Gender Fluidity should be an Adult topic

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

That's true. But there are insane 1% of people on the either extremes. 

These loud 2% is enough to overthrow the sane majority. 2%, being a conservative estimate.

No way you are going to get printed on paper, men are more suited for engineering roles, and women are for nurses. That just will not happen. You can say that, but not on paper.

As I said from the start, it's a matter of political will. For sure such a class as I suggest would get politicized to hell by radicals from both sides today.

This is why we can't have nice things.

It's a shame because kids really need such a class. The politics on this issue is just noise.

Edited April 23 by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

17 hours ago, Girzo said:

Your numbers are straight out of ass. As a sociologist I have to oppose such statements.

About your last statement. Clearly, you have not read much literature or even any literature on the topic and just share your imaginations about what is in the books and not what actually is in there. Start with some Judith Butler or something.

I am not saying that you couldn't publish a book citing gender differences. There are plenty out there.

The claim was that you cannot use those books to teach students in academia. That was the context of the discussion. 

------------

@Leo Gura

Those people are not overly political. These are normal parents of kids who are radicalised. There are plenty of such people in the general populace.

Let's just say even one woman exist who is so pissed off by the textbooks.

She will take it to the court:

"My lord this textbooks are so patriarchal and misogynistic

Women can be engineers as men or better, if not for the hundreds of millions of years of oppression".

Court makes observation:

"This woman sad. Make woman happy. Pass law. Ban textbook."

Courts can be used by anyone to overthrow popular stuff with or without political will.

Take abortion for example. Most people want access to abortion. But courts can simply take it out given that there are a motivated small group of people who can make it happen.

Which is why the structure of the society itself makes it impossible. It is meant to appease crazy people. Not for consciousness or Truth.

[Bobby_2021]

16 hours ago, Girzo said:

If you think that this exact sentence wouldn't be published in a book, that's only if it were read in strawmanning-manner as completely lacking nuance, thus factually wrong. Nuance being it's only true on average, there's many women who excel in engineering roles. Another nuance would be what Bobby thinks about proportions of this tendency, true proportions can be scientifically found out more or less. Another is the inclusion of factors why is it so, not only sex but also the whole fucking society. No wonder less women are crane operators when all the safety equipment, etc is desgined male-sized. The same goes for rifles in the military, etc. Nuance and context, then you can say it.

You can have even more nuance.

The fact that we even have women excel in engineering roles is not because women love engineering, but because of a contrived push from society to make more women engineers and mathematicians against their will.

Do men have such encouragement from society? Nope. They become engineers at large because of their neurological wiring.

But women have many incentives to become engineers and advantages offered to them by society. And still there aren't enough women engineers. 

Which is why India and the middleast east has more women in stem as opposed to US or Scandinavian countries. Because we force women to take up engineering against their will for obvious reasons.

Given enough freedom, even lower of women will choose engineering because of their own genetics and their interests.

It's not like women were desperate to be crane operators only to be disheartened by seats being oversized and have to return home. Women are not interested in operating cranes in huge numbers. If they were, we would be building them to fit their size. 

It would also mean an economic incentive since women would be paid less, according to their own words. 

[Girzo]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I am not saying that you couldn't publish a book citing gender differences. There are plenty out there.

The claim was that you cannot use those books to teach students in academia. That was the context of the discussion. 

This is such bullshit man, go study any social science at an uni, and then tell us how it is, not before doing that. 

[Girzo]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Given enough freedom, even lower of women will choose engineering because of their own genetics and their interests.

No no no man, you don't have proof for all that, now you are doing not more nuance, but more bias.

You can't say it's because of genetics, because you DON'T KNOW that. You don't know causation and many other things. It's safe to always just share the insight of HOW you see things to be and not WHY they are this way. Because without you being a researcher on the topic or directly citing some advanced paper, your reasons why will probably be very ungrounded. It's hard to explain the 'why' in most topics in social science. Stay aware that if you do hypotethical, ungrounded 'why's' then yours are as good as the opposite side's.

Also you are mixing gender and sex all the time. Women this, women that, yes but being a woman is a cultural thing, culture makes up what being a woman means. It's what you do, not what you are. What it entails changes across time and cultures. 

"Do men have such encouragement from society? Nope. They become engineers at large because of their neurological wiring."

Obviously they do. If you are a man then you get social acceptance of your choice and family support, etc. Lots of encouragement.

My only thing I want you to take with you after this conversation. Get comfortable with not-knowing and don't assume you know why society looks a certain way, stay grounded with your observations. Some Peter Ralston would do you good and many other people at these forums.

 

[Nemra]

@Girzo

In my opinion, what you know about some science can be incorrect as hell, but you can still be unbiased. If someone's too biased and studies what you say, they'll make their biases (be they opposite or not) stronger, regardless of whether the science is correct or not. That's what I have observed. It's interesting

Edited April 24 by Nemra

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

No no no man, you don't have proof for all that, now you are doing not more nuance, but more bias.

You not having seen the proof is not proof of it not existing. Go research on the "Gender Equality Paradox".

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

You can't say it's because of genetics, because you DON'T KNOW that.

Then what is the source of those differences?

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

Because without you being a researcher on the topic or directly citing some advanced paper, your reasons why will probably be very ungrounded. It's hard to explain the 'why' in most topics in social science. Stay aware that if you do hypotethical, ungrounded 'why's' then yours are as good as the opposite side's.

Having an advanced paper to support your claims does not mean what you are saying is true. If that was the case, all the experts should be agreeing with each other.

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

Obviously they do. If you are a man then you get social acceptance of your choice and family support, etc. Lots of encouragement.

Women get plenty of social acceptance for being engineers as well. There is a strong push to include more women in stem from the powerful institutions, spending millions of dollars into diversity hiring etc..which men do not have. I was talking about that difference.

Heck, the supposed more patriarchal countries have more women in stem than the advanced liberal countries. You do not address any of this and say there is not any proof.

The acceptance that men get is a consequence of the money he makes from engineering roles, being of higher pay, not because he choose engineering per say. If women makes that much money in nursing, she would as much acceptance.

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

Get comfortable with not-knowing and don't assume you know why society looks a certain way, stay grounded with your observations.

I do know. You are the one who does not know to be frank.

And you also assume that not knowing is somehow gives validity to the claim that all gender differences are merely a social construction, which is the real bullshit.

Also I would like to read on your position? Are you claiming that none of us know? or do you have proof to substantiate your position rather than glossing over possibilities?

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

Also you are mixing gender and sex all the time. Women this, women that, yes but being a woman is a cultural thing, culture makes up what being a woman means. It's what you do, not what you are. What it entails changes across time and cultures. 

Gender is a social construction. I have my own definition of gender and sex, which is a solid definition.

Gender fluidity literally means you can identify as whatever you want whenever you want. Such a world view is not even internally coherent, and ambiguous. I do not have ambiguity in my definitions. Which is what a definition is supposed to be.

I want clarity not mental gymnastics.

3 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Girzo

What you know about some science can be incorrect as hell, but you can still be unbiased, imo. If someone's too biased and studies what you say, they'll make their biases stronger. It's interesting.

I heard that 50% of those papers in academia could not even be replicated. It is just a boatload of crap. You can also derail a conversation by bringing in unnecessary complexities and technicalities and make the discourse go nowhere.

Edited April 24 by Bobby_2021

[Nemra]

9 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Gender fluidity literally means you can identify as whatever you want whenever you want.

Isn't this ambiguous?

[Bobby_2021]

1 minute ago, Nemra said:

Isn't this ambiguous?

That is their definition, not mine.

[Alexop]

2 hours ago, Girzo said:

 

You can't say it's because of genetics, because you DON'T KNOW that. You don't know causation and many other things. It's safe to always just share the insight of HOW you see things to be and not WHY they are this way. Because without you being a researcher on the topic or directly citing some advanced paper, your reasons why will probably be very ungrounded. It's hard to explain the 'why' in most topics in social science. Stay aware that if you do hypotethical, ungrounded 'why's' then yours are as good as the opposite side's.

Also you are mixing gender and sex all the time. Women this, women that, yes but being a woman is a cultural thing, culture makes up what being a woman means. It's what you do, not what you are. What it entails changes across time and cultures. 

 

 

Man, you're just spinning out bullshit. How is the "why" so hard to explain? There is clear research that shows that the vast majority of women show less interest for engineering than men. Focus on simplicity and forget this stupid "academicsplaining"

Being a woman is both a choice of identity and a cultural thing. You both are a woman and behave like a woman relatively speaking. Yes I know you are God and all of that on the absolute level.

When I say "I am a man", it is like saying I am an introvert, this is how I feel most authentic.

Edited April 24 by Alexop

[Nemra]

@Bobby_2021

It can be that I don't understand what the definition entails. It seems that for them, it's not ambiguous.

I can say things that people might think are ambiguous, but not for me and think that I'm incorrect.

[Girzo]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You not having seen the proof is not proof of it not existing. Go research on the "Gender Equality Paradox".

Have you read about this topic? First, it's about gender, so it's culture. Then, even on the wikipedia page there are descriptions of people arguing about the 'why's', because they are not obvious, no where are genetics pointed as the main factor as to why. Exactly what I was saying. You noticing the existence of the Gender Equality Paradox, that's great, we are describing reality. You jumping to conclusions as to why, no bueno, that's imagination.

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Then what is the source of those differences?

Everything. Culture, psychology, genetics, environement, life experience, etc. Both at the individual and collective levels.

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Having an advanced paper to support your claims does not mean what you are saying is true. If that was the case, all the experts should be agreeing with each other.

You are building up an argument as to why you shouldn't say WHY things are for sure, as even experts can disagree for a long time, but also 100% agreement is never needed for science to go forward, science is a dynamic process of discovery and inventivness not a religious dogma.

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Heck, the supposed more patriarchal countries have more women in stem than the advanced liberal countries. You do not address any of this and say there is not any proof.

You are doing what you accuse the feminists of. You boil everything down to some stupid patriarchy. Patriarchy is a bullshit explanation. Social reality is way more complex and there are other things that influence these results, as you have mentioned by mentioning the gender equality paradox.

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I do know. You are the one who does not know to be frank.

No you don't know, you don't even read the books or the current scientific research and it's very visible.

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Gender is a social construction. I have my own definition of gender and sex, which is a solid definition.

Gender fluidity literally means you can identify as whatever you want whenever you want. Such a world view is not even internally coherent, and ambiguous. I do not have ambiguity in my definitions. Which is what a definition is supposed to be.

I want clarity not mental gymnastics.

My man, you say you want clarity but you are not willing to spend 10 minutes to clarify for yourself what 'gender fluidity' means by reading a wikipedia article about it. Gender-fluid is an identity that an INDIVIDUAL can have, not a fucking concept that everyone's gender is fluid, the hell. It just tells you that there are some individuals who don't have a stable gender identity. SOME. INDIVIDUALS.

55 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

That is their definition, not mine.

It is your misunderstanding of the basic meaning of the term 'gender-fluid', you don't even know what it relates to, as I have said above.

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I heard that 50% of those papers in academia could not even be replicated. It is just a boatload of crap.

Just read them for yourself if you care and don't listen to others' opinions. Otherwise, you will just end up as opinionatied as them. Ups, too late.

Replication doesn't mean shit. I cannot replicate a tsunami hitting the Fukushima nuclear plant. Does that make the measurements of the impact invalid, because I can't measure it again? The fuck no. Every branch of science has a subbranch called Methodology and it deals solely with the problem of how to construct the research and do it properly. 

The replication problem you describe is meant to describe the shit that happens in STEM science, for example in chemistry, where mainly Chinese or Indian researchers mass-produce papers with fake results - they fail to prove something but write it worked to get money and points for publication, etc. Social science has different important issues than the replication problem.

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You can also derail a conversation by bringing in unnecessary complexities and technicalities and make the discourse go nowhere.

The problem with skipping them arises when these complexities are absolutely crucial for understanig the topic.

Edited April 24 by Girzo

[Schizophonia]

16 hours ago, Yimpa said:

I started feminizing HRT a week ago and I’d be happy to share the changes  and experiences I notice in the coming months and years 

You will develop gynecomastia and become boring and stressed from all this e2.
But you're never going to turn into a woman, all you're going to do is trigger serious long-term endocrine problems.

[Girzo]

17 minutes ago, Alexop said:

Man, you're just spinning out bullshit. How is the "why" so hard to explain? There is clear research that shows that the vast majority of women show less interest for engineering than men. Focus on simplicity and forget this stupid "academicsplaining"

"There is clear research that shows that the vast majority of women show less interest for engineering than men." This is ok. The END. Put a stop there. That's my whole argument. If you go further into venturing into saying with certainity about why that is, you will probably make a mistake. We can say our ideas of possible explanations, state our opinions, that's all good, to argue indefinitely defending them, or treating them as some proven truth is foolishness.

Edited April 24 by Girzo

[Girzo]

Also, Bobby,

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

gender differences are merely a social construction, which is the real bullshit.

I think your attitiude comes from thinking of social constructs as something worthy of the word "merely." Social constructs are real and very powerful. Money is a social construct. Gender is a similarly powerful social construct. They are not "merely" social constructs. They are so important and powerful you are willing to heatedly discuss about them online, spending your precious minutes of life on this instead of doing self-actualization. Very important.

Edited April 24 by Girzo

[Bobby_2021]

37 minutes ago, Girzo said:

Everything. Culture, psychology, genetics, environement, life experience, etc. Both at the individual and collective levels.

The whole point of the study was to eliminate the effects of culture/environment. And then extrapolate the findings.

We can measure the freedom and cultural limitations placed on individuals from different cultures. So the less limitations there are, the more women choose traditional career choices. Which is why India has more participation of women in stem than the United States or Sweden. In fact the more freedom you give to individuals the more they choose careers that are in alignment with their genetics.

If you eliminate the effects of culture, all that remains is genetics.

Which is why I said genetics is the reason for the differences in interests of men and women. 

But now you will say, " What proof do you have that  genetics determines the gender differences? "

44 minutes ago, Alexop said:

How is the "why" so hard to explain?

It is a bias from the "environmental/nurture" gang. They will demand proof for why genetics is the reason for the gender differences while they do not feel any obligation to prove why environment/culture is the deciding factor in determination of choices of individuals. They gloss over that point. We are supposed to accept that culture is the main factor in the differences without question.

The thing about environment/culture is that you can control it, eliminate it's effects and measure the effects of gender. The research has been done. I am not pulling this out of my ass. 

Also, I am not saying that environment has zero effect at all.  Obviously if you don't have access to food and water, then it is going to affect you a lot in the choices you make. But you can study people who are not binded by any cultural/environmenal  pressures of any kind.

The only explanation left is genetics.

Edited April 24 by Bobby_2021

[Girzo]

@Bobby_2021 You indeed are pulling things out of your ass. You are talking to a sociologist, I know when you pull stuff straight out of nowhere. I am done throwing bricks at this brickwall of your ideology.

Edited April 24 by Girzo

[Alexop]

16 minutes ago, Girzo said:

@Bobby_2021 You indeed are pulling things out of your ass. You are talking to a sociologist, I know when you pull stuff straight out of nowhere. I am done throwing bricks at this brickwall of your ideology.

Ok, if you are a sociologist, what do you think about Norway's "gender point system" which gives you an artificial headstart for applying to fields where your gender is in minority? I even heard (not sure if it is true) people who changed gender in order to have higher chances to enter into STEM.

Edited April 24 by Alexop

[Nemra]

11 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

We can measure the freedom and cultural limitations placed on individuals from different cultures. So the less limitations there are, the more women choose traditional career choices. Which is why India has more participation of women in stem than the United States or Sweden. In fact the more freedom you give to individuals the more they choose careers that are in alignment with their genetics.

Really? Maybe they have no other choice. 

Isn't India traditionalistic? Isn't tradition supposed to set limitations?

You also mentioned that women are more likely to want to be nurses. Now you say that when there aren't limitations, women want to participate in STEM. What am I getting wrong?