited like lobotomies, phrenology, etc and other psychology mumbo-jumbo?

Why should this nonsense take up valuable teacher time and resources?

You're on the side of science right? What does science say about gender fluidity?

If you want to hate on a group of people because you disagree with their lives, do it, just don't be a coward about it.

 

[coerced]

Planning on competing in Rio with this backpedaling

Not an event at the Olympics. You need better material.

What does science say about gender fluidity?
Provide research saying, "Our work shows that sex differences in brain and behaviour are epigenetically regulated, meaning that sex differences are not hardwired in our DNA but programmed during development." Sounds pretty fluid

No it doesn't. It sounds like if you actively manipulate the brain by introducing exogenous hormones at an early stage of development in rats, you can change its sexual expression. It does not suggest that gender is socially constructed and therefore fluid. If anything, this finding is a rebuke of that idea, because it shows a strong biological basis for sexual identity, not a social one.

Now maybe you'll do some frantic googling and try to prove me wrong again, and fail.

 

[DemonTim]

Not an event at the Olympics. You need better material.



No it doesn't. It sounds like if you actively manipulate the brain by introducing exogenous hormones at an early stage of development in rats, you can change its sexual expression. It does not suggest that gender is socially constructed and therefore fluid. If anything, this finding is a rebuke of that idea, because it shows a strong biological basis for sexual identity, not a social one.

Now maybe you'll do some frantic googling and try to prove me wrong again, and fail.

You've literally quoted it "meaning that sex differences are not hardwired in our DNA but programmed during development"

Again, your question:
What does science say about gender fluidity?

Fluid definition:
a substance that has no fixed shape and yields easily to external pressure

Research finding:
Our work shows that sex differences in brain and behaviour are epigenetically regulated, meaning that sex differences are not hardwired in our DNA but programmed during development.

Pretty much the definition of fluid.

Now you seem to want to change that initial question to, if gender is biological. By definition alone, gender is not biological.

And if you think that, why wouldn't that be your initial point? That science supports you, your first go to was to discredit the research. The lengths some will go to to hide their hate is astounding

EDIT: Also, why are you now discussing sexual identity, sexual identity isn't a synonym for gender

 

[coerced]

You've literally quoted it "meaning that sex differences are not hardwired in our DNA but programmed during development"

Again, your question:
What does science say about gender fluidity?

Fluid definition:
a substance that has no fixed shape and yields easily to external pressure

Research finding:
Our work shows that sex differences in brain and behaviour are epigenetically regulated, meaning that sex differences are not hardwired in our DNA but programmed during development.

Pretty much the definition of fluid.

Now you seem to want to change that initial question to, if gender is biological. By definition alone, gender is not biological.

And if you think that, why wouldn't that be your initial point? That science supports you, your first go to was to discredit the research. The lengths some will go to to hide their hate is astounding

EDIT: Also, why are you now discussing sexual identity, sexual identity isn't a synonym for gender

This is first class sophistry.

 

[DemonTim]

This is first class sophistry.

Yes...obviously actually providing evidence, and using your own quotes is a horrible thing for me to do

There seems to be a theme when you get in "discussions" with people

 

[coerced]

Yes...obviously actually providing evidence, and using your own quotes is a horrible thing for me to do

There seems to be a theme when you get in "discussions" with people

The theme is that I rely on reasoned argument.

The evidence you supplied showed that rats can have their sexual expression changed by the injection of sex hormones into their brain at an early stage of development. You have made the leap that this proves that human gender identity is socially constructed and therefore fluid.

The evidence you cited does not support that assertion in the slightest. You relied on poorly constructed enthymemes to make your argument.

 

[DemonTim]

The theme is that I rely on reasoned argument.

The evidence you supplied showed that rats can have their sexual expression changed by the injection of sex hormones into their brain at an early stage of development. You have made the leap that this proves that human gender identity is socially constructed and therefore fluid.

The evidence you cited does not support that assertion in the slightest.

Where did I make that claim, i explicitly stated:
Again, your question:
What does science say about gender fluidity?

Fluid definition:
a substance that has no fixed shape and yields easily to external pressure

Research finding:
Our work shows that sex differences in brain and behaviour are epigenetically regulated, meaning that sex differences are not hardwired in our DNA but programmed during development.

Pretty much the definition of fluid.

Now you seem to want to change that initial question to, if gender is biological. By definition alone, gender is not biological.

And if you think that, why wouldn't that be your initial point? That science supports you, your first go to was to discredit the research. The lengths some will go to to hide their hate is astounding

You don't rely on reasoned argument at all. You backflip and change the topic to try and snake your way out of responding.

You're still yet to relate safe schools to NAPLAN

You're still yet to show how the study doesn't show "gender fluidity"

You're now trying to argue if gender is socially determined, factually it is: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

You've argued precisely nothing.

But you'll come back with some condescending rubbish and not respond to anything said. You did it yesterday, you've done it today, and the smart money says you will do it tomorrow.

 

[coerced]

Where did I make that claim, i explicitly stated:
Again, your question:
What does science say about gender fluidity?

Fluid definition:
a substance that has no fixed shape and yields easily to external pressure

Research finding:
Our work shows that sex differences in brain and behaviour are epigenetically regulated, meaning that sex differences are not hardwired in our DNA but programmed during development.

Pretty much the definition of fluid.

Now you seem to want to change that initial question to, if gender is biological. By definition alone, gender is not biological.

And if you think that, why wouldn't that be your initial point? That science supports you, your first go to was to discredit the research. The lengths some will go to to hide their hate is astounding

You don't rely on reasoned argument at all. You backflip and change the topic to try and snake your way out of responding.

You're still yet to relate safe schools to NAPLAN

You're still yet to show how the study doesn't show "gender fluidity"

You're now trying to argue if gender is socially determined, factually it is: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

You've argued precisely nothing.

But you'll come back with some condescending rubbish and not respond to anything said. You did it yesterday, you've done it today, and the smart money says you will do it tomorrow.

Do you not see the syllogistic fallacy in your argument up there?

 

[DemonTim]

Do you not see the syllogistic fallacy in your argument up there?

Again, a post that says nothing. Well done, you've managed to discuss a topic, without actually discussing the topic.

 

[coerced]

Again, a post that says nothing. Well done, you've managed to discuss a topic, without actually discussing the topic.

It probably says nothing to you because you don't understand what a syllogism is.

I asked what science supported the idea of gender fluidity. You provided a definition of 'fluid' (thanks, didn't know!), and a paper on changing sexual behaviours in rats using exogenous hormones. This is what is called a syllogism, two loosely defined 'facts' to infer a conclusion.

Except it's a fallacy, because the conclusion doesn't answer the question or derive logically from the initial propositions. Your conclusion simply shows that you can change the sexual expression of rats using hormones, not the concept of gender fluidity as described by gender theory, and the idea that gender is socially constructed.

I hope you have learned something here, I am happy to educate.

 

[Ruck Machine]

Fluid definition:
a substance that has no fixed shape and yields easily to external pressure

I definitely wouldn't describe gender as fluid, given the massive intervention required to produce the rat results.

Given the rat study I would possibly describe gender as malleable.

If gender was truly fluid you'd see much more than the 0.2-0.3% of the population being considered transgender.

Of that 0.2-03% how many of these have a mental illness? how many of these are gay/lesbian who haven't come to terms with their sexuality?

Why do we make such a big issue out of such small portion of the population? IMO it's because the battles that needed to be won have been won (Women's/Gay rights) and need something new to whine about (and to collect $$ campaigning for ... grievance industry much).

 

[DemonTim]

It probably says nothing to you because you don't understand what a syllogism is.

I asked what science supported the idea of gender fluidity. You provided a definition of 'fluid' (thanks, didn't know!), and a paper on changing sexual behaviours in rats using exogenous hormones. This is what is called a syllogism, two loosely defined 'facts' to infer a conclusion.

Except it's a fallacy, because the conclusion doesn't answer the question or derive logically from the initial propositions. Your conclusion simply shows that you can change the sexual expression of rats using hormones, not the concept of gender fluidity as described by gender theory, and the idea that gender is socially constructed.

I hope you have learned something here, I am happy to educate.

So you don't count it as fluid, despite it fitting the definition of it. You asked what science says about gender fluidity, that article was a start on science making some headway in the area, i'd say their claim is pretty major. It shows that it is not set in DNA

I should have just come back and said that gender is by definition a social and cultural construct, so like all social constructs, is fluid.

But apparently you don't understand what "gender" is.

I'm aware of what syllogism is, but again you miss the point. Quit the condescending s**t, it took numerous prods for you to even speak on topic, if you want actual discussion great, if you just want to play the man, then piss off. Pretty simple. I've attempted to engage you, and it's always the same rubbish

I notice you can post over and over and yet ignore the original question to you.

What does NAPLAN have to do with safe schools? Or are you going to link us to another article about an event from overseas from 40 years ago?

 

[DemonTim]

I definitely wouldn't describe gender as fluid, given the massive intervention required to produce the rat results.

Given the rat study I would possibly describe gender as malleable.

If gender was truly fluid you'd see much more than the 0.2-0.3% of the population being considered transgender.

Of that 0.2-03% how many of these have a mental illness? how many of these are gay/lesbian who haven't come to terms with their sexuality?

Why do we make such a big issue out of such small portion of the population? IMO it's because the battles that needed to be won have been won (Women's/Gay rights) and need something new to whine about (and to collect $$ campaigning for ... grievance industry much).

Those battles have been won? Really?

Wouldn't malleable be a worse use, since that implies the manipulation is easy (not to mention that fluid and malleable aren't mutually exclusive)

 

[coerced]

So you don't count it as fluid, despite it fitting the definition of it. You asked what science says about gender fluidity, that article was a start on science making some headway in the area, i'd say their claim is pretty major. It shows that it is not set in DNA

No one ever claimed it was set in DNA. Most science is of the belief that it is determined by the level and type of hormones delivered to the foetus in utero and has an entirely biological basis.

But whether it changes all that much after birth is up for debate. The science you showed suggests it can, but only if you deliver a large volume of hormones directly to the brain for newborns - ie supporting that gender is defined at the very earliest stages of development.

Quit the condescending s**t

Laughable from someone who provided the dictionary definition of fluid.