This is something I have touched up on in other threads/forums with Well Named.

I think the problem is not so much that mainstream textbooks support such views, the problem is more that when minority activists make such claims, noone mainstream is criticizing them.

Where are all the mainstream sociologists who dont support infinite genders when activists claim there are? Why are the Jordan Peterson's of the world the only ones challenging activists?

At some point, if you aren't willing to take a stand against extremist activists, then it is perceived that you support those views.

This kinda seems like the same principle that SJWs use to criticize the Harris, Rubin and Rogan's of the world. They aren't condoning extreme right wingers that they give platforms to, giving the impression (right or wrong) they support such views.

Perhaps because the activists don’t actually exist.

Well Named, how is this not bannable posting? This guy spews nothing but lies and unsubstantiated bull****. Like I gave reasonably detailed responses (considering Im posting from my phone) and here he is admitting he’s not reading anything, making stupid assumptions and demanding people do all his work for him.

JV,

Here are two articles that should provide you everything you need to know about the gender wage gap: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...pay-gap-facts/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...y-day.amp.html

The gender wage gap refers to the difference in pay that male and their female counterparts receive. It varies based on how you measure it, but even when things such as type of job, education, and work experience are factored in, a gap still exists.

I honestly hope you are trolling. The alternative, that you’re being sincere, is incredibly sad.

JV, Frankly, I believe you are a good writer and a persuasive arguer in this forum, but, and it is a big one, you only seem to parrot the talking points and statistical data of Shapiro, Crowder and Milo without application of your own thought process or independent research. You have jumped from the problems in course work in higher education to indefinite genders to transgender friends you misidentify with no linear thought process.

The reason you got jumped on for the textbook is that everyone knows it is pure bull****. Maybe CAL or Oberlin has taught a single course for a single semester on this subject but no textbook exists, you know it. We should call the school from the ytube video? Come on.

I take the same issue with your transgender friend posting lingerie photos on Facebook. In 2016, Facebook banning trans lingerie photos was a national story. I do not believe you have a transgender friend that also did this recently. You simply personalized the story to argue it from the first person - ironically to give it more credibility. I am sure if I look, Shapiro and Co., all take the same position you do - that you dont have to change your belief of reality and call him the female pronouns.

There is nothing wrong with developing a personal political viewpoint or the expression of it to convince others of the correctness of your conservative views. Personally, I do not think it would be wrong to pass a law that says the surgeon must have a patient see a psychologist before cutting off his Johnson. By the same token, I don't feel I am qualified, nor are you, to state a person who has gender fluidity is mentally ill. You offend people with your unqualified and unsupported opinions.

Shapiro and Co. are selling their opinions as a means of making appearance money. You are trying to argue with intelligent forum members, who mostly want to see the world become a better place There is a difference.

Here you enter the discussion with some piping hot takes, insults, and some claims.

My response?

Ok feel free to enlighten my on why my position on trans issues are wrong or how it's fair to claim people like me are culpable for higher suicide rates
Correct me if I'm wrong but you just confirmed what I said you would. Could you direct me to the part where you validate all your claims on trans issues? From my skimming skills, it appears you didn't even touch them
Now you're crying about how I should get banned when you come in to the thread hurling insults about my position on trans issues and predictably change the subject when I ask you to validate the positions which could then give some sort of justification for your insults. You now expect me to just follow along as you changes subjects and avoid others on your whim?

The gender wage gap myth isn't that men earn more money than women, everyone knows that. This is why I asked you to describe the cause of it, which you didn't.

Do not expect me to follow your whimsical attacks. You started with trans. If you're going to hurl insults as your entrance in to the thread based on my trans position, start by validating that, not changing the subject. If you start rambling on other topics I will skim through it at best. If you're not capable of formulating an intelligent justification for your comments and insults on trans the trans issue then just congratulate me on being able to see the future and spare me the insults

If counting is something you're good at, this is at least the 4th time I've been able to predict people attacking and insulting my post on the trans issue wouldn't actually be able to formulate anything of actual substance itt. Probably just a fluke though

I love how JV originally called my posting off topic and that he wasn’t going to respond to it. Then he realizes that my posting actually ignored his off-topic BS about trans/gender-fluid people, and actually focused on his original point re: western higher education being a disaster, so he ninja edits out the part about me being off topic and tried to attack me for declining to go handholding him down the path explaining exactly how assuming people are probably mentally ill because they are gender fluid of trans is actually being awful and hostile toward them. I actually set the stage to hammer that point home in my first post.

Spoiler alert, notice how I wrote the stuff about thinking you were mentally ill right after I wrote that stuff about how you are the reason the suicide rates amongst the trans community are so high? I did that on purpose. I was being ironic knowing you would take offense to it. Now imagine it wasn’t just some rando on the internet calling you mentally ill because you post incoherently on a stupid message board, but instead it was like 80 percent of society, including your parents telling you you are a freak, a godless monster, or mentally ill because you don’t identify as a man even though you have a penis. Imagine you are subject to constant bullying at school, both mentally and physically and your parents disown you and kick you out of the house or you ha e to run away to escape their abuse because you post incoherently on message boards. You would would almost certainly be severely depressed if not suicidal or be dealing with other serious issues. So can you see how maybe, just maybe, the higher incidence of suicide amongst the trans community might be due to external factors rather than some internal flaw?

What? I look forward to the upcoming thank you card for enlightening you. This is wide spread. You might notice my location is Canada. In Canada it became law that if you didn't call people by their preferred pronouns you are violating the Canadian human rights code. In case it isn't immediately obvious, that's a very serious thing to violate. On top of that, the number of pronouns are not limited or identified. On top of that, you can see an actual gender studies expert here talk about how not complying with peoples demands to use pronouns (that can be made up) is violence. You can also see the professor completely violate mainstream biology. This is not trivial stuff and the infringement on mainstream biology isn't trivial either.

You can start at 10:50 and get the meat of it in a minute or so. Feel free to scroll through to their other positions later in the video.


The video I linked previously was a sociology student in Texas on campus. They said their sociology textbook described unlimited genders. I believed that but was effortlessly willing to concede they were wrong and I didn't know better due to a lack of knowledge in what sociology teaches about gender identity. Keep in mind though, the person I believed wasn't just a sociology student on a college campus speaking relatively intelligently, they were among a line up of people that were willing to debate their passionate belief in unlimited genders. It may not be a sociology thing, but it's definitely a thing. If you think its limited to just the examples I gave, think again. It's very widespread.

for reference heres the video being discussed

I guess if you think I'm a liar we could sort that out. Since it would be a hassle it would need to be worth the effort. Here's a proposal. You or the other 3 can take me up on a bet if well named agrees to be the judge. Loser eats a 90 day ban

I can screenshot a facebook profile with 6 or more mutual friends and a bunch of thumbnails of lingerie photos. I could also send him a link to their profile. I'm not interested in outing myself or the person but this should satisfy any reasonable doubt. I also told you they were a metal head in highschool and that could be made obvious also. I guess we'll find out if you guys have any conviction I'm fabricating this story.

It's my opinion people that changing genders back and forth are mentally ill, lets make sure we're clear that is not a claim of fact. I also don't think people should have to see a shrink before getting transition surgery as long as they are an adult. I think Dr's with any sort of personal ethics should recommend it to potential clients but that's just my take. Perhaps you are unaware that children gender identity issues are being given hormones with irreversible consequences? IIRC some are pre teens. This isn't just some hypothetical issue. It's already enforced by canadian law and it's impacting the lives of children with identity issues.

Just to be clear, I have skimmed this post and didn't notice any actual arguments to justify your attacks on my position of trans issues. More emotion based insults as far as I can tell. If there is an actual argument in there, feel free to extract it. If not, we can sit back in amazement at how the morally superior and pure hearted people of the world conduct themselves

Serious question JV, is English not your first language?

As a side note I admire the restraint fly is showing I’m not posting itt.

JV, why would I need to “justify my attacks on your position”? That makes absolutely no sense. What are you trying to say? Type it in your native language, if necessary.

Most academics aren't public figures, and most of them probably don't want to be. All of the ones I know certainly don't want to be.

Thats fair. But when you let a small amount of activists dominate the public space, you get a lot of people assuming these are mainstream academic views.

I mean, I worked several years at a progressive university and the most "progressive propaganda" I had to face were emails from the Diversity office that I could just ignore, and flyers for progressive events (like lectures on "whiteness") that I could just ignore and walk by.

But because we let activists on both sides control the public space there is this perception walking around campus on any given day is like going to a BLM rally after a police shooting.

And yeah, Jordan Peterson obviously decided he wanted to become a public figure and his "coming out" against compelled speech was probably pre-meditated and calculated.

I have this vague notion that it might be easy for some of us who pay close attention to politics (especially on the internet) to overestimate how much any of this stuff "dominates the public space". It's not clear to me if I mention Evergreen to your average person that they'll have any idea what I'm talking about, for example.

Can confirm, no clue what Evergreen is.

Ideally activists will get the most attention as people hopefully back rational ideas and their cause will have merit. There certainly is merit to the idea that we should be more welcoming to the trans community, which seems to be the main point of the pronoun movement. I do believe there is a problem with flavor of the month style issues where an isolated event will happen, a lot of widespread attention is given, and then a sort of ripple effect happens.

Doesn't seem like a rational law. I get that its meant to be something like, "He called me she, and I go by "they", but he refused to call me they and hatefully called me it", but it doesn't seem clear cut enough. And, I thought I'd check to make sure JV wasn't making a wonky interpretation, but: http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-1...ronoun-misuse/

Which means sticking with He/She on a personal biological/philosophical/whatever level is actually actionable. This seems like a direct violation of personal liberties.

I do also agree that having a political interest on the internet, or even just base exposure through reddit, will very likely skew your perception of what the public space is. Despite this idea that the internet is this miracle of information, which it certainly is, there is a phenomenon where it actually allows for more narrow views as it makes finding people who reinforce your own personal biases trivial.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/H-6.pdf

all they did was add gender identity to "Prohibited grounds of discrimination"

Can you give us an example of mainstream textbooks teaching “infinite genders?”

...also, is it supposed to be countably or uncountably infinite?

No. It doesn't appear you actually understood my post. I was arguing they (probably) don't.

The question: you are begging it.

What is the objectively true number of gender presentations that people may use to express themselves to society?

Also, while it's easy to draw a line from racist statements from Murry to objective harm to others, what is the harm caused by someone who decides that their own gender expression doesn't fit into one of the objective bins you specify as the objectively true number of bins?

It better be aleph-0 or I'm switching to juan valdez's side. Enough is enough!

Last time I checked you strongly believed I was an unrepentant white supremacist, and you had such a strong moral objection to my presence you were unwilling to participate in the same forum as me, much less engage me directly. I hope this exchange indicates your views on me have tempered, and not that your moral standards have lowered.

Anyways, my post was trying to frame the issue of progressive campus activism more accurately. I don't think saying, "this is what is being taught in every class" or "well, most textbooks dont say this, so this must not be an issue," really capture the situation correctly. And I was generalizing about campus activism, not narrowly talking about gender identity.

As far as my own personal opinions on gender identity, I probably wouldn't have believed this 3 years ago, but at this point I think gender identity is more or less a social construction, and as such society can (hopefully) come to some kind of workable norm that is between 2 and infinity.

I couldn't imagine any scenario where I would object to addressing someone by whatever pronoun they indicated they preferred, if I believed they were sincere. Even if I didn't think they were sincere I would probably still go along for pragmatic reasons. I can't recall any instance where I intentionally misgendered someone maliciously.

That being said, I am not sure to what extent misgendering someone should be a punishable offense. I have a feeling that is something we are working out at the societal level, and will hopefully come to a workable norm.

I am not actually aware if this is even an issue that has come up in US universities at all to the point where anyone has been punished or morally condemned for misgendering, as opposed to say dealing with sexual misconduct allegations, where it appears campus activists have tried to push norms to a place society has indicated are not workable, and there has been considerable pushback.

As far as Jordan Peterson goes, it appears to me he sincerely believes there is a malicious conspiracy by cultural Marxists to destroy Western Civilization, and by standing up to compelled speech he is the canary in the coal mine. And he makes compelling arguments that you should at least understand before dismissing them outright.

And maybe there is some truth even if you dont believe it is an intentional conspiracy to destroy civilization; much like you can believe capitalism has run amok without believing there is an evil cadre of elites maliciously pulling the strings.

Look man this guy's crazy, but he makes some good points