Transgender

[ShanDog]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[its free real estate]

I'm gonna totally admit to my own ignorance here. Laugh if you must. What does N = 72 mean?

If you see a study, you must ask the question: does it replicate, has it been p-hacked, is the sample size large enough?

As it stands, every piece of social psychology research should be binned until proven otherwise. The replication crisis has shown the discipline is utter garbage.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Does that study replicate?

You know what? I don't know. Actually, I feel that to truly test it out you'd need to get a little unethical. You'd have to remove a large group of children from all outside influence completely (no looking to parents to establish gender roles, etc) then divide into a control group, A, B, and so on.

You'd have to see if biology dictates preference or if each child truly IS a 'blank slate'. And yeah, it would have to be replicated.

 

[Malifice]

Right on cue a RWNJ dismisses science as bunk.

Apparently all social science can be discounted now.

Let's add that to climate science, anthropology, biology, history and political science as things its free real estate thinks are 'made up'.

When the science and history is against your argument, I guess you dont really have any other options right?

 

[TimmeT]

Right on cue a RWNJ dismisses science as bunk.

Apparently all social science can be discounted now.

Let's add that to climate science, anthropology, biology, history and political science as things its free real estate thinks are 'made up'.

When the science and history is against your argument, I guess you dont really have any other options right?

So should stuff be looked at through the social science prims or biology prism when it contradicts one another?

 

[ShanDog]

A study of 76 kids is really not helpful in drawing any conclusions wider than the nature of the 76 children's families and the social context of where they are from. If you want to be scientifically literate when reading these studies you need to understand the limitations of both the study, possible conclusions and subsequent theories.

For instance, the oldest children in that study were 8. This is obviously well before puberty and a very short time into their ability to even identify social norms, draw conclusions on them or integrate them into their identity (consciously or unconsciously). Any conclusions drawn are limited to that age group studied.

 

[its free real estate]

Right on cue a RWNJ dismisses science as bunk.

Apparently all social science can be discounted now.

Let's add that to climate science, anthropology, biology, history and political science as things its free real estate thinks are 'made up'.

When the science and history is against your argument, I guess you dont really have any other options right?

Climate science can be derived parsimoniously from first principles. Social psychology can’t. None of anthropology, history or political sciences are science.

 

[Socrates2]

Climate science can be derived parsimonioisly from first principles. Social psychology can’t. None of anthropology, history or political sciences are science.

What? Why do you do this this?

 

[Malifice]

Climate science can be derived parsimonioisly from first principles. Social psychology can’t. None of anthropology, history or political sciences are science.

While I technically agree with you, that doesnt mean that the findings and consensus are to be discounted out of hand.

 

[its free real estate]

What? Why do you do this this?

Why have people forgotten Occam’s Razor? What is more likely - gender roles arise from innate biological differences or they arise from toy and colour preference imposed on children?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

A study of 76 kids is really not helpful in drawing any conclusions wider than the nature of the 76 children's families and the social context of where they are from. If you want to be scientifically literate when reading these studies you need to understand the limitations of both the study, possible conclusions and subsequent theories.

For instance, the oldest children in that study were 8. This is obviously well before puberty and a very short time into their ability to even identify social norms, draw conclusions on them or integrate them into their identity (consciously or unconsciously). Any conclusions drawn are limited to that age group studied.

Yeah, I can see the limitations. That's the thing though - to study, and I mean TRULY study, what gender roles are and how they form in humans you really would have to discard a good number of ethics and human rights. You'd have to 'grow' children in essentially a vacuum - no learned behaviours from outside influences whatsoever. Would these hypothetical children adapt gender roles within the vacuum, with observed/learned behaviours ruled out?

You can only extrapolate so much data from the behaviours of other primates. It's our intellectual capacity that sets us apart.

 

[its free real estate]

How can the patriarchy be a millennia old institution and enforced by a consumer culture only a century old?

 

[Carringbush2010]

They're not capitalising on a biological difference. They're capitalising on gender roles and perceptions of women.

I have nothing wrong with it. Plenty of women have made a lot of money doing it. Im just saying it's reflective of (and contributes to) the entrenched patriatrchy.

Watch this video for an example of what I'm talking about:



It's a good watch, and only 3 minutes of your life, so I do encourage you to have a look.

Most of the differences between men and women isnt due to biology. It's due to the entrenched social dominance of men, and women being constantly told (not just directly, but also contantly by inference such as by looking at your average Magazine rack, or Toy store shelves, or turning on the TV or opening up social media) that 'men are dominant and better than them, and are warriors and take care of buisiness' while women are '****, gossip, fashion and homemaking, and the fairer sex'.

Next time you're in a toy store, or looking at a magazine rack, look (objectively) at the message its sending to boys and girls about the roles they play in society. Think about how thats influenced you growing up.

Im not saying there is anything wrong with a woman believing those things if she chooses to. Some women genuinely like men having the power and control. Good for them. I'm just saying the social dominance of men (the patriarchy) is not a function of biology; its a function of socially constructed gender roles (roles that have been created by men as the dominant gender, and that leave men with the power and dominance).

Hi Malifice,

You may be missing something here and please don't take offence.

If you ask yourself why there is patriarchy through social construct you may find your answer.

Throughout mammalian history the overwhelming majority have been patriarchal systems (Bonobos being an exception I can think of) usually as a result of mammalian nature. The hierarchy has usually meant the patriarch is at the top of the hierarchy, without hierarchy there is chaos.

As humans are mammals this is to be expected, and to paint it as a "bad" thing is concerning. I'm not sure if you are or aren't but some do because they only see bad examples of it and have a false (unintentionally admittedly) view of patriarchy.

There is nothing wrong with a man being a tradie and his wife being a mother of their children - this is an example of patriarchy.

For society to want a reduction of masculinity / patriarchy because "it's 2019 get with the times" is in opposition to a sub conscious nature and is probably futile anyway.

There are always going to be men that are considered alpha and women that want to be pretty and bare children and have the man look after them. (gender roles) That is not an intent to "keep the men on top" it's just a natural path that mammals follow.

I get there is a view of inequality between males and females but I don't think it's been intentional construct to have an inequality by the human race itself.

 

[Carringbush2010]

How can the patriarchy be a millennia old institution and enforced by a consumer culture only a century old?

It's not enforced by consumer culture, what most are forgetting or can't see is that patriarchal systems are social constructs probably as a result of mammalian nature.

To some that may seem a neanderthal or primal view, regardless human (mammalian) nature exists and can't be ignored.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Ok gonna put my c*** on the block here and put my views out there on "transgender" and relative subject.

• Transgender would not exist without human intervention because it is not naturally biologically possible.
• Artificial creation of human beings would also not exist without human intervention. (playing god is a dangerous path).
• Gender dysphoria is a tricky one: possibly a result of social construct, not convinced either way.

Some may see these things as far right views, I would disagree as I'm basing them on practic and logic. Just as much as someone believes they are another gender doesn't allow for gender change to happen biologically.

 

[medusala]

Lol, you are quoting from an extreme right wing Catholic fake news source.You guys play fast and loose with the truth Trump style.Here's a poll about your 'news" source.Get out of your right wing echo chamber mate and stop filling bigfooty with rubbish stories and transphobia.

Spectator is a very respectable rag. Chairman of holding co is Andrew Neil, also very respected. The bloke who wrote the article was James Kirkup who also writes for The Telegraph. So you are talking absolute s**t.

"transpobia" - you are an utter muppet.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...icers-came-knocking-door-devout-Catholic.html

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...sgendered-transwoman-on-twitter-a4098106.html

I'm leaving these society/ religion threads for a while as there is no way of having a proper discussion. I make no apology for calling out Islamophobia, Transphobia and other fake & misleading right wing so called 'news'.Doesn't this contravene bigfooty rules? Are any of the mods going to pull these blokes up?

Lol, the fake news that was actually real and reported in many outlets?

 

[twotooto]

Ok gonna put my c*** on the block here

Post-op?

 

[its free real estate]

What do you progressive muppets think of this woman?

Peel Regional Police issued a community safety advisory on Friday about Madilyn Harks, formerly Matthew Harks, alerting residents that she now resides in the Brampton area.​

​

Harks, 36, was convicted three times for sexual assaults against girls under the age of eight, police said, adding that the young victims have included neighbours and a fellow member of a church congregation.​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/madilyn-harks-brampton-sex-offender-1.5069367

 

[skybeau]

What do you progressive muppets think of this woman?

Peel Regional Police issued a community safety advisory on Friday about Madilyn Harks, formerly Matthew Harks, alerting residents that she now resides in the Brampton area.​

​

Harks, 36, was convicted three times for sexual assaults against girls under the age of eight, police said, adding that the young victims have included neighbours and a fellow member of a church congregation.​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/madilyn-harks-brampton-sex-offender-1.5069367

I think it's a fair enough advisory message. She's a criminal. I'd want to know that too if a sex offender (particularly with the nature of the offending) moved into my area.

I think most "progressive muppets" would agree. Not sure what you are trying to prove but I'm sure you've got some sort of agenda here. Why don't you just say it instead of hiding behind insults?

 

[its free real estate]

I think it's a fair enough advisory message. She's a criminal. I'd want to know that too if a sex offender (particularly with the nature of the offending) moved into my area.

I think most "progressive muppets" would agree. Not sure what you are trying to prove but I'm sure you've got some sort of agenda here. Why don't you just say it instead of hiding behind insults?

Should this “woman” have access to woman-only spaces?

 

[Maggie5]

Spectator is a very respectable rag.

Ha, ha, just saw this. Too funny.

Overall, we rate The Spectator UK Right-Center biased based on story selection and editorial positions that moderately favor the right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a few failed checks.

 

[Gough]

Ha, ha, just saw this. Too funny.

I got given a year's subscription as a gag gift. The Arts section is decent.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Hi Malifice,

You may be missing something here and please don't take offence.

If you ask yourself why there is patriarchy through social construct you may find your answer.

Throughout mammalian history the overwhelming majority have been patriarchal systems (Bonobos being an exception I can think of) usually as a result of mammalian nature. The hierarchy has usually meant the patriarch is at the top of the hierarchy, without hierarchy there is chaos.

As humans are mammals this is to be expected, and to paint it as a "bad" thing is concerning. I'm not sure if you are or aren't but some do because they only see bad examples of it and have a false (unintentionally admittedly) view of patriarchy...

It isn't so much as why there is a heirarchy (greek 'heiros' being divine or otherwise supernatural and 'archos' meaning 'to rule') in the first place, but why is it patriarchy instead of matriarchy ('pater' and 'mater' being latin for father and mother).

It might be because males were always the stronger hunter/gatherers.

As we left our primitive selves behind though, and settled the land permanently, hunter/gathering faded from importance for most of us in favour of farming.

A strong patriarchy became less needed. Only really in military affairs has the largely patriarchal ranks of 'hunters' remained true to their historical origin.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It isn't so much as why there is a heirarchy (greek 'heiros' being divine or otherwise supernatural and 'archos' meaning 'to rule') in the first place, but why is it patriarchy instead of matriarchy ('pater' and 'mater' being latin for father and mother).

It might be because males were always the stronger hunter/gatherers.

As we left our primitive selves behind though, and settled the land permanently, hunter/gathering faded from importance for most of us in favour of farming.

A strong patriarchy became less needed. Only really in military affairs has the largely patriarchal ranks of 'hunters' remained true to their historical origin.

Correct, I didn't say it should be "now" but as you put it it's result of mammalian nature.

 

[medusala]

Ha, ha, just saw this. Too funny.

Not sure why you find it funny. Its sales are at an all time high, compare that to other newspapers. Do you know who Andrew Neil is?

NB your link is absurd. It has the Guardian as left centre and the Times right centre.

 

[skybeau]

Should this “woman” have access to woman-only spaces?

Oh that's what you were hinting at?

I'd suggest that given the nature of her offending, she's likely already banned from such spaces. Without knowing anything about the case aside from what you've posted.

Still not sure exactly what you are trying to prove here.