Brainwash: The documentary series that got Scandinavia to axe its Gender Studies institution - General

[QUOTE=Killuah;48292020]I'm not trying to take a side here I just think there's bullshit going on on both sides.[/QUOTE] The only bullshit is your refusal to accept reality that does not remotely align with your hilariously biased suppositions and completely fabricated subjective absolutism. protip: this isn't gmtc and your usual topic/semantic dragging until people just give up and stop responding to your inanities isn't going to work because it has no application here. A reinterpretation of a fact does not change the fact's basis or tenet, it's still as it was before you re-imagined it. [quote] attack [/quote] A "science" that ignores empirical data and doesn't follow the essential rules of scientific principles isn't a science, it's a philosophy, and no amount of earnest hand wringing will fabricate it into a science. Behavior is a reaction to environment and stimulus, not the other way around; unless you've found someone who can make it daylight 24/7 by disbelieving night, then by all means pony up some proof. The idea that the mind is magically independent of the evolution of the species is patently absurd. [quote] politics [/quote] Is more often than not a negative hindrance towards the truth, which is the entire point of this exercise.

[QUOTE=27X;48297164]The only bullshit is your refusal to accept reality that does not remotely align with your hilariously biased suppositions and completely fabricated subjective absolutism. protip: this isn't gmtc and your usual topic/semantic dragging until people just give up and stop responding to your inanities isn't going to work because it has no application here. A reinterpretation of a fact does not change the fact's basis or tenet, it's still as it was before you re-imagined it. A "science" that ignores empirical data and doesn't follow the essential rules of scientific principles isn't a science, it's a philosophy, and no amount of earnest hand wringing will fabricate it into a science. Behavior is a reaction to environment and stimulus, not the other way around; unless you've found someone who can make it daylight 24/7 by disbelieving night, then by all means pony up some proof. The idea that the mind is magically independent of the evolution of the species is patently absurd. Is more often than not a negative hindrance towards the truth, which is the entire point of this exercise.[/QUOTE] Did you read the paper? I think Killuah has some legitimate complaints about the study, really. Of course that doesn't mean all these documentaries are bullshit, but if a study is flawed to the point where it could mean anything, there's no point in quoting that study.

Of course scientists on both sides could be biased, and often are, and are even shown to be in said videos. That's only a partial point. The rest of the salient argumentation is principle and belief versus reproducible verifiable factual information, and how how attempting to [b]reinterpret[/b] that data via political belief is disingenuous and potentially harmful.

[QUOTE=27X;48299590]Of course scientists on both sides could be biased, and often are, and are even shown to be in said videos. That's only a partial point. The rest of the salient argumentation is principle and belief versus reproducible verifiable factual information, and how how attempting to [b]reinterpret[/b] that data via political belief is disingenuous and potentially harmful.[/QUOTE] No one is saying there is bias on both sides so to hell with it, people are wanting a little more work connecting to the CLAIM to the DATA - in short, they want the warrant. There is reproduceable factual information, but what that data MEANS is far from clear (especially given the barometers the experiments use to make wide-reaching claims about our current cultures gender segregation - picking up a toy train and making eye contact less. Really?). This is, by the way, the point that sociologist was making in the first video that she finds it super interesting all these tests and attempts to find a scientific basis for status quo gender roles. Killuah isn't "reinterpreting data" he wants people to justify the initial interpretation of the data.

[QUOTE=Flameon;48300133]No one is saying there is bias on both sides so to hell with it, people are wanting a little more work connecting to the CLAIM to the DATA - in short, they want the warrant. There is reproduceable factual information, but what that data MEANS is far from clear (especially given the barometers the experiments use to make wide-reaching claims about our current cultures gender segregation - picking up a toy train and making eye contact less. Really?). This is, by the way, the point that sociologist was making in the first video that she finds it super interesting all these tests and attempts to find a scientific basis for status quo gender roles. Killuah isn't "reinterpreting data" he wants people to justify the initial interpretation of the data.[/QUOTE] You're missing the point This is about accepting the notion of building scientific reasoning for beliefs, which includes having then challenged The sociologist side insists upon ideas that they have no interest in factually proving

It's kind of hilarious that there are people in this thread who are making the same arguments as the people in this documentary who were ridiculed and lost their jobs for failing to follow the scientific process and then complain when their ludicrously high standards of evidence cannot be met; meanwhile they believe people are pansexual demi-queer polar bears that are converted to liking things by illuminati brain waves. This is what happens when you apply different standards of evidence for things you want to believe and things you don't.

[QUOTE=Zyler;48301306]meanwhile they believe people are pansexual demi-queer polar bears that are converted to liking things by illuminati brain waves.[/QUOTE] ???

[QUOTE=bitches;48301279]You're missing the point This is about accepting the notion of building scientific reasoning for beliefs, which includes having then challenged The sociologist side insists upon ideas that they have no interest in factually proving[/QUOTE] Well as someone studying anthropology I gotta disagree with your claim that our attatchment to ideas about gender/sex are founded on (what? utopian dreams of how the world ought to be?) In fact, if you are at all aware how these disciplines emerged historicly you know it was anthropologists and sociologists who provided the anthropological veto to a lot of claims regarding human nature (claims which were basically founded on psuedo science). There is often a healthy dialogue between anthropologists, sociologists, and biologists. Maybe this video is just about Norway, but in my classes we engage a healthy debate on studies talking about nature vs nurture (and I just hapen to find evidence to the contrary much more compelling). You hear plenty of dumb shit from the other side of the isle. One class a friend of mine attended at university was about biological impacts on health and the environment. In this class, a professor basically vomited some evolutionary biology arguement that the poorest nations today are poor because in earlier times they didn't have to work as hard to get food. I mean, come on. [editline]26th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Zyler;48301306]It's kind of hilarious that there are people in this thread who are making the same arguments as the people in this documentary who were ridiculed and lost their jobs for failing to follow the scientific process and then complain when their ludicrously high standards of evidence cannot be met; meanwhile they believe people are pansexual demi-queer polar bears that are converted to liking things by illuminati brain waves. This is what happens when you apply different standards of evidence for things you want to believe and things you don't.[/QUOTE] Also what you even talking about dude?.. I'm starting to think the kind of critiques about being open to evidence and being changed might apply to you.

[QUOTE=Flameon;48301447]Well as someone studying anthropology I gotta disagree with your claim that our attatchment to ideas about gender/sex are founded on (what? utopian dreams of how the world ought to be?) In fact, if you are at all aware how these disciplines emerged historicly you know it was anthropologists and sociologists who provided the anthropological veto to a lot of claims regarding human nature (claims which were basically founded on psuedo science). There is often a healthy dialogue between anthropologists, sociologists, and biologists. Maybe this video is just about Norway, but in my classes we engage a healthy debate on studies talking about nature vs nurture (and I just hapen to find evidence to the contrary much more compelling). You hear plenty of dumb shit from the other side of the isle. One class a friend of mine attended at university was about biological impacts on health and the environment. In this class, a professor basically vomited some evolutionary biology arguement that the poorest nations today are poor because in earlier times they didn't have to work as hard to get food. I mean, come on. [editline]26th July 2015[/editline] Also what you even talking about dude?.. I'm starting to think the kind of critiques about being open to evidence and being changed might apply to you.[/QUOTE] Bad wording on my part. I mean to specifically criticize the group in this documentary

[QUOTE=amorax;48290135]I wasn't saying we ought to breed homosexuality out of people, just that we could if we wanted to, same as we could breed heterosexuality out of people. As for my beliefs regarding people's sexuality, I believe all creatures, including humans, are born pansexual and we are then conditioned into adopting various sexual preferences by our culture. If you don't believe me, consider animals, who will have sex with anything that moves. I even used to have a male pet dog who would try to hump my younger brother's friends when they got down on all fours and he would happily hump female dogs at a moment's notice as well. [URL]http://www.thefrisky.com/photos/10-animals-with-bisexual-tendencies/bisexual-animals-griffon-vulture-jpg/[/URL][/QUOTE] This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. People apply ridiculous and wholly unscientific standards to things ("Oh I see there's no evidence supporting this claim, but is there absence of evidence that there isn't a loch ness monster hiding under my bed that can't be detected through any form of modern scientific equipment?"). They apply ridiculous standards to things they disagree with ("well I can't see evolution in front of my eyes, so it doesn't exist") and apply no standards to things they want to believe ("god is real eventhough I can't see, hear, smell or touch him; the bible told me so!"). It's extremely difficult to have an honest conversation because they pose ludicrously over-complicated mental gymnastics for anything they don't want to be real and then when you ask them what they believe they come up with the most unfalsifiable asspulled bullshit you've ever heard like the aforementioned pansexual demi-queer polar bears. When actual supposed scientists tell people that they "chose to be gay" and that "gender dysphoria isn't real, you just believe you're a girl because you saw your parents have sex or something" not only does it harken back to the christian puritants in the deep south practicing their 'conversion therapies' but you have people like some in this thread who will defend those people. [QUOTE=Flameon;48301447] Also what you even talking about dude?.. I'm starting to think the kind of critiques about being open to evidence and being changed might apply to you.[/QUOTE] The difference is that there is no evidence at all to be open to (other than anecdotally, i.e. my dog likes to have sex with chairs therefore all human beings are pansexual demi-queers). I'm open to any evidence, but I'm still skeptical of things that sound like the strawman version of tumblr. When you take anything you want to believe at face value you'll end up with a very warped view of the world. Kiluah didn't prove anything that was scientifically incorrect within the one study he lifted from a single episode of a 7-part documentary that contains hundreds of studies (when he was previously stumbling around to try to find something wrong with it after only watching one episode). However, people in this thread with a predetermined opinion jumped on it in an attempt to prove the documentary was wrong without even watching it. I dare you, if you are skeptical of the documentary, especially if you came in with a predetermined opinion, to watch the whole thing from start to finish. You can't just read a plot synopsis of a book and then give it a review; you have to actually read it.

[QUOTE=Zyler;48302745] The difference is that there is no evidence at all to be open to (other than anecdotally, i.e. my dog likes to have sex with chairs therefore all human beings are pansexual demi-queers). I'm open to any evidence, but I'm still skeptical of things that sound like the strawman version of tumblr. When you take anything you want to believe at face value you'll end up with a very warped view of the world. Kiluah didn't prove anything that was scientifically incorrect within the one study he lifted from a single episode of a 7-part documentary that contains hundreds of studies (when he was previously stumbling around to try to find something wrong with it after only watching one episode). However, people in this thread with a predetermined opinion jumped on it in an attempt to prove the documentary was wrong without even watching it. I dare you, if you are skeptical of the documentary, especially if you came in with a predetermined opinion, to watch the whole thing from start to finish. You can't just read a plot synopsis of a book and then give it a review; you have to actually read it.[/QUOTE] To claim that there is a supposed 'mountain of studies' which beyond a shadow of a doubt proves that gender is a biological fact of life would be putting your head in the sand - there are tons of articles from scientists, psychologists, and the likes which challenge this view. Robert Lippa's book 'Nature and Nurture' has like 300 something citations in google scholar alone. If you think most of those citations are uncriticly accepting his finding you are in for a rude awakening when you read it. By the way, it is super disingenuous to say that because Killuah only answered '1' of the studies mentioned that he is wrong. This is scholarship, there is a lot of points/arguements going around. If you keep deferring the debate being had on one of them to another litany of studies you aren't going to get anywhere. I will say, a lot of these studies did clash with articles I have read (very recent articles mind you!) but even for me the issue I have is the WARRANT between these studies and an expectation that the scope of our society's current gender segregation is somehow natural. Boys plan with model trains and girls play with pretty horses? Even if that is true the connection that has to women as caregivers is tenuous at best. Girls make more eye contact with people than boys? That implies community I guess? (Nevermind that the same people talking to those in animal studies would tell you that prolonged eye contact is a sign of aggression). I find the warrant super problematic in a lot of these arguements. I find the vast complexity of cultures around the world to be proof that our cultural scripts can, and do, override whatever biological programming we have. This is the point of the anthropological veto, and for readers at all interested, I would point you toward the Aka of Central (I believe?) Africa.

[QUOTE=Flameon;48303521]To claim that there is a supposed 'mountain of studies' which beyond a shadow of a doubt proves that gender is a biological fact of life would be putting your head in the sand - there are tons of articles from scientists, psychologists, and the likes which challenge this view. Robert Lippa's book 'Nature and Nurture' has like 300 something citations in google scholar alone. If you think most of those citations are uncriticly accepting his finding you are in for a rude awakening when you read it. By the way, it is super disingenuous to say that because Killuah only answered '1' of the studies mentioned that he is wrong. This is scholarship, there is a lot of points/arguements going around. If you keep deferring the debate being had on one of them to another litany of studies you aren't going to get anywhere. I will say, a lot of these studies did clash with articles I have read (very recent articles mind you!) but even for me the issue I have is the WARRANT between these studies and an expectation that the scope of our society's current gender segregation is somehow natural. Boys plan with model trains and girls play with pretty horses? Even if that is true the connection that has to women as caregivers is tenuous at best. Girls make more eye contact with people than boys? That implies community I guess? (Nevermind that the same people talking to those in animal studies would tell you that prolonged eye contact is a sign of aggression). I find the warrant super problematic in a lot of these arguements. I find the vast complexity of cultures around the world to be proof that our cultural scripts can, and do, override whatever biological programming we have. This is the point of the anthropological veto, and for readers at all interested, I would point you toward the Aka of Central (I believe?) Africa.[/QUOTE] Okay. I was talking about the videos in the OP though, not articles you've read (I think you linked a Jezebel post once to back up your arguments). Did you see those videos, the ones in the OP? Yea, those ones. You should watch them if you want to talk about them. [quote](Nevermind that the same people talking to those in animal studies would tell you that prolonged eye contact is a sign of aggression).[/quote] [b]Staring[/b] at people/other animals is a sign of aggression, that's why monkeys throw their poop at you. [b]Looking in someone's general direction[/b] isn't a sign of aggression, there would be a lot more fighting in pubs if that were the case. Although I get where you'd get this idea if you happened to study the 'male gaze' or something.

[QUOTE=Zyler;48303935]Okay. I was talking about the videos in the OP though, not articles you've read (I think you linked a Jezebel post once to back up your arguments). Did you see those videos, the ones in the OP? Yea, those ones. You should watch them if you want to talk about them. [b]Staring[/b] at people/other animals is a sign of aggression, that's why monkeys throw their poop at you. [b]Looking in someone's general direction[/b] isn't a sign of aggression, there would be a lot more fighting in pubs if that were the case. Although I get where you'd get this idea if you happened to study the 'male gaze' or something.[/QUOTE] I watched the episodes you rec'd (1 and the last one). I was under the impression this was a discussion about those video's subject matter, I wasn't aware we were restricted to *only* talking about the claims made in and by those videos. Yeah, and aparently looking in someone's direction is a sign that women are, at an early age, more geared toward domestic life then men. I didn't even realize that! Silly me. Oh well, I guess thats what I get for studying the idea of the male gaze.

[QUOTE=Flameon;48303969]I watched the episodes you rec'd (1 and the last one). I was under the impression this was a discussion about those video's subject matter, I wasn't aware we were restricted to *only* talking about the claims made in and by those videos. Yeah, and aparently looking in someone's direction is a sign that women are, at an early age, more geared toward domestic life then men. I didn't even realize that! Silly me. Oh well, I guess thats what I get for studying the idea of the male gaze.[/QUOTE] All I have to say is... [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbkN9vb__8&t=0m45s[/url]

Lol good one dude! :D

[QUOTE=Flameon;48303969]I watched the episodes you rec'd (1 and the last one). I was under the impression this was a discussion about those video's subject matter, I wasn't aware we were restricted to *only* talking about the claims made in and by those videos. Yeah, and aparently looking in someone's direction is a sign that women are, at an early age, more geared toward domestic life then men. I didn't even realize that! Silly me. Oh well, I guess thats what I get for studying the idea of the male gaze.[/QUOTE] the video/study isn't even saying that they're more geared to domestic life, its saying they're more geared to socializing than men are, and thus are more likely than men to take jobs where socializing are big factors. [editline]27th July 2015[/editline] which is really clear if you had actually watched the first video

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48306597]the video/study isn't even saying that they're more geared to domestic life, its saying they're more geared to socializing than men are, and thus are more likely than men to take jobs where socializing are big factors. [editline]27th July 2015[/editline] which is really clear if you had actually watched the first video[/QUOTE] Did you watch the part with Anne Cambell?...

Oh yeah, this series. "If you have this, where the lines are pretty flat" [img]http://i.imgur.com/vxHa6BR.png[/img] in what way is that flat Does someone have the link to the actual study? Seriously. I want to check it. [del]And I'm too lazy to find it on my own.[/del]

[QUOTE=Last or First;48308537]Oh yeah, this series. "If you have this, where the lines are pretty flat" [img]http://i.imgur.com/vxHa6BR.png[/img] in what way is that flat Does someone have the link to the actual study? Seriously. I want to check it. [del]And I'm too lazy to find it on my own.[/del][/QUOTE] Saying something is flat doesn't mean it necessarily looks flat visually - it all depends on the scale you choose (and it'd make sense to choose a scale where you can make out differences). Doesn't mean there can't be issues with the study of course. Which episode is it from?

I wonder how much of this is editing. I've seen the first video so far, and the sociologists look like idiots. But, with careful editing, you can make anyone look like an idiot. Just something to watch out for.

I still think it's weird that the same people think you're either born gay or straight ALSO think you're not born a man or a woman. Like your sexuality is ingrained but your gender isn't or something, seems really arbitrary.

[QUOTE=Qwerty Bastard;48309274]I still think it's weird that the same people think you're either born gay or straight ALSO think you're not born a man or a woman. Like your sexuality is ingrained but your gender isn't or something, seems really arbitrary.[/QUOTE] That's a strange issue I've seen with a lot of gay men applying the same arguments used against themselves, against transgender individuals. I don't recall that in this video series however, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. [editline]27th July 2015[/editline] Maybe you're confusing sex with gender. The idea is that you're born of male/female gender, as a way of thinking, expression, and expectations of your body, but that body (sex) isn't always aligned to your gender. They're not saying you're not born a man or a woman, but rather that "you are, but it can be different from your sex".

[QUOTE=bitches;48309343]That's a strange issue I've seen with a lot of gay men applying the same arguments used against themselves, against transgender individuals. I don't recall that in this video series however, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.[/QUOTE] I'm just saying there's a lot of contradictions on one side of the argument here, where the same person can claim that someone is the way they are in terms of sex, gender and sexuality because of biology, while also saying certain arbitrary aspects have nothing to do with biology at all. It seems like a very agenda-focused way of thinking. Yeah, culture definitely influences how someone grows up, but biology, hormones mostly, play a big part too, and to imply that affects one thing (homosexuals are attracted to the same sex because biology affects their behavior) while not applying to the same exact thing in a different circumstance (homosexuals don't act different at all because biology has nothing to do with behavior) is kind of silly. In that line of thinking you're divorcing sexual behavior from social behavior, which are innately tied together, I mean that's evolution baby. A little of my original sentence was a bit of venting at tumblr with their bloated sexual identity nonsense, but I don't want to get into that and ruin the thread.

[QUOTE=Qwerty Bastard;48309820]I'm just saying there's a lot of contradictions on one side of the argument here, where the same person can claim that someone is the way they are in terms of sex, gender and sexuality because of biology, while also saying certain arbitrary aspects have nothing to do with biology at all. It seems like a very agenda-focused way of thinking. Yeah, culture definitely influences how someone grows up, but biology, hormones mostly, play a big part too, and to imply that affects one thing (homosexuals are attracted to the same sex because biology affects their behavior) while not applying to the same exact thing in a different circumstance (homosexuals don't act different at all because biology has nothing to do with behavior) is kind of silly. You're divorcing sexual behavior from social behavior, which are innately tied together, I mean that's evolution baby. A little of my original sentence was a bit of venting at tumblr with their bloated sexual identity nonsense, but I don't want to get into that and ruin the thread.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about in this documentary? Who said that biology rules these factors, what factors did they specify, and what specific factors did they say were irrelevant? Define "behavior" and "acting different"?

[QUOTE=bitches;48309839]What are you talking about in this documentary? Who said that biology rules these factors, what factors did they specify, and what specific factors did they say were irrelevant? Define "behavior" and "acting different"?[/QUOTE] Watching the first two videos and a couple others here and there, I can see a pattern with the social scientists he talks to. They typically say that men and women have no innate disposition towards feminine or masculine behavior, but those same people agree that homosexuality is biological, and that it affects their behavior (but of course, only in a very, very specific context). They don't seem to consider that being attracted to different/same genders is as much a "behavioral quirk" as, say, sitting in a chair differently, or talking with a lisp. They don't consider that a straight man or woman having a desire to copulate with the opposite sex is as much a product of their genes as liking boy's toys or girl's toys. IMO human behavior isn't as compartmentalized as these guys make it out to be, everything revolves around staying alive and reproducing, even down to the mild behavior between men and women, gay and straight. Mostly I'm annoyed that these people think being gay/straight is not a choice, but also think that the way a person acts is 100% a choice and in a world without gender/sexuality stereotypes, everyone would just be totally neutral blank slates. Behavior at any level is linked to either survival or reproduction, so you can't just pick and choose what's born in and what's learned in order to fill an agenda (women should be equally represented, 50/50, in all aspects of life and society, gay people shouldn't have to act flamboyant or stereotypical); they're fine agendas to pursue, but sometimes women, men, gays and straights will do what they are biologically inclined to do instead of developing randomly and having every demographic in every aspect of life be completely equal. You can't have it both ways.

I thought the social scientists agreed unanimously that sexuality is completely fluid and that anyone can decide to be gay or straight whenever they wish which is asinine, but still

[QUOTE=Qwerty Bastard;48309274]I still think it's weird that the same people think you're either born gay or straight ALSO think you're not born a man or a woman. Like your sexuality is ingrained but your gender isn't or something, seems really arbitrary.[/QUOTE] That's more a difference in terms really, there's a difference between saying that gender/sexuality is socially constructed and saying it doesn't exist. The real argument here is about whether the realization of gender is innate or if it is simply society as a whole saying what those traits are and collectively believing it is so. Unless you're a neurologist or a psychiatrist who specifically deals with this stuff, that distinction doesn't really matter because it amounts to the same thing: people can be preconditioned in some way (predisposed towards things) but individuals can still choose what they want to do and be insofar as it's not something more ingrained like gender or sexuality. You can succeed in anything skill-wise with enough raw willpower, but some people may be more naturally talented at certain things than you and at the top level you won't be able to compete with people who have this natural talent or predisposition (you can still get pretty close though). No matter what, there will always be people who are smarter than you or stronger than you or faster than you or just better than you at certain things. That's good, because if that weren't the case everyone would be exactly the same. If everyone were the same there would be no individuals who stood-out from the crowd and came up with new ideas. There would be no Einsteins, no Stephen Hawkings, no Michael Jacksons, no Michael Jordans. There would be no competition between ideas and no innovation. Our civilization would stagnate. The real separation between the two sides is that one side believes that these differences between people, these talents, are the product of a combination of Epistle-genealogy and social factors (basically the combination of hereditary alleles or genes with chemical triggers and outside stimuli that activate these chemical triggers as well as on top of that you also have social factors that dictate how we react to things based on past experiences, the process is a lot more complicated than "here's the gene that makes you a rocket scientist, here's a the gene that makes you a professional basketball player") and the other side believes everything is socially constructed. Being socially constructed means that essentially anyone can be as smart as Einstein no matter what if they are taught appropriately. It means everyone is a blank slate and everything from how smart you are to your gender and sexuality is decided by how you are raised. However, studies that show consistent differences in behavior between infants who haven't yet had time to be raised, socialized and adequately 'brainwashed' seem to be putting a tamper on this socialization theory. The mere existence of trans-people, people who are socialized as one gender but still identify as another, also seems to sow doubt upon the claim that a person's gender is simply what they were raised to believe they were. Here's where this goes out of biological theory and into real social issues: in order to defend socialization theory, it is basically required to erase the identity of trans-people. Their gender identity cannot be 'real' because if it was then that would mean that the realization of gender is innate and biological. In order to continue believing socialization theory, they need to prove that trans-people don't exist. The horrifying part of this is that these same people also run social campaigns and are cited experts on 'identity issues'. The people who run anti-abuse organizations are the ones perpetrating the abuse. So in order to work this whole contradiction out in their minds (because they're also highly politicized and obviously cannot believe they are responsible for anything bad in the world) they say that sexuality, sex and gender are all socially constructed (therefore whatever gender you are is just as 'real' as anybody else's gender) but that trans-people must have had something happen to them to make them 'believe' they are the gender they are (like a traumatic event of some kind) so there gender is not ingrained in the same way a cis person's is. So trans-people are not 'real', but it's easier to go a long with the delusion if it makes them comfortable. Does that answer your question?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48310034]I thought the social scientists agreed unanimously that sexuality is completely fluid and that anyone can decide to be gay or straight whenever they wish which is asinine, but still[/QUOTE] Maybe I'm just biased, and I'm associating these particular people with a larger group. I always figured this sociopolitical inclination believed that someone is born gay, straight, or identified as a man or a woman regardless of their genitalia, but apparently it's all just a random fuckpile of nonsense. An idea that once protected homosexuals in the past, I believe, has now been thrown away to protect transsexuals in the present. I'm all for protecting people of all shapes and sizes but we gotta settle on a fucking theory here.

[QUOTE=Qwerty Bastard;48310138]Maybe I'm just biased, and I'm associating these particular people with a larger group. I always figured this sociopolitical inclination believed that someone is born gay, straight, or identified as a man or a woman regardless of their genitalia, but apparently it's all just a random fuckpile of nonsense. An idea that once protected homosexuals in the past, I believe, has now been thrown away to protect transsexuals in the present. I'm all for protecting people of all shapes and sizes but we gotta settle on a fucking theory here.[/QUOTE] It's important to separate the science from the politics, because anyone who deals with politics is usually pretty stupid.

[QUOTE=Qwerty Bastard;48310138]Maybe I'm just biased, and I'm associating these particular people with a larger group. I always figured this sociopolitical inclination believed that someone is born gay, straight, or identified as a man or a woman regardless of their genitalia, but apparently it's all just a random fuckpile of nonsense. An idea that once protected homosexuals in the past, I believe, has now been thrown away to protect transsexuals in the present. I'm all for protecting people of all shapes and sizes but we gotta settle on a fucking theory here.[/QUOTE] How does this protect anyone? They're saying that people are just blank slates, and that everything you are is given to you by society. It's both anti gay and anti trans. Mostly anti trans, since it's essentially saying the only thing they need is therapy and that their "gender identity" is made up. I don't know what larger group these people are a part of, aside from "out of touch utopia seeking self centered nitwits".