Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
suicide_circus wrote: »It'll go one of 2 ways. Either it will be recognised as a hideous mistake when it dawns on those pushing this stuff that engaging in a mass tongue in cheek deception dosnt actually make these people's demons go away. Or it will go full sci-fi with gender and biological sex becoming completely irrelevant. This current deranging, top down enforced newspeak will meet ever increasing resistance as it spills out of twitter and medical literature.
I think the push is for the latter. Full sci fi. Pater Tatchell, inglorious darling hero to some, has spoken of the rise of the post-heterosexist society, where everyone will be pretty much bi sexual. To me that looks like a chap looking to broaden his dating pool but it is certainly something gaining some traction. Saw recently some big percent of younger generation identify as some variant of alternative identity. Couple that with the pharmaceutical and medical industries looking to cash in on the hugely lucrative body modification market, all the way from merely puffy lips to full on nullo surgery and who knows what next. Womb transplants etc. I suppose really if one took a macro over-arching view of the novel of planet earth it is the only way the narrative could go on a planet at our stage of technical advancement coupled with ever more prevalent emotional instability and narcissism. Medicate every mental and emotional ill from child hood, sexualise from infancy with omnipresent porn and liminal sex-based advertising, pour endocrine-disrupting chemicals into the environment and food, break down all traditional concepts of family life, make everyone into dumb feudal consumers rather than thoughtful citizens, encourage anti-natalism, blare constant eco-disaster prognostications. Etc etc. No wonder the place is going fcuking mad.
Anyways!! Enough cheerfulness from me!
I have actual work to be doing! 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59027
To be fair sciences have always followed cultural fashions of the day and in archaeology that is very much in play. So when it was White European Christians digging up old bones they applied White European Christian views to things. EG Neandertals were "before Adam" or cast off apemen so portrayed as lumpen gnomes carrying crude cudgels. Even when more evidence came to light they were shown as lesser. Then we found out that we carry their DNA with us and magically they start to look like smiling beardie hipsters.ProfessorPlum wrote: »I saw that. Totally depressing. I used to like national geographic.
Best response on twitter:
“Was it the Stonewall age?”
Can’t lose our sense of humour!
So yer wan coming out with this stuff: For Geller, the debate has important implications for today. “There’s so much gender disparity going on right now, if we were to presume that there’s something that biologically predisposes us, then you’d be able to justify that gender disparity,” she says. “To me that’s dangerous, and completely unsubstantiated.” or projecting right on US campus stuff like this: "they can’t say whether the individual lived their life 9,000 years ago in a way that would identify them within their society as a woman." is just another run of the popular current cultural bias like it did before and just as much BS. Sciences where there is room for much conjecture like archaeology are a charm for it. Never mind it's what she claims is not unsubstantiated. Never mind there are cultures today where women hunt for game like fish and smaller animals.
TL;DR, science is remarkably prone to current cultural bias so not a shock identity politics are in play today with some, just like race theory was in play in the past.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
To be fair sciences have always followed cultural fashions of the day and in archaeology that is very much in play. So when it was White European Christians digging up old bones they applied White European Christian views to things. EG Neandertals were "before Adam" or cast off apemen so portrayed as lumpen gnomes carrying crude cudgels. Even when more evidence came to light they were shown as lesser. Then we found out that we carry their DNA with us and magically they start to look like smiling beardie hipsters. So yer wan coming out with this stuff: For Geller, the debate has important implications for today. “There’s so much gender disparity going on right now, if we were to presume that there’s something that biologically predisposes us, then you’d be able to justify that gender disparity,” she says. “To me that’s dangerous, and completely unsubstantiated.” or projecting right on US campus stuff like this: "they can’t say whether the individual lived their life 9,000 years ago in a way that would identify them within their society as a woman." is just another run of the popular current cultural bias like it did before and just as much BS. Sciences where there is room for much conjecture like archaeology are a charm for it. Never mind it's what she claims is not unsubstantiated. Never mind there are cultures today where women hunt for game like fish and smaller animals.
TL;DR, science is remarkably prone to current cultural bias so not a shock identity politics are in play today with some, just like race theory was in play in the past.
It's just a bit depressing that we aren't past it. However I suppose everything is subject to the bias of the time. You just naively expect science not to have bias but as everything it's going to.
To my mind it sounds as stupid as race theory.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
To be fair sciences have always followed cultural fashions of the day and in archaeology that is very much in play. So when it was White European Christians digging up old bones they applied White European Christian views to things. EG Neandertals were "before Adam" or cast off apemen so portrayed as lumpen gnomes carrying crude cudgels. Even when more evidence came to light they were shown as lesser. Then we found out that we carry their DNA with us and magically they start to look like smiling beardie hipsters. So yer wan coming out with this stuff: For Geller, the debate has important implications for today. “There’s so much gender disparity going on right now, if we were to presume that there’s something that biologically predisposes us, then you’d be able to justify that gender disparity,” she says. “To me that’s dangerous, and completely unsubstantiated.” or projecting right on US campus stuff like this: "they can’t say whether the individual lived their life 9,000 years ago in a way that would identify them within their society as a woman." is just another run of the popular current cultural bias like it did before and just as much BS. Sciences where there is room for much conjecture like archaeology are a charm for it. Never mind it's what she claims is not unsubstantiated. Never mind there are cultures today where women hunt for game like fish and smaller animals.
TL;DR, science is remarkably prone to current cultural bias so not a shock identity politics are in play today with some, just like race theory was in play in the past.
Yeah, I wouldn’t mind the actual discussion that was written in the paper - assumed roles of men and women in society at that time and how we might have been looking at it through our own biases etc - that’s a legitimate discussion - but the framing of it in terms of gender identity by the Nat Geographic writer was just stupidly ridiculous. That wasn’t mentioned or implied in the original article. It was put there purely for wokism.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement