There's absolutely no evidence that "neurobiology" causes a group of teen girls to all decide they are "gendered." There's nothing in neuroscience to suggest that neuron functioning causes a mediocre male athlete to force his way into female sports. On the other hand, psychology can describe the bandwagon effect among the teens, and the resentment of females by the males.
You are all over the place. Yes mimetics and social contagion are psychological. But brain chemistry is real and not entirely governed by chromosomal expressions and gonadal secretions. They may be aberrant but not irrelevant.
Nowhere did I state your strawman suggestion that the brain is solely controlled by chromosomes and the endocrine system. Gender is a social construct that varies over time while male and female are biological realities that don't change but do have variations. Let's take males with the "trans" label and their clothing and grooming. Virtually all of them wear long hair, earrings, heels, dresses or skirts, and lots of makeup. If this were truly a "brain chemistry" problem causing them to "feel" like a female, then why do none of them wear shorts, t-shirts, sneakers and go sans makeup, like about half the women I see, including me? Instead, like a single organism they take on the most extreme, stereotyped expression of female. Ironically, from what I've observed most of them are even more physically aggressive than the average male.
It was hard for me to understand what you were stating so yes I attempted to interpret it.
As for males that dress as females, I suppose they take the more obvious means of expression to impress upon others their “femaleness” even if they are not necessarily most comfortable in that skin either. But who knows. That is for psychologists to figure out.
Here we have a delicate trans flower physically threatening Ben Shapiro. Please show me one example of a woman doing this with anyone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgQy70_LPS4
Here we have Jenner, long hair, makeup, and dress pulling his Bruce out of his pocket. A woman would not feel comfortable confronting these protestors with absolute physical confidence. I might want to engage my alligator mouth, but my female survival instinct would prevent me from doing so, unless I had bodyguards around me. So, no, Jenner's actions indicate he has no idea what being a female feels like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4vAy_UMCEE
There is variation between traits where men and women differ. In every case I am aware of, it is a bimodal distribution (often overlapping).
"Gender" is just a proto-religious way to describe this phenomenon to people who are so mathematically and scientifically illiterate they shouldn't have even been granted a high school diploma.
Not if the objective is to introduce sophistry, no. If the point is to say that variation will result in a small number of men being effeminate and a small number of women to be masculine, still no, as this is irrelevant to most biology, and certainly introductory biology.
How is eliminating gender studies consistent with Rufo’s ideal of fostering debate? I don’t see how legislating a field of study out of existence qualifies as rationally engaging with it.
Simply, it is not a “field of study”, it is a junk attempt to blend (and bastardize) biology and sociology for fundamentally nefarious purposes, by elevating two subsets of those disciplines to an unwarranted primacy over them. Much like “they” has been elevated over “he” and “she” and feminism has been elevated over humanism. And it provides our children with junk degrees focused on dividing us into conflicting groups with no societal value.
My point is that it’s easy to make such an argument when, in the university, your opponent has been legislated out of existence. If the university is supposed to be a forum for debate, why forestall the debate by throwing out the experts in gender studies? I haven’t read Julia Kristeva. Have you?
Its ok to have a course in GS, even an expert, but it is not a field, it is a tiny subset of social studies, and not a particularly credible one. We don’t have a “field” of flat earth studies or astronomy that deals with pre-ptolemaic science. It is mentionable, but not worth studying, or to be given a “field”.
You say it’s OK to have a course in GS. But will it be OK? Under Florida’s House Bill 999, “general education courses *** must not include curriculum that is based on or otherwise utilizes pedagogical methodology associated with *** Radical Gender Theory.”
For instance there should be no courses in Gender Studies, while there can be discussions of theories of gender in a course called Biology.
"Gender" is not biology and does not belong in a biology course. It belongs in a psychology course.
Arguably neurobiology.
There's absolutely no evidence that "neurobiology" causes a group of teen girls to all decide they are "gendered." There's nothing in neuroscience to suggest that neuron functioning causes a mediocre male athlete to force his way into female sports. On the other hand, psychology can describe the bandwagon effect among the teens, and the resentment of females by the males.
You are all over the place. Yes mimetics and social contagion are psychological. But brain chemistry is real and not entirely governed by chromosomal expressions and gonadal secretions. They may be aberrant but not irrelevant.
Nowhere did I state your strawman suggestion that the brain is solely controlled by chromosomes and the endocrine system. Gender is a social construct that varies over time while male and female are biological realities that don't change but do have variations. Let's take males with the "trans" label and their clothing and grooming. Virtually all of them wear long hair, earrings, heels, dresses or skirts, and lots of makeup. If this were truly a "brain chemistry" problem causing them to "feel" like a female, then why do none of them wear shorts, t-shirts, sneakers and go sans makeup, like about half the women I see, including me? Instead, like a single organism they take on the most extreme, stereotyped expression of female. Ironically, from what I've observed most of them are even more physically aggressive than the average male.
It was hard for me to understand what you were stating so yes I attempted to interpret it.
As for males that dress as females, I suppose they take the more obvious means of expression to impress upon others their “femaleness” even if they are not necessarily most comfortable in that skin either. But who knows. That is for psychologists to figure out.
Here we have a delicate trans flower physically threatening Ben Shapiro. Please show me one example of a woman doing this with anyone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgQy70_LPS4
Yeah, the left generally is pretty militant about their irrational rationalizations. As are other religious zealotries that forego reality for dogma.
Totally agree with you! I don't worry about religious zealots of any kind, unless their zealotry extends to them arrogantly trying to evangelize me.
Here we have Jenner, long hair, makeup, and dress pulling his Bruce out of his pocket. A woman would not feel comfortable confronting these protestors with absolute physical confidence. I might want to engage my alligator mouth, but my female survival instinct would prevent me from doing so, unless I had bodyguards around me. So, no, Jenner's actions indicate he has no idea what being a female feels like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4vAy_UMCEE
Nope, thanks
There is variation between traits where men and women differ. In every case I am aware of, it is a bimodal distribution (often overlapping).
"Gender" is just a proto-religious way to describe this phenomenon to people who are so mathematically and scientifically illiterate they shouldn't have even been granted a high school diploma.
The satanic religion of equality
Equity
So would it be wrong to include Sapolsky in a college biology course?
Sapolsky is pretty shockingly dumb. And/or naïve, and/or completely bought and sold.
Who rlly knows which.
Not if the objective is to introduce sophistry, no. If the point is to say that variation will result in a small number of men being effeminate and a small number of women to be masculine, still no, as this is irrelevant to most biology, and certainly introductory biology.
And psychology
How is eliminating gender studies consistent with Rufo’s ideal of fostering debate? I don’t see how legislating a field of study out of existence qualifies as rationally engaging with it.
Simply, it is not a “field of study”, it is a junk attempt to blend (and bastardize) biology and sociology for fundamentally nefarious purposes, by elevating two subsets of those disciplines to an unwarranted primacy over them. Much like “they” has been elevated over “he” and “she” and feminism has been elevated over humanism. And it provides our children with junk degrees focused on dividing us into conflicting groups with no societal value.
My point is that it’s easy to make such an argument when, in the university, your opponent has been legislated out of existence. If the university is supposed to be a forum for debate, why forestall the debate by throwing out the experts in gender studies? I haven’t read Julia Kristeva. Have you?
Its ok to have a course in GS, even an expert, but it is not a field, it is a tiny subset of social studies, and not a particularly credible one. We don’t have a “field” of flat earth studies or astronomy that deals with pre-ptolemaic science. It is mentionable, but not worth studying, or to be given a “field”.
You say it’s OK to have a course in GS. But will it be OK? Under Florida’s House Bill 999, “general education courses *** must not include curriculum that is based on or otherwise utilizes pedagogical methodology associated with *** Radical Gender Theory.”