• Scotland introduces LGBT+ lessons in school curriculum
    199 replies, posted
This is far from veering away from the original topic. I'm providing an explanation as to *why* people hate LGBT'ers. I even said I myself an uncomfortable with this way of educating people about LGBT issues, and granted it's because of a personal issue, that issue being social anxiety, but that still doesn't invalidate my reasoning as to why people hate them.
what about the people who fall outside of the types "likely to dislike people who go against their instinctual desire to procreate", to the point of not even LIKING or ADVOCATING procreation, yet hating homosexuals and transsexuals? are these people not conditioned? how big a factor of the population is this type of people compared to the others who merely "naturally" hate those who go against the biological imperative? does your understanding of this model account for this? the fact that certain types are merely predisposed to hate certain groups in this model, and not guaranteed to hate certain groups, pokes a hole in your understanding of the model itself, regardless of its validity and usefulness.
Now you're just moving the goalpost. What's stopping the people who *do* fall into those personality types from hating people based on their instinctual desires? There's always going to be people who don't fall into the type, but the majority of people *do* fall into them, and it's useful to assume what their actions would be based on what type they would fall in. And even if you don't fall into the solid description of a type, you could still have a personality trait that predisposes you to hating a certain group.
i have moved no goalposts. the fact that there is a variance at all makes it absolutely imperative to try and influence the social factors that result in this hatred, in fact, i have said so a few pages back - that even if this phenomenon cannot be eradicated it should be mitigated to the best of society's ability. who is to say that this predisposition to hatred of a social group is the result of a biotruth and not conditioning? how does one select for that in a study, are there any people grown as blank slates and propped into society after having existed in isolation for many years? the very methodology you cite, which i doubt the model even makes use of, is faulty.
Who's to say it wasn't the biological information from a parents birth that didn't influence the conditioning of a child? In that sense, it's still a result of a biological desire. Sure someone who was conditioned at birth can supersede the id, it happens all the time! But more likely than not, the result of a genetic influence is going to be the biggest factor in deciding who hates certain groups and who doesn't.
can you please cite me a study in which types in this model are correlated with hatred of those who go against the biological imperative, so that i can look at the methodology myself and say my thoughts on them, instead of on your understanding of it? i'd rather we both not shout past each other repeating the same sentences and claims.
Are you implying that we could actually isolate a "hate the gays" gene?
Whilst genes probably play a role, I think Bee York is wrong to imply that it's mostly genetic. I think the vast majority of prejudices are as a result of environmental factors.
don't get me wrong I 100% agree with you.
your social anxiety is a you-problem. so that invalidates a lot of your stance, which you admit is based on it. but let's say you're right about id, psychology etc etc. isn't that a good reason to have classes explaining these ideas and teach people that sometimes, your average joe likes men. or suzy was born in a boy's body, but she has always felt like a girl and is why she calls herself that now. teach kids that these people who otherwise have no bearing on their life are just like you and me. your arguments brings humans down to instinctual animals. we're much more than that, but stating that instinct somehow affects us to that point dismisses our social and psychological evolution. you can't just generalize people by putting them in these quack personality booths and say that's enough for them to be phobic. racism, homophobia and transphobia is almost always caused by misinformation. teaching children is a way to fight against that.
Wow this thread got big. I didn't think Scottish schools teaching sexuality/gender spectrum issues for a couple of hours in a school year was so interes- - oh wait it's just Bee York going off the deep end.
pop science was a mistake, pop psychology perhaps the worst offender
How to repeatedly make unsubstantiated claims and demand substantiated responses.
that genetics somehow play such a large role in this is so fucking bullshit. guess that I must be the biggest, racist and homophobic fuckhole in the world then, cause one glance on the four generations that preceded me sure says so!!
i doubt that's what he means, because personality types aren't wholly hereditary with the big five model, tbh. this doesn't change the fact he asks me to substantiate a counter-claim to an unsubstantiated claim.
At least pop science is usually relatively contemporary. This is digging up 19th century trash psychodynamic theories were useful as heuristics back in the day in a therapeutic setting, but not outside of that and not today either.
An additional reason why education on LGBT issues is so important, particularly trans issues, is because it allows kids who actually are queer to help figure themselves out, and know they're not alone. I didn't even know that being trans was something you could be until I was midway through my teens, and I spent several years thinking I wasn't special enough to be trans because the only trans people I'd ever heard of were celebrities. It was only once I met and started talking to other trans people that I realised that this was something I could be as well, because we're just ordinary people. I don't want kids to have to go through the same torturous puberty, full of hate for themselves but not knowing why, that I did.
Been a while since I was at school but I'm guessing Guidance classes are still a thing. Learning about LGBT issues will likely end up falling under Guidance. Most folk at school when I was there were pretty homophobic and it was perfectly acceptable, this was during and a little after it was illegal to promote homosexuality in Scottish schools. A lot of LBGT kids suffered for it through the ignorance so it's good to see them trying to right some past wrongs through education.
So as someone who went through the Scottish schooling system (albeit a few years ago), I think I should probably clear something up for the people who are complaining about this being a "whole class dedicated to LGBT issues." Back in my day, and as far as I am aware it still persists just under a different name, we had a timetabled slot around once a week called Personal Studies, which basically covered life-skill-y things like CV Writing, Sex and Relationship Education, etc. I imagine the class aspect of this will be folded into that. The rest is just ensuring that protocols are in place to clamp down on homophobic bullying etc.
Same, as rough as my secondry school was, the few openly gay and obvious closet guy guys in my year were treated largely with alota respect, if anyone was called a faggot they were most likely obviously straight. I never seen much if any direct bullying over sexuality.
My experience too. Scottish secondary schoolers were pretty accepting YEARS AGO, and setting aside a tiny portion of a Guidance class for LGBT issues makes a lot of sense.
Apologies if my post was ambiguous, which I feel it was, in hindsight. I knew you were agreeing with me, but my post was more an elaboration on yours than admonishment.
i'm glad you all think i'm retarded but won't provide any real explanation as to why. eat shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits mentions of Freud: 1 context: Neuroticism is similar but not identical to being neurotic in the Freudian sense  mentions of id: 0 yeah uh no Just because different psychologists both say "some people are shy and some are not!" doesn't mean everything they believe is the same. And you also have no basis for "people instinctually hate gay people but not people of different races because I say so" Especially when racism was extremely prevalent for the longest time, and still is. also the "let's not teach about homosexuality because it will lead to bullies" is bullshit. Again, you can apply that to race. "let's not teach about civil rights and how black people used to be discriminated against, because it will lead kids to bully black kids!" It's bullshit.
Because no one gives about the bullshit you're saying
Really happy about this. Education in Scotland is usually pretty good (SNP had no hands in that, arseholes have cut so much funding) - having proper LGBT+ education is great. Most prejudice is learnt from parents so teaching them not to be a cunt from a younger age will surely have some positives. I remember casually slinging "gay" about as an insult like nobody's business when I was at school in my wee town, but since then they've had a couple trans students and have been pretty ahead of the game with LGBT+ education and accomodation. This can't be anything but good
You realise that the SNP haven't actually cut any spending? Education has remained a stable 13 - 14% of the Scottish Budget since SNP took power, however, the Scottish budget hasn't changed since 2010/11 (since the Coalition government, essentially), which basically means that in real terms the Scottish Government's spending power has decreased around 4%. Here's a relevant fact check from a Question Time debate back in 2016 which is concerned with the general scottish budget: https://fullfact.org/scotland/has-scottish-government-budget-increased-or-decreased-2010/ You can google spending breakdowns for yourself too, or I can direct you to ukpublicpsending.co.uk, which despite looking like a relic of the early 2000s internet, has easily accessible graphs without having to compare a bunch of gov.uk pdfs. (Because they've done that for you)
it seems to me that you made two grand claims: 1) there is a significant correlation between personality type and bigotry 2) this correlation is evidence that not only is there a strong inborn predisposition for bigotry, but also that it cannot be significantly altered by proper education provide evidence for both of these and i can assure you nobody's gonna think you're retarded. as of now, it seems you are trying to twist certain psychological concepts to support a far-fetched notion.
it's not something you even need evidence to grasp. I made a concise explanation for my point of view and i feel like the train of logic follows a steady path. still NONE of you have made ANY sort of explanation as to why what i've said makes no sense. It's all just attacking little details that don't matter and avoiding the point i've made.
...details that matter a lot because you literally can't go off just gut feeling and intuition to make claims this sweeping. what you say makes sense, it is intelligible - what it lacks, or does have but you have failed to provide, is evidence. it's not that we haven't grasped what you say - it's that we are not as confident as you are about the validity of intuition alone to derive a truth, especially when our own intuitions clearly go against your claims, serving as living refutation. your train of logic is easy to follow, it's just that to start a train of logic in the first place one must prove that the premises at the start of this train are true. a statement can be invalid even if the logic is. usually in psychology, as with other social sciences, to make a claim like this one needs sufficient empirical evidence and absolutely zero evidence that contradicts the model suggested. this is what is required to state confidently what you had seemingly stated.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.