Hungary Scrap Gender Studies Indoctrination Courses

batgoat

silverharp wrote: »

reminds me of

Go to history and you'll find Marxist analyses which are entirely legitimate and give pretty great perspectives on pieces of history such as the French Revolution. Guessing feminist analyses relate to theories in the field. Pretty standard for arts. So far, we've had examples from UCC and Trinity and no massive issues being shown by anyone...

The Legend Of Kira

Im not in favour of things being banned,, if there is a demand from people to do the course & they re willing to pay their own money to do it- its their money if they opt to spend it doing the course.

Sal Butamol

batgoat wrote: »

So far, we've had examples from UCC and Trinity and no massive issues being shown by anyone...

Yeah because they are going to flag these things in big red letters for all to see in advance.

How many third-level institutes have you worked in out of interest?

I remember at the start of my career a department head telling me in private that the gender studies department were a royal pain in the ass to deal with, that he would hold no meetings with said staff in his office and that he tried to conduct all business with said staff via email.

If they had to have a face-to-face meeting it was done in the staff canteen in public.

He tried to avoid them at all costs because if their history of **** stirring.

One wrong word and it you could take your pick of labels they'd be slapping you with as they marched off to file a complaint.

Many, many academics feel the same about these departments.

And they have infested third-level management so the rot is structural at this stage.

s7ryf3925pivug

Deleted User wrote: »

Who is celebrating that this was banned? Go on. Love to see you find the posts where anyone is jumping for joy.

TBH I doubt I need to study it full-time, since my participation in threads on boards have given me plenty of opportunities to research the topic, and read about the different perspectives on the topic.

Read the first post for example. First line of it even. :rolleyes:

Averi Witty Survivor

Averi Witty Survivor wrote: »

Read the first post for example. First line of it even. :rolleyes:

So, the people "celebrating" this ban is really just the OP?

GarIT

Creative83 wrote: »

WTF is "Gender Studies" and why do we need it?? Is this what is giving the extra letters in LGB

Nah, gender studies is like the KKK but for women instead of white people.

Gender studies is why masculinity is frowned upon rather than why being a gender and wanting to keep it is frowned upon.

Taytoland

batgoat wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Still got no answer from those who dispute this decision with if it was creationism would they think the same? Should all nonsense be taught in education?

Okay here's the women's studies course in ucc. Seems as legitimate as any other arts course. It's a specialist area like any other in academia.

https://www.ucc.ie/en/womensstudies/mainwomensstudies/

Formulate arguments that reflect a critical and comprehensive, interdisciplinary knowledge of feminist debates around social and cultural issues;
Communicate those arguments effectively both orally and in writing;
Apply concepts, theories and methodologies appropriately at postgraduate level;
Assess how differences (race, ethnicity, class, sexual identity, time, place, values etc.) inform theoretical positions;
Critically evaluate evidence drawn from existing research and scholarship;
Design and pursue independent research;
Utilise those transferable skills developed through engagement with the self-directed learning, research and academic writing aspects of the course.

Sample module info

Learning Outcomes: On successful completion of this module, students should be able to:
· Explore themes which connect first and second wave feminism.
· Identify issues in contemporary society of particular relevance to the lives of women.
· Analyse and critically assess historical and contemporary interventions designed to address gender inequality and present findings orally and in writing.
· Explore issues of gender in specific Irish and international documents.
· Apply a feminist analytical approach in research.

As legitimate as creationism and other such nonsense.

batgoat

Taytoland wrote: »

As legitimate as creationism and other such nonsense.

Do you think applying a Marxist analysis to history is like creationism?

Taytoland

batgoat wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

As legitimate as creationism and other such nonsense.

Do you think applying a Marxist analysis to history is like creationism?

Well given that Marxism is a giant pile of absolute unworkable bollocks it's not that far behind.

Galwayguy35

TomSweeney wrote: »

I have never even interacted with her ...


MaryMcAuliffe4MaryMcAuliffe4's Tweets. Learn more




- How ironic.

Started following her there now just for the craic.

The tweets from her followers are painful to read, a lot of delicate little flowers there.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

I have a BA in Finance and a MBA. I have NLP Practitioner certification along with a host of minor diplomas related to negotiation, interpersonal communication, cultural training etc. I also have a variety of programming related diplomas, and software engineering courses. And I, too, was trained to break theory down into practical considerations.

I think you'll find that most people who have attended formal third level education and worked beyond their initial qualifications (or desired industry) will have the same ability you describe above. The difference is how they perceive their results and whether they believe their perception is an absolute.



Strangely enough, it seems like people here like to make the assumption that we don't know what we're talking about even when we've actually written pages on the subject over years while debating it on boards. The area of Gender studies is not a new topic to boards. It has been discussed extensively on a number of threads over the years, with people referencing actual courses in the US or Europe, along with articles covering their own criticisms of the subject.

And then, there's the dismissive attitude that we must consider it to be indoctrination... and yet, here's the thing. Lecturers in a course teaching young adults (18-23) are presenting from a position of authority on the subject. Students expect the lecturers to be educated and knowledgeable about the subject matter, and few students are going to research a lecturers past attitudes on topics. The vast majority of students are going to attend lectures, and blindly accept what their lecturers say in class, because that determines their ability to pass the exams. The lecturers will correct their assignments and projects subject only to that lecturers opinion on the subject. The only time you're really going to get students arguing with Lecturers about course content is when they're actively encouraged to do so. (or when they appeal failed papers, and then the university will likely side with the lecturer on principle)

How do I know this? Well, like you as a student... but also through a decade of teaching at university level. I've taught MBA courses in China, Korea and Japan. I've also presented financial/business ethics classes in the UK with private business colleges.

So... indoctrination, no. But the beliefs of the lecturers on the subject matter of what they teach is important. It determines what students will be required to learn, how they approach the areas of assessment, and whether students will actually pass exams. It also determines whether students will receive recommendations from lecturers or the university itself when it comes to grants, scholarships, or employment applications associated with the University.

The truth is that Gender Studies is a very biased course with the recent history of being extremely pro-feminist, and intolerant of students who object. It's entirely possible that Gender studies will evolve into a subject that actually seeks to study gender practices in a unbiased manner, but that's not going to happen without criticism being allowed. Without it's use of questionable statistics or dodgy peer-reviewed material as fact. We should be encouraging that Gender studies programs be exposed to inspection, checking for any signs of either Misandry or Misogyny... seeking a fair and balanced viewpoint on the effects of Gender within society.

You've made a lot of assumptions there. You said that the lecturers are very biased but you presented no explanation. You said that there's a bias against students who object. But no evidence.

As someone who's studied you should know that if you want to make these assumptions you should provide evidence. And that evidence should be extensive. Have you seen this evidence or are you just assuming this is the case?
You mention that they use dodgy statistics. Have you seen any collated evidence of this? Any stats?

And even within just feminism there is discussion. There was first, second and third wave feminism. Each came from criticizing the previous generation. And within each movement there was/is a lot of disagreement.
Within women's studies specifically there's a huge range of disciplines represented. Historians, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists etc.
And the area is worth studying. Like I mentioned before, gender plays a huge role in societies, both past and present. If we ignore it we're ignoring a huge part of the human experience.

If anyone here can show me good reason why that shouldn't be studied, I'll change my mind. Or if anyone here can present evidence that in the majority of places it's studied, it's studied incorrectly or provide evidence of widespread tampering with statistics, I'd be happy to acknowledge my mistake. But no-one's done that.

I think you're the only person to attempt to do this when you posted the article from the blaze. But that article willfully misrepresented what happened. If I hadn't happened to know about how those journals operate I might have thought differently.

batgoat

Taytoland wrote: »

Well given that Marxism is a giant pile of absolute unworkable bollocks it's not that far behind.

You'd be laughed out of the room by historians which is the thing. It's a perfectly legitimate form of historiography which just requires history to be viewed from a different perspective. Just like any branch of historiography. You couldn't for example study the French Revolution without at least looking at the Marxist historiography. It's one of a few on the topic but of significant importance for gaining an understanding.


Basically my point is, applying different types of analyses or schools of thought is completely legit in arts and not some evil propaganda.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

I think you're the only person to attempt to do this when you posted the article from the blaze. But that article willfully misrepresented what happened. If I hadn't happened to know about how those journals operate I might have thought differently.

Well, see, here's the thing. I know that you have been involved in many of the discussions regarding sexism, feminism, and Gender studies in the past here on boards (both in AH, and the Gentleman's club). We've argued these points before... which is why I'm not rushing off to produce links for criticisms of research or articles describing the bias in Gender Studies courses. You will, just as you have done with what I have provided, dismiss them as being incompatible with your view of things.

So, no, I'm not going to waste my time providing heaps of links and writing a long response to something you're going to ignore or dismiss out of hand.

And for anyone who is actually interested in finding those articles, references, and discussions, there is a handy search function on boards.

Taytoland

batgoat wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Well given that Marxism is a giant pile of absolute unworkable bollocks it's not that far behind.

You'd be laughed out of the room by historians which is the thing. It's a perfectly legitimate form of historiography which just requires history to be viewed from a different perspective. Just like any branch of historiography. You couldn't for example study the French Revolution without at least looking at the Marxist historiography. It's one of a few on the topic but of significant importance for gaining an understanding.


Basically my point is, applying different types of analyses or schools of thought is completely legit in arts and not some evil propaganda.

You would be correct it's history and I think it should be taught for the nonsense it is. Same way we teach about National Socialism in schools. The whole point is where do we stop with teaching ideas and should anything just go? You only have so much resources and time.

batgoat

Taytoland wrote: »

You would be correct it's history and I think it should be taught for the nonsense it is. Same way we teach about National Socialism in schools. The whole point is where do we stop with teaching ideas and should anything just go? You only have so much resources and time.

You're discounting a branch of historiography because it's Marxist. It's far from nonsense and not just Marxists utilise it... You're passing comment on various different areas of study which you don't even have a basic understanding of because it irks you as a concept. That's pretty silly.

Taytoland

batgoat wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

You would be correct it's history and I think it should be taught for the nonsense it is. Same way we teach about National Socialism in schools. The whole point is where do we stop with teaching ideas and should anything just go? You only have so much resources and time.

You're discounting a branch of historiography because it's Marxist. It's far from nonsense and not just Marxists utilise it... You're passing comment on various different areas of study which you don't even have a basic understanding of because it irks you as a concept. That's pretty silly.

His whole critique of capitalism was nonsense and a failure to understand the fundamentals of human nature. That is why it doesn't work and all states which have implemented it have failed utterly and turn into dumps with less individual liberty.

mvl

That's why I also think its poor to re-bring the same gender debate on this thread. My view is that all these measures target Orban's current blacklist, and little was said in here that can get me to change my mind.

But there is some type of information I am missing/intrigued about: I would want to ask if knowledgeable ppl here think that studying gendering for robots/human interaction might be affected by Orban's ban or not - does this qualify as Gender Studies ?!?
- This can be a domain I might find interesting to start a degree/diploma on in future .

Ush1

meeeeh wrote: »

In more creative areas of advertising or marketing you often have people with social science degrees. How many engineers are actually able to sell their own products?

The minds that created Facebook, Microsoft, etc.. were engineers.

batgoat

Taytoland wrote: »

His whole critique of capitalism was nonsense and a failure to understand the fundamentals of human nature. That is why it doesn't work and all states which have implemented it have failed utterly and turn into dumps with less individual liberty.

But you don't actually understand anything about Marxist analyses, it can be extraordinarily beneficial to apply it to portions of history and has allowed for fresh insights into areas that needed it. You've literally thrown an incredibly important analyses of the French Revolution (seems fair to analyse along the lines of it being anti Capitalist because it was) and other parts of history because it uses a Marxist analyses when it can be entirely relevant.

Anyway, you've pretty much illustrated my point. You've argued about something you have no knowledge on and think a pretty mainstream area of history is nonsense. :P Reason being, I used a word that you don't like.

LLMMLL

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Yeah because they are going to flag these things in big red letters for all to see in advance.

How many third-level institutes have you worked in out of interest?

I remember at the start of my career a department head telling me in private that the gender studies department were a royal pain in the ass to deal with, that he would hold no meetings with said staff in his office and that he tried to conduct all business with said staff via email.

If they had to have a face-to-face meeting it was done in the staff canteen in public.

He tried to avoid them at all costs because if their history of **** stirring.

One wrong word and it you could take your pick of labels they'd be slapping you with as they marched off to file a complaint.

Many, many academics feel the same about these departments.

And they have infested third-level management so the rot is structural at this stage.

As I said I looked at the research of the academic who had the most moderny feministy module in the Tcd course and her ACTUAL research is not even vaguely radically feministy.

Sal Butamol

And?

LLMMLL

Sal Butamol wrote: »

And?

So the idea that the syllabus is misleading and the professors are secretly teaching radical theories in an indoctrinating manner are highly unlikely if their own research is quite mild and uncontroversial.

Sal Butamol

LLMMLL wrote: »

So the idea that the syllabus is misleading and the professors are secretly teaching radical theories in an indoctrinating manner are highly unlikely if their own research is quite mild and uncontroversial.

None of which I claimed in relation to course outlines. What's your point?

TomSweeney

LLMMLL wrote: »

“The science that someone can claim to be whatever they want”???

What does that even mean?

Well you tell us ? you keep on promoting it !

TomSweeney

LLMMLL wrote: »

We can’t make any generalisations based on Rachel Dolzeal. She is one individual.

If 0.5% of the Irish population believed they were black then that would certainly be worthy of a generalised investigation and analysis, but one individual is at best a case study.

Are you implying that 0.5% of people are trans ?

1 in 200 seems a bit high - do you accept that many of these people are perhaps confused ? - maybe they are really gay . Not all of them of course but some.


And believe me that Rachel Dolzeal incident - we will be seeing a LOT more like that in the USA.




And finally, are you a troll account ?

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Malayalam wrote: »

Hmmmm, tough one, there are many options, but I found Guido Preparata's book ''The Ideology of Tyranny'' provided a pretty good historical track back from Foucault to Bataille and ultimately to the Marquis de Sade. It illustrates quite well how humans have been reduced in post modern philosophy from sacred beings (in the widest sense of that implication) to deterministic, mechanistic, nihilistic objects to be divided and thus conquered. Preparata has a heavily poetic style which can make his writing somewhat opaque, but overall it is informative.

Interesting. I would not have positioned de Sade as a progenitor of postmodern thought. It also seems to me that any argument that relies on how people are no longer regarded as "sacred beings" has implications beyond just an intellectual genealogy of postmodernism; this has been the general trend in the Western world for several centuries now as we transition from a worldview based on religion and metaphysics, which viewed humans as the direct creations of a divine entity, to one based on science, rationalism, evolution, etc.

Malayalam

Annabel Ambitious Tinsel wrote: »

Interesting. I would not have positioned de Sade as a progenitor of postmodern thought. It also seems to me that any argument that relies on how people are no longer regarded as "sacred beings" has implications beyond just an intellectual genealogy of postmodernism; this has been the general trend in the Western world for several centuries now as we transition from a worldview based on religion and metaphysics, which viewed humans as the direct creations of a divine entity, to one based on science, rationalism, evolution, etc.

Yes to the first point

And the arguments do not 'rely' on the second but it is included in the general thesis

And religion and metaphysics while they have some overlap are not equivalent

PlaneSpeeking

TomSweeney wrote: »

Are you implying that 0.5% of people are trans ?

1 in 200 seems a bit high - do you accept that many of these people are perhaps confused ? - maybe they are really gay . Not all of them of course but some.


And believe me that Rachel Dolzeal incident - we will be seeing a LOT more like that in the USA.




And finally, are you a troll account ?

I've said this for many years now - people are fine, people are whatever they are.

STEREOTYPES are wrong.

How many trans people have you heard say "I knew I was a girl really when I didn't want to play football/wear trousers/have nicely styled hair" etc etc.

I'm female - I hate girly crap, outside of crying at Bambi and being terrified of spiders there's rarely a feminine bone here. I love sports, I hate dressing up, I own no make up and cut my own hair.

I've been told I am a lesbian, at least bi, gender fluid, non binary etc etc - all the modern made up ****e.

Why can't it be accepted in this brave new world that people matter, not made up nonsense labels ?

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Malayalam wrote: »

And religion and metaphysics while they have some overlap are not equivalent

I didn't say they were equivalent. However, Christianity was influenced heavily by Hellenistic philosophy for centuries. The "religion" with which most people are familiar -- with its tradition of divine mind before matter, Logos before creation -- is inextricable from the Greek metaphysics that preceded it.

TomSweeney

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I've said this for many years now - people are fine, people are whatever they are.

STEREOTYPES are wrong.

How many trans people have you heard say "I knew I was a girl really when I didn't want to play football/wear trousers/have nicely styled hair" etc etc.

I'm female - I hate girly crap, outside of crying at Bambi and being terrified of spiders there's rarely a feminine bone here. I love sports, I hate dressing up, I own no make up and cut my own hair.

I've been told I am a lesbian, at least bi, gender fluid, non binary etc etc - all the modern made up ****e.

Why can't it be accepted in this brave new world that people matter, not made up nonsense labels ?

Spot on , I like the way you think.
Check out this podcast

https://youtu.be/HYJFgyqs0sM


Heather was saying that when she was a little girl she was a real tomboy and preferred "boys" toys and doing typical boyish things.
She is now a grown married woman - straight with 2 children and is very happy that way.
Now she made the great point that nowadays (especially in North America) you have these "progressive" parents that if they have a daughter like this they will decide for her that she is trans.
Maybe start her on hormonal treatment ... Imagine the fucking DAMAGE that could be done !! ??
Cos these idiots want to use their kids as "diversity" points etc...

Malayalam

Annabel Ambitious Tinsel wrote: »

I didn't say they were equivalent. However, Christianity was influenced heavily by Hellenistic philosophy for centuries. The "religion" with which most people are familiar -- with its tradition of divine mind before matter, Logos before creation -- is inextricable from the Greek metaphysics that preceded it.

Yes. Didn't really mean it in an accusatory fashion ,sorry if it seemed that way, but rather to distinguish the two for any who might be inclined to dismiss the deep roots of our civilization as merely religious. Many very modern and very intelligent people lament the lack of appreciation of the metaphysical foundations of so much that is good in our present world. Postmodernism cuts to those roots in so many areas from philosophies to art, literature, architecture and ever more so social policy. Personally I view it as destructive in most areas it touches, I particularly dislike the post ironic moral relativism it breeds. Anyway bigger topic and not for dragging through AH, I reckon....just responded to request for book recommendation. There are many others people could opt for, it was just recently in my mind.

PlaneSpeeking

TomSweeney wrote: »

Spot on , I like the way you think.
Check out this podcast

https://youtu.be/HYJFgyqs0sM


Heather was saying that when she was a little girl she was a real tomboy and preferred "boys" toys and doing typical boyish things.
She is now a grown married woman - straight with 2 children and is very happy that way.
Now she made the great point that nowadays (especially in North America) you have these "progressive" parents that if they have a daughter like this they will decide for her that she is trans.
Maybe start her on hormonal treatment ... Imagine the fucking DAMAGE that could be done !! ??
Cos these idiots want to use their kids as "diversity" points etc...

I thank God I was born in the early 70s and my mother was normal!

JohnMc1

Averi Witty Survivor wrote: »

The posters who are celebrating this being banned are the same ones who never stop banging on about gender. Seems like they would love to study the topic full-time.

What's there to bang on about? If you have a penis you're a boy and if you have a vagina you're a girl. Anything else is between you and a psychiatrist.

Taytoland

batgoat wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

His whole critique of capitalism was nonsense and a failure to understand the fundamentals of human nature. That is why it doesn't work and all states which have implemented it have failed utterly and turn into dumps with less individual liberty.

But you don't actually understand anything about Marxist analyses, it can be extraordinarily beneficial to apply it to portions of history and has allowed for fresh insights into areas that needed it. You've literally thrown an incredibly important analyses of the French Revolution  (seems fair to analyse along the lines of it being anti Capitalist because it was) and other parts of history because it uses a Marxist analyses when it can be entirely relevant.

Anyway, you've pretty much illustrated my point. You've argued about something you have no knowledge on and think a pretty mainstream area of history is nonsense. :P  Reason being, I used a word that you don't like.

You are arguing that all wacky theories should have money spent on them to be taught in education. That is your opinion, I think you have to be concise in what courses are taught, which should be on a hierarchy in terms of importance. The fact that I think Marxism is nonsense isn't the absolute basis of my point, it's just where do you rank it in terms of importance.

Saying I don't understand Marxism is not correct.

batgoat

Taytoland wrote: »

You are arguing that all wacky theories should have money spent on them to be taught in education. That is your opinion, I think you have to be concise in what courses are taught, which should be on a hierarchy in terms of importance. The fact that I think Marxism is nonsense isn't the absolute basis of my point, it's just where do you rank it in terms of importance.

Saying I don't understand Marxism is not correct.

Nope, you don't understand a branch of historiography and labelling it as nonsense is ignorance...

LLMMLL

TomSweeney wrote: »

Well you tell us ? you keep on promoting it !

No I don’t.

LLMMLL

TomSweeney wrote: »

Are you implying that 0.5% of people are trans ?

1 in 200 seems a bit high - do you accept that many of these people are perhaps confused ? - maybe they are really gay . Not all of them of course but some.


And believe me that Rachel Dolzeal incident - we will be seeing a LOT more like that in the USA.

Why would I believe you about that? Do you have access to some stats or studies the rest of us don’t?

And finally, are you a troll account ?

No. Are you?

Taytoland

batgoat wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

You are arguing that all wacky theories should have money spent on them to be taught in education. That is your opinion, I think you have to be concise in what courses are taught, which should be on a hierarchy in terms of importance. The fact that I think Marxism is nonsense isn't the absolute basis of my point, it's just where do you rank it in terms of importance.

Saying I don't understand Marxism is not correct.

Nope, you don't understand a branch of historiography and labelling it as nonsense is ignorance...

Every example in which his ideas have been constructed into a state (communism) it has been a total disaster and lead to millions of deaths. The whole essence of communism requires forced coercion which is why it has never worked and a state has never prospered or it's citizens.

If that doesn't make it a nonsense analysis or ideology then I don't know what does. No to private property and public ownership of the means of production has failed. It failed in the 20th century and the 21st century.

batgoat

Taytoland wrote: »

Every example in which his ideas have been constructed into a state (communism) it has been a total disaster and lead to millions of deaths. The whole essence of communism requires forced coercion which is why it has never worked and a state has never prospered or it's citizens.

If that doesn't make it a nonsense analysis or ideology then I don't know what does. No to private property and public ownership of the means of production has failed. It failed in the 20th century and the 21st century.

Grand job, you've basically discounted a fair bit of historical analyses that you have zero knowledge of. The Marxist interpretation of the French Revolution tends to be the most respected. Analyses don't assume that some political ideology/philosophy is correct, it views them through the frame of it. You've assumed that you have knowledge on a part of a field, you clearly don't.

You'll also find that Karl Marx is very much much so respected in philosophy, political science and academia, you really can't ignore such an influential figure and viewpoint because of what followed. It's ignorant and pretty beneficial consider the likes of Marxism for framing and studying class struggles such as the French Revolution. It's not about transforming a piece of history into a state, it's considering motivations of the period eg class struggles.

Anyway, my overall point is. You got upset over a 'feminist analyses' when depending on what you're studying, it can make perfect sense. Eg when covering suffrage. You might not like that such approaches exist but labeling something as nonsense because you have no knowledge on it as you demonstrated above when you heard the name Marx, you labeled a large proportion of the French Revolution historical analyses as nonsense... You should totally jump on the history forum and inform them.

Debtocracy

I feel sorry for genuine transgender people these days. They’ve essentially become a target for the projected anger of the alt right. The new soundbite is that transgender people are mentally ill and people refer to gender dysphoria without having any idea of the diagnostic classification. Gender dysphoria refers to the distress associated with having a gender identity opposite to one’s biological sex, it does not pathologise the incongruence. Furthermore, treatment for such distress never attempts to encourage the person to accept their biological sex. This was tried decades ago with ineffective results.

On the other hand those who described themselves as ‘gender fluid’ are usually doing it for some form of sociocultural reinforcement. Same as those annoying people who described themselves as both extraverted and introverted. Behind it is a communication that I’m so special and unique I can’t be categorised.

JohnMc1

Debtocracy wrote: »

I feel sorry for genuine transgender people these days. They’ve essentially become a target for the projected anger of the alt right. The new soundbite is that transgender people are mentally ill and people refer to gender dysphoria without having any idea of the diagnostic classification. Gender dysphoria refers to the distress associated with having a gender identity opposite to one’s biological sex, it does not pathologise the incongruence. Furthermore, treatment for such distress never attempts to encourage the person to accept their biological sex. This was tried decades ago with ineffective results.

On the other hand those who described themselves as ‘gender fluid’ are usually doing it for some form of sociocultural reinforcement. Same as those annoying people who described themselves as both extraverted and introverted. Behind it is a communication that I’m so special and unique I can’t be categorised.

I think its safe to say that the actual number of people with gender dysphoria is very low. For the rest of them its just the latest craze to feel special.

WinnyThePoo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Debtocracy wrote: »

I feel sorry for genuine transgender people these days. They’ve essentially become a target for the projected anger of the alt right. The new soundbite is that transgender people are mentally ill and people refer to gender dysphoria without having any idea of the diagnostic classification. Gender dysphoria refers to the distress associated with having a gender identity opposite to one’s biological sex, it does not pathologise the incongruence. Furthermore, treatment for such distress never attempts to encourage the person to accept their biological sex. This was tried decades ago with ineffective results.

On the other hand those who described themselves as ‘gender fluid’ are usually doing it for some form of sociocultural reinforcement. Same as those annoying people who described themselves as both extraverted and introverted. Behind it is a communication that I’m so special and unique I can’t be categorised.

I think its safe to say that the actual number of people with gender dysphoria is very low. For the rest of them its just the latest craze to feel special.

You really are disgusting.

JohnMc1

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You really are disgusting.

You seriously think there isn't a "Look at me!!!" element to this? The genuine ones are more likely getting treatment. The Look at me crowd are one arguing over bathrooms.

WinnyThePoo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You really are disgusting.

You seriously think there isn't a "Look at me!!!" element to this? The genuine ones are more likely getting treatment. The Look at me crowd are one arguing over bathrooms.

It's clearly something you have absolutely no knowledge of.

JohnMc1

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

It's clearly something you have absolutely no knowledge of.

Whatever you say snowflake.

suicide_circus

there is certainly a level of ghoulish ideological explanation going on with transgender folk. and the stuff with kids is just dreadful.

WinnyThePoo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Whatever you say snowflake.

I'd rather be snowflake than a moron.

JohnMc1

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I'd rather be snowflake than a moron.

If you believe you can choose your gender like you would which pair of socks to wear then you're the moron.

WinnyThePoo

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I'd rather be snowflake than a moron.

In the vast majority of cases the two go hand in hand

Taytoland

batgoat wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Every example in which his ideas have been constructed into a state (communism) it has been a total disaster and lead to millions of deaths. The whole essence of communism requires forced coercion which is why it has never worked and a state has never prospered or it's citizens.

If that doesn't make it a nonsense analysis or ideology then I don't know what does. No to private property and public ownership of the means of production has failed. It failed in the 20th century and the 21st century.

Grand job, you've basically discounted a fair bit of historical analyses that you have zero knowledge of. The Marxist interpretation of the French Revolution tends to be the most respected. Analyses don't assume that some political ideology/philosophy  is correct, it views them through the frame of it. You've assumed that you have knowledge on a part of a field, you clearly don't.

You'll also find that Karl Marx is very much much so respected in philosophy, political science and academia, you really can't ignore such an influential figure and viewpoint because of what followed. It's ignorant and pretty beneficial consider the likes of Marxism for framing and studying class struggles such as the French Revolution. It's not about transforming a piece of history into a state, it's considering motivations of the period eg class struggles.

Anyway, my overall point is. You got upset over a 'feminist analyses' when depending on what you're studying, it can make perfect sense. Eg when covering suffrage. You might not like that such approaches exist but labeling something as nonsense because you have no knowledge on it as you demonstrated above when you heard the name Marx, you labeled a large proportion of the French Revolution historical analyses as nonsense... You should totally jump on the history forum and inform them.

Again taking what I said completely out of context. My point was on priorities on education and what is more important in education and if all theories no matter how wacky like Marxism should be taught with state funding, regardless of how much influence it has on the world.

My argument was should creationism be funded for school courses alongside gender studies. My argument was if you choose one subject which is nonsense then you can't just discriminate against other subjects which are equally as bad on the nonsense scale.