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

[Last or First]

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48308801]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?[/QUOTE]
That's why I asked for the study itself, I want to see the scale they're using.
Although another point is that, assuming that the bottom 'scale' is just a list of all of the countries, you could change it from being jagged to being a steady slope depending on how you arrange them, since it's 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]
I'm not sure if you're including me in that, most likely not, but I'm going to take this opportunity to clarify my point some more.
I don't necessarily disagree completely with these videos, I just think they should be taken with a grain of salt.
You're obviously born into your gender, but this doesn't mean that aspects stereotypically associated with genders are something you're born into as well.

[QUOTE=Qwerty Bastard;48309933]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.[/QUOTE]
So where does "boys play with tonka trucks" directly fit into reproduction and survival? How would that sort of gene even work?
"Boys like objects more, girls like faces more" doesn't really work when the toy set in the experiment includes action figures as a masculine toy and plastic dishware as a feminine toy.

Part of survival and reproduction is being popular. Part of being popular is liking what you're "supposed" to like, what other people like. So it's entirely possible for boys liking "manly" things more to be due to wanting to fit in and meet expectations rather than some sort of goddamn gene. If it were popular for boys to like dishware, they would like dishware.

The only way to truly, neutrally test whether boys and girls naturally like toys and clothes "meant" for them would be to set up a control. In this control, you would need there to be no adults, no illustrations of people interacting with things or wearing things, just objects themselves. Even dolls would all have to be naked and have clothing and accessories that could fit either. Food would have to be given to them by some sort of robot.
Of course, doing this would be absolutely fucking insane, which is why we haven't done it yet.

[editline]27th July 2015[/editline]

[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]

I don't think anyone has ever actually said that.

Well, anyone with respected opinions and provable hypotheses.

[Zyler]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48310177]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".[/QUOTE]

They're doctors with PHDs in Gender Studies, Sociology and other soft/social sciences as well as managers and members of anti-abuse and anti-racist organizations. Which I find pretty scary.

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=Last or First;48310201]I don't think anyone has ever actually said that.

Well, anyone with respected opinions and provable hypotheses.[/QUOTE]

watch the documentaries bro, several people say it pretty damn clearly on multiple occasions

when I say "social scientists" I am referring specifically to the social scientists featured in the series

I think you're confusing "gender is a real thing" with "men like wearing suits and running corporations and women like making sandwiches"

[Zyler]

[QUOTE=Last or First;48310201]
I don't think anyone has ever actually said that.

Well, anyone with respected opinions and provable hypotheses.[/QUOTE]

Watch the videos, that's exactly what the sociologists in the video said, whether they have respected opinions and provable hypotheses is another matter altogether. These people were leading anti-abuse organizations and teaching rhetoric in universities that had no basis in reality and were actually quite harmful towards specific groups of people.

[bitches]

[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]

What idea? How did it protect gay people? Why does it harm trans people?

Everything you're posting is really poorly worded; you keep assuming that we can read your mind.

[Last or First]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;48310238]watch the documentaries bro, several people say it pretty damn clearly on multiple occasions

when I say "social scientists" I am referring specifically to the social scientists featured in the series

I think you're confusing "gender is a real thing" with "men like wearing suits and running corporations and women like making sandwiches"[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Zyler;48310249]Watch the videos, that's exactly what the sociologists in the video said, whether they have respected opinions and provable hypotheses is another matter altogether. These people were leading anti-abuse organizations and teaching rhetoric in universities that had no basis in reality and were actually quite harmful towards specific groups of people.[/QUOTE]

Well jeez, no wonder they shut down the Nordic Gender Institute.

Unless if that's not the sociologists in question

again, I haven't watched any of the videos past the first, last saw the first [I]months[/I] ago, and skimmed through it so I only saw about half to 3/4ths. I'll look at the others when I have more time.
Or now? I don't even know.

[Mattk50]

Halfway through watching these im noticing a pattern. They always say the research of their opponents is dubious without citing specifics or their own contradicting studies, and then they move on to saying it's "uninteresting" to justify why they dont have their own studies on it.

Academics gone wrong in the worst way.

edit:
the part about % differences in genes is nonsense. the way you "measure" % difference in genes is more a matter of semantics and produces vastly different results in actual precentage, anything from 80% to 99% For example many sections of genes are repeated several times a dog may have a sequence humans have two of back to back, how do we count that, as one difference? As as many different genes there are? As no difference because it's the same sequence? stop talking about this dumb gene % shit no we're not actually 1% different from monkeys.