nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Hungary Scrap Gender Studies Indoctrination Courses

DickSwiveller Returns

Great news coming out of Hungary. Victor Orban's government have stopped universities offering courses in Gender Studies. It's about time these courses were exposed for the unscientific propaganda vehicles they are.

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/orban-bans-gender-studies-courses-in-hungary-report-says-1.6365826

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

cdeb

LLMMLL wrote: »

A man can have breasts? Omg please stop pushing your liberal agenda on us.

Is this really the standard of debate you want to bring to the debate?

As you said yourself on the previous page, there's plenty of simpleton threads on AH.

Wibbs

Sardonicat wrote: »

Jaysus Wibbs, I just spit out my tea. I thought you'd typed "circumcised for stating such actual facts "!

:eek::pac:

LLMMLL

cdeb wrote: »

Is this really the standard of debate you want to bring to the debate?

As you said yourself on the previous page, there's plenty of simpleton threads on AH.

Oh I don’t think anyone who has actually read the thread doubts my willingness to debate.

cdeb

LLMMLL wrote: »

Oh I don’t think anyone who has actually read the thread doubts my willingness to debate.

I do.

Want to try make your point about men's breasts again? With an actual point this time, not a snide dismissive comment when you're shown to be wrong?

I'll start you off again. Male nipples are evolutionarily related to female breasts, and so the "men's breasts" comparison was utterly invalid.

WoolyJumper

I'd like to know how many people here that feel it should be banned actually studied gender studies or know anything about gender theories from a sociological or psychological point of view. I've no idea what the average university course in gender studies entails but I'd find it hard to believe that it doesn't contain any kind of critical analysis. Sounds like people hear the name gender and jump to conclusions as to what it's all about. Looking at the Trinity handbook on gender studies it looks like an interesting course actually. Gender is such an interesting and highly debated topic these days. A course in gender studies is probably pretty relevant to todays society and I'd imagine there would be a lot of debate in the class (assuming people can get over themselves and actually join a gender study class)

LLMMLL

cdeb wrote: »

I do.

Want to try make your point about men's breasts again? With an actual point this time, not a snide dismissive comment when you're shown to be wrong?

I'll start you off again. Male nipples are evolutionarily related to female breasts, and so the "men's breasts" comparison was utterly invalid.

And the clitoris and penis are evolutionarily related. What of it?

(Was that serious enough for you?)

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Should a woman feeling uncomfortable showering or being naked around a lesbian be accommodated in some way?

Can you explain what this has to do with a woman feeling uncomfortable around a naked male stranger? I'm not seeing the relevance tbh, not sure why you keep asking.

LLMMLL

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Can you explain what this has to do with a woman feeling uncomfortable around a naked male stranger? I'm not seeing the relevance tbh, not sure why you keep asking.

I’m asking your opinion on when discomfort should be accommodated.

So there are women uncomfortable showering with trans women and there are women uncomfortable showering around lesbians. Should we accommodate one, both, or neither?

cdeb

LLMMLL wrote: »

And the clitoris and penis are evolutionarily related. What of it?

(Was that serious enough for you?)

No. It failed utterly to address the point.

The issue here is that you made a throw-away comment thinking it was valid debate. It was wrong. The comment you made was wrong. You cannot compare male/female nipples/breasts to a penis/vagina.

Now the correct response is to acknowledge that you're wrong, and to either reevaluate your position or provide a new argument. You can't do any of that. This doesn't really speak well of your entire rationale for competent argument to be honest.

Most of your posts on here are vague deflections, or vaguely related but ultimately irrelevant questions, and now that you've been caught being wrong about a small thing, you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that at all. That's not really sufficient for serious debate.

(Or for a scientist, come to that, but I'd say if you are a scientist, you're a "homeopath" or "nutritionist" or something equally bull****ty trying to masquerade - dangerously - as real science. But that, I'll acknowledge is pure supposition)

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’m asking your opinion on when discomfort should be accommodated.

So there are women uncomfortable showering with trans women and there are women uncomfortable showering around lesbians. Should we accommodate one, both, or neither?

Its still irrelevant. Encountering lesbians in a female space is to be expected given that they are also female, not that you would even know a strangers sexual orientation. It's reasonable not to expect to encounter a penis in a female only space.

Why do we have sex segregated spaces at all if it's apparently no big deal to be naked around strangers of the opposite sex? Should we do away with them altogether in your opinion?

LLMMLL

cdeb wrote: »

No. It failed utterly to address the point.

The issue here is that you made a throw-away comment thinking it was valid debate. It was wrong. The comment you made was wrong. You cannot compare male/female nipples/breasts to a penis/vagina.

Now the correct response is to acknowledge that you're wrong, and to either reevaluate your position or provide a new argument. You can't do any of that. This doesn't really speak well of your entire rationale for competent argument to be honest.

Most of your posts on here are vague deflections, or vaguely related but ultimately irrelevant questions, and now that you've been caught being wrong about a small thing, you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that at all. That's not really sufficient for serious debate.

(Or for a scientist, come to that, but I'd say if you are a scientist, you're a "homeopath" or "nutritionist" or something equally bull****ty trying to masquerade - dangerously - as real science. But that, I'll acknowledge is pure supposition)

You’re getting awfully upset.

I wasn’t shown to be wrong at all.

You seem to think that because Male nipples and female breasts are related through evolution that that invalidates their status as markers of sex.

I’ve pointed out that the clitoris and penis are related in a similar manner.

So by your standards the clitoris is not an identifying marker of a female, and the penis not an identifying marker of a male.

As for the rest of your post about my career, no I’m not a homeopath or anything similar and it’s extremely hypocritical to call my joke post snide and dismissive and then go on a tirade about aspects of my career you completely made up simply becaus I disagree with you.

LLMMLL

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Its still irrelevant. Encountering lesbians in a female space is to be expected given that they are also female, not that you would even know a strangers sexual orientation. It's reasonable not to expect to encounter a penis in a female only space.

Why do we have sex segregated spaces at all if it's apparently no big deal to be naked around strangers of the opposite sex? Should we do away with them altogether in your opinion?

When anyone has articulated why they would be uncomfortable getting changed with the opposite gender it’s been because of perving.

Do you have a different reason?

If not then surely you’d be uncomfortable around lesbians even in a female only space?

cdeb

LLMMLL wrote: »

I wasn’t shown to be wrong at all.

Ah, the "Trump" defence. That'll boost credibility.

Yes you were wrong.

LLMMLL wrote: »

You seem to think that because Male nipples and female breasts are related through evolution that that invalidates their status as markers of sex.

Nope. Here's your post so we can remind ourselves of it. Your point - in as much as it was a point, and not just another attempt at deflection - was to try counter Wibbs' point that "a woman's penis" or "a man's vagina" are things that can't exist. You tried to do this by pointing out that "a man's breasts" is a thing. But this is not comparable, and so I think that your point has not remotely invalidated Wibbs' argument that a man can't have a vagina and a woman can't have a penis.

The clitoris and penis are also related, but to each other. But they're not related to the point we were debating though.

So because you have failed to challenge Wibbs' post, we need to return to it and accept this as the current argument up for discussion in the debate.

And we do so with your credibility as a logical poster tarnished because you have fervently refused to accept you were wrong when you were, and then tried to argue that my point was something that it wasn't, and then tried to argue that your tangent to your own tangent somehow means you were right in the first place.

LLMMLL

cdeb wrote: »

Ah, the "Trump" defence. That'll boost credibility.

Yes you were wrong.

Nope. Here's your post so we can remind ourselves of it. Your point - in as much as it was a point, and not just another attempt at deflection - was to try counter Wibbs' point that "a woman's penis" or "a man's vagina" are things that can't exist. You tried to do this by pointing out that "a man's breasts" is a thing. But this is not comparable, and so I think that your point has not remotely invalidated Wibbs' argument that a man can't have a vagina and a woman can't have a penis.

The clitoris and penis are also related, but to each other. But they're not related to the point we were debating though.

So because you have failed to challenge Wibbs' post, we need to return to it and accept this as the current argument up for discussion in the debate.

And we do so with your credibility as a logical poster tarnished because you have fervently refused to accept you were wrong when you were, and then tried to argue that my point was something that it wasn't, and then tried to argue that your tangent to your own tangent somehow means you were right in the first place.

My credibility as a logical poster? Jaysus.

Wibbs didn’t respond to the breast point. You did.

You dismissed my point (wrongly) by pointing out that male nipples and female breasts are related. You haven’t really clarified your point (just keep repeating that I’m wrong) but it seems you think that Male characteristics that are related to female characteristics can’t be used as sex markers.

So that means the penis which is related to the clitoris is not a marker of being Male (by your standards).

Now you could actually deal with those points but I suspect another personal attack is on the way.

cdeb

LLMMLL wrote: »

Wibbs didn’t respond to the breast point. You did.

So what?

LLMMLL wrote: »

You haven’t really clarified your point (just keep repeating that I’m wrong)

You've just stated my point - it's that you're wrong. Specifically, your attempt to counter Wibbs' post was wrong and invalid. And that that now brings the argument back to Wibbs' original point that male vaginas and female penises don't exist.

Like, I literally wrote this in my last post. I'm not sure what part of this is causing you problems.

LLMMLL wrote: »

but it seems you think that Male characteristics that are related to female characteristics can’t be used as sex markers.

No, I think that you're wrong when you tried to dismiss Wibbs' post. Again, not sure why this is difficult.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Now you could actually deal with those points but I suspect another personal attack is on the way.

Why would I deal with points I didn't make?

Your scientific credentials aside, where have I engaged in personal attacks against you? Saying you're wrong or have no concept of logical debate when this is provably so, isn't engaging in personal debate.

I think I can feel what it's like to be in a gender studies class now.

Annasopra

Brian? wrote: »

Is it me, or do most of the objections around accepting trans people come down to sharing changing rooms or toilets?

I genuinely find the taboos around nudity bizarre. Now, I go along with them as a matter what of politeness to other peoples comfort levels. But honestly, why are we so hung up on nudity? Why is it so import to hide?

I think its a Catholic prudish thing. Go to other countries and people have no problem at all being naked in swimmming pool changing rooms.

LLMMLL

cdeb wrote: »

So what?

You've just stated my point - it's that you're wrong. And that that now brings the argument back to Wibbs' original point that male vaginas and female penises don't exist.

Like, I literally wrote this in my last post. I'm not sure what part of this is causing you problems.

No, I think that you're wrong.

Why would I deal with points I didn't make?

Your scientific credentials aside, where have I engaged in personal attacks against you? Saying you're wrong or have no concept of logical debate when this is provably so, isn't engaging in personal debate.

I think I can feel what it's like to be in a gender studies class now.

If you haven’t shown I’m wrong at all. Constantly repeating that I’m wrong is not proof. You haven’t even made one point in the above quoted post related to the argument I made to wibbs. You have no point other than to say that in your opinion I’m wrong.

And why would you say aside from my scientific credentials where is the personal attack? That was the personal attack. Taking something I said about my career in another thread and making a personal attack about it with made up crap about homeopathy. It’s a personal attack. You can’t say “where did I make a personal attack aside from the personal attack I made”

Anyway if you’d like to deal with the point about breasts and male nipples please go ahead.

If not I guess you can continue with personal attacks.

Taytoland

batgoat wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

I understood that is exactly what he meant. I wasn't debating him on THAT point. I was debating the resources being put towards it over other courses and which should take precedent for public funding.

You literally said it was nonsense repeatedly... Also, even if you were referring to outright Marxism, it still very much so is important to learn about it. It's a huge part of modern history....

It is nonsense, 'important' nonsense nonetheless on how much of a menace it has been on the planet for the last hundred years. Now the question is if it is worth funding courses on it above other subjects.

italodisco

Oh man, reading through this whole thread makes me thankful that I didn't accept that place in NCAD.......
This thread is best suited to discussion over a gluten free pro Palestine gender fluid late whilst sitting on a up cycled chair made from pallets in Bang Bang....

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

So that means the penis which is related to the clitoris is not a marker of being Male (by your standards).

Statements like "a woman's penis" or "a man's vagina" are clearly scientifically provable nonsense. That this is even up for rational debate is staggering.

But let's move away from this clearly crazy pills stuff for a second. Normal healthy men not suffering from a genetic defect or other condition have a Y chromosome, women do not*. Fact. Would you be OK with saying a "woman's Y chromosome". After all you seem fine with the notion of a "woman's penis".

I really can't believe we've gone so far down the rabbit hole that I'm typing this. I have no particular objection to someone describing liquid water as dry, though I would think them at best odd for doing so, but it's not, it's wet.

*in very rare circumstances women can have a Y chromosome but with the exception of one or two cases there are severe developmental issues. Naturally, because it's a genetic screwup, a fault.

[Deleted User]

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I'd like to know how many people here that feel it should be banned actually studied gender studies or know anything about gender theories from a sociological or psychological point of view. I've no idea what the average university course in gender studies entails but I'd find it hard to believe that it doesn't contain any kind of critical analysis. Sounds like people hear the name gender and jump to conclusions as to what it's all about. Looking at the Trinity handbook on gender studies it looks like an interesting course actually.

I'd prefer that Gender Studies courses were investigated for bias and brought up to a higher standard. The real problem with Gender studies is that, in essence, there are two(ish) types of courses being presented in Universities.

The first type of Gender studies, is the renamed "Women's studies" which focuses on Feminism, Feminist research theory, and the perception of Feminist thinkers regarding male behavior towards women. So, there tends to be a particular bias in research, statistics, and the assumptions drawn to support feminist beliefs regarding social constructs and social issues. There is a clear bias involved, and that's been shown repeatedly if you actually care to do some research, rather than just assuming those criticising are wrong.

Then there's the second type of Gender studies, which tends to be a newer type of course which is based around actual genders. Neither male or female is dominant, and the focus is on the interactions between the two (or female to female/male to male). These courses arose after all the criticisms towards womens studies and the claims that Gender studies was feminist propaganda. These courses are more to do with sociology and anthropology rather than seeking to promote a socio-political creed.

Now, the problem is that with posts like yours is the assumption that all Gender Studies courses are the same. That criticism of the more Feminist driven studies means criticism of the non-feminist Gender studies.. It makes a convenient complaint about those criticising to suggest that they're being unreasonable, although I'd suggest this lumping all gender studies programs into the same pot is just as unreasonable..

Gender is such an interesting and highly debated topic these days.

Gender debates are a cluster-**** of a mess.

However, the psychology behind how genders interact with each other is extremely interesting. But that's a "lesser" topic of conversation these days.

A course in gender studies is probably pretty relevant to todays society and I'd imagine there would be a lot of debate in the class (assuming people can get over themselves and actually join a gender study class)

Advanced marketing (or Sales/Promotion/Advertising) classes would be more useful TBH. Hell, I'd highly recommend the NLP Practitioner course too. They already talk about gender, the interactions between genders, and the cultural/racial/psychological influences regarding gender behavior. Consumerism is an essential part of our modern world, and the way that the different genders behave is particularly important. (Although I suspect that's not what you're really focusing on when it comes to "gender")

The gender debate needs a balanced panel of Judges or Adjudicators. It really is that simple, but unfortunately, the whole Academic area of gender studies is dominated by women, along with most material released from Gender studies related research also by women, who were educated under the previous women's studies programs. This doesn't automatically exclude or dismiss their judgments or opinions, but there is a very strong bias present when Feminism is the core of your whole educational background... doesn't really encourage a degree of fairness when considering how women are responsible for their own circumstances (when they actually are, as apposed to treating them always as victims). [And it's worth considering that while first/second wave feminism(ists) is often perfectly acceptable in their opinions, third/fourth wave is extremely influential in academia.. which doesn't suggest a more balanced set of viewpoints)

Gender studies courses are improving but, honestly, there is still very little in the way of supervision as to what they teach. As long as it's about Gender (sociology and Anthropology) rather than "society through the lens of Feminism", then it'll gain my support.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think its a Catholic prudish thing. Go to other countries and people have no problem at all being naked in swimmming pool changing rooms.

Same thing in Britain.

Irish Guitarist

I love being blocked by people I've never conversed with or have even heard of. It makes me feel important.

I just looked at her tweet while not signed in. I love how she complains about shutting down dissent while blocking anyone that doesn't agree with her views. Incredible spelling for a 'doctor' too.

Gender studies programs to be banned in Hungary- the alt right really fear feminism, because of the chanllege it poses to their misogynist, racist, homophobic worldview. This is the ultimate aim of the right, shut down all dissent, esp in the universities.

PlaneSpeeking

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes because males do have breast tissue hence they can get breast cancer, same as females. Also some males develop breasts due to a medical condition. No male ever has had a vagina or a uterus. Does this really need pointing out?

Men can also suffer from the very painful condition called mastitis.

Secondary sexual organs are not indicative of gender.

Primary ones are very much so.

PlaneSpeeking

BTW - usual DM disclaimer but an interesting situation and opion nevertheless:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6084937/SARAH-VINE-rights-one-transgender-pupil-trump-rest-schools-students.html

Malayalam

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

BTW - usual DM disclaimer but an interesting situation and opion nevertheless:

The weird thing is that the bending over backwards to accommodate Islam is probably what is going to preserve female only spaces. Cool, I love a plot twist

[Deleted User]

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

BTW - usual DM disclaimer but an interesting situation and opion nevertheless:

I didn't realise articles just run into each other. I had to lol at this fear mongering further down.

"If you've ever wondered how a UK under Jeremy Corbyn would fare economically, consider the national wage in Venezuela."

PlaneSpeeking

Malayalam wrote: »

The weird thing is that the bending over backwards to accommodate Islam is probably what is going to preserve female only spaces. Cool, I love a plot twist

I'm yet to fathom why some people fail to grasp the following:

I'm a woman - I have no problem showering and changing next to a woman of any sexuality whatsoever. Quite frankly, if she fancies me then God help her!!

Whilst I have no issue with men being in "women's" spaces such as lavatories (I'd be a hypocrite if I did - dying for a pee at the airport on Saturday and once I established the lads' jacks had cubicles, I jumped the Q and was in there!) I DO have a problem showering next to a physical man.

Than man can believe themselves to be female, dress as a woman, and I will respect their wishes. But if anatomically male, you do not belong in a women's shower room.

[Deleted User]

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm yet to fathom why some people fail to grasp the following:

I'm a woman - I have no problem showering and changing next to a woman of any sexuality whatsoever. Quite frankly, if she fancies me then God help her!!

Whilst I have no issue with men being in "women's" spaces such as lavatories (I'd be a hypocrite if I did - dying for a pee at the airport on Saturday and once I established the lads' jacks had cubicles, I jumped the Q and was in there!) I DO have a problem showering next to a physical man.

Than man can believe themselves to be female, dress as a woman, and I will respect their wishes. But if anatomically male, you do not belong in a women's shower room.

What exactly is it then? You're not bothered of someone is attracted to you. Is the presence of a penis?

7aubzxk43m2sni

Deleted User wrote: »

What exactly is it then? You're not bothered of someone is attracted to you. Is the presence of a penis?

Why does she have to explain herself?