Yeah I mean it's no secret I'm trying to "delegitimize it". A main point is that it's not legitamite

First of all, academic and intellectual fraud aren't something to be dismissed. Kids are graduating highschool and being sold absolutely fraudulent garbage. They are being swamped in debt for their efforts. The garbage is being subsidized. It's a mess that shouldn't be ignored on those grounds alone, even if that isn't my larger point

Sociology textbooks teach that there are infinite genders. I think that's garbage but that's not what I'm referring to. That is an idea that can actually be discussed even if I find it wrong.

The reason you can get papers peer reviewed and published on dog park rape culture or replacing white men with jews in a mein kampf re-write isn't because they were sleeping at the wheel and let one slip by, its because it's totally indistinguishable from the absolute mountains of garbage being produced in a seemingly never ending stream

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10....93723599234002
https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/s...64201015177219
https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/s...39985784074240
https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/s...93528793276416

Worth a glance just for entertainment

Can you provide an example of a sociology textbook that teaches that there are infinite genders? I have never seen one and since the entire idea is sociologically incoherent I doubt that they exist.

iirc I heard a sociology student make the claim in the last week or two. I'm trying to remember where. If it comes to me I'll let you know. Did you google it yet?

Googling is not turning up anything. I'm going to confidently predict that your sociology student has simply failed to understand the curriculum, but very probably that is because they are bringing some preconceptions with them. The idea that lefty academics all think there are a million genders is a right-wing meme, but as far as I have been able to determine the source of the meme is just one not-actually-entirely-serious blog from some college student.

The main reason why "there are infinite (or any large N) genders" is sociologically incoherent is that it fundamentally misunderstands the sex/gender distinction in sociology and the notion of gender roles as cultural constructs built on top of sex differences. It is absolutely crucial to the notion of "social construction" (in any form) that constructed concepts are shared concepts within a cultural group. One cannot invent a sociologically relevant gender category by individual will. So even if one embraced a view of sex/gender which entirely ignored the role of physiological sex differences in the cultural construction of gender norms (a mistake, IMO, at least with regard to explaining the number of categories!) it would still not be the case that there are infinite genders, because there are no societies which have developed concepts of gender like that.

Found it. It was a transgender change-my-mind debate. Student says in sociology they go around class and ask their pronouns at the teachers request. Later says the textbook says you can't define the number of genders. Maybe they're wrong but it seems credible. Starts at 27:00 and it's covered over the next 3 min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5UKt57UaC8

I mean I want the name of the textbook and to see the actual text, I don't care about a second hand claim from a student who most likely misunderstood it

yeah i have no clue. as stated in my original post, thats not the kind of stuff i consider the type of fraud we need to contend with.

I think they're at U of T campus. I guess you could double check that and then look to see if it shows online what textbooks they require for sociology if you're that curious

I recognize that you disclaimed that you weren't that concerned about this. Nevertheless, you made a confident assertion of fact that is actually complete bull****, and it matters given that this bull**** is part of your argument against academia, and may speak to the the quality of your other arguments. So I think it's worth contemplating the extreme disconnect between the confidence of your assertion and the quality of your evidence.

That is: you wrote that "Sociology textbooks teach that there are infinite genders." This is not even just a claim that some sociologist somewhere has this view. You wrote that sociology textbooks (plural!) teach this. The implication is that this is a consensus position within the discipline; that's it's a standard way of thinking about gender. Of course that's completely wrong, and it turns out that your only evidence is a youtube video of some student claiming that their textbook says you can't define the number of genders, with no other corroboration.

It happens to be the case that I have some depth of knowledge about what is taught in sociology textbooks, so it's easy for me to identify when your boldly false assertions about sociology are wrong. But given how willing you seem to be to make bold statements like that with so little actual knowledge about the academic field you are describing, it certainly makes me wonder how much to trust everything else you say...

No, I was pointing out what my issue wasn't. This is what I'm not referring to. It's actually not part of my argument and I made that clear. What I distinguished wasn't apart of my argument was false.

True story
Also you were always going to be skeptical and you should be. I'v never taken a fat studies course either. But since it was part of my argument, I've included text of the work they actually produced. Right?

I also googled sociology and gender to see if there was anything to back up his claim. I read a couple summaries that basically describe what you did. One suggested that there's a culture that had a third gender but nowhere did it indicate anything beyond that or even close to unlimited.

What I also found in the sociology + gender search is this: INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY – 1ST CANADIAN EDITION. It perpetuates the gender pay gap myth. Someone reading this wouldn't actually be given a solid understanding of reality, would actually be misled, and would probably have a divisive perception of gender.

You might say first of all you don't know anything about sociology. Canadian sociology sucks. OK fair point. Then you might say that book is 5 years old, it's totally outdated. OK that might be true also.

As someone who's not claiming to be an expert in sociology you're kind of holding me to a high standard here aren't you? I just saw an interview located on a college campus where the participant came across as reasonable and claimed to be a sociology student. I used his claim about the text book as an example of something that wasn't apart of my argument.

An out of character curse filled rant is obviously a defensive response to your personal opinion of sociology. It's a little over the top don't you think? I never claimed to be an expert and when you challenged it, I was totally open to the idea it was wrong

My only problem with WNs out of character rant is it never referred to you as a lying piece of ****. No one believes your duck and cover routine. You made a flat out false assertion with nothing to back it up but a youtube timemark and your google search history.

did it really take you this long to notice that JV only posts nonsense

Yay *\o/* finally getting around to not trusting another obvious BS poster that was already exiled for posting BS.

Nonsense that takes effort to untangle. It's by design.

I think that is a problem yes, but the scope isn't congruent with the attention it gets. It's largely confined to affluent liberal arts colleges.

I do think too that it's only part of the problem is one's true issue is with an objective value called free speech.

I've made a lot of semi sarcastic posts about how left wing correctness is out of control, but the actual content of the post is with right wing donors donating money with strings attached of who gets hired, state legislatures pulling or threatening to pull money based on various free speech activities on campus and right wing students receiving money to attempt to drum up controversy almost none of which every gets mentioned by people who claim to be about 'free speech'.

I assume OP is just as worked up about the Koch Brothers demanding personnel and curriculum changes in exchange for massive donations? https://nypost.com/2018/05/01/kochs-...iring-faculty/

https://www.dukechronicle.com/articl...ould-worry-you

Yes, here: https://opentextbc.ca/introductionto...and-sexuality/

Having skimmed through this chapter I think it's pretty representative of most intro level sociology treatments of sex/gender, at least overall and certainly with respect to the notion of gender as a social construction. I would agree that their summary overview of the gender wage gap (which is not a myth and does in fact exist; it's never clear what people mean when they say it's a myth) is a bit one-sided, although nothing they wrote is factually incorrect.

Also, I didn't mean my previous post to be a rant. I just chose the word bull**** because I thought it was precisely the right word. I did mean my post to be pointed, but then, you also mean your posts to be pointed, so I'm not seeing a problem with that. I'm not holding you to any standard of expertise, but I think it's problematic when people make strong assertions in a matter-of-fact way without having really any idea if they are right or not. It would have been different if you'd just said you'd heard once that sociology textbooks teach that there are infinite numbers of genders but you weren't sure if that was true.

It also might behoove JV to learn a little about trans-gender.

Some of them are born with one clear set of genitalia, but an internal wiring/hormone balance of the opposite sex. JV doesn't believe in that and they should just suck it up and check the box of the sex of their genitalia. Ok, that's BS and not borne out by science but it's an opinion.

Why do you think we were offering sex changes even in the 50s which were a much more conservative time? Because it was just obvious to everyone involved that this person was M/F trapped in the opposite body. By any other measure of their lives they weren't mentally ill, meaning they could still function in society in any other way. It would also be obvious if you ever met and talked to any trans person - most of whom pretty much knew they were in the wrong body from their earliest memories.

Others however are born with birth defects from genitalia that forms part-way but is interrupted. Generally doctors will err on the side of operating and just make them female - because it's easier to remove than to add. Or if the doctor thinks they can pull off something resembling a penis - they might go male.

If as an adult, the person doesn't end up identifying as the sex given them by a doctor at birth - it can cause a lot of trauma - and anger at a decision that was made for them as an infant. Furthermore the surgery often removes the parts required to have an orgasm.

Can JV or any of the "two genders only" crowd offer their opinion on which box this second group should check? Or just pretend they don't exist?

I'm not sure if we should completely conflate transgender with intersex as phenomena, although I think it's a reasonable conjecture that transgender individuals who do not have obvious intersex characteristics may have less obvious intersex characteristics (e.g. I've read a paper that found interesting brain differences between transgender and cisgender individuals, but it was a small sample). I think we don't really know everything about how all this happens.

I think the conjecture makes sense for much the same reasons why it has always made sense to expect some basis for same-sex orientation that is physiologically rooted: socialization ensures that the overwhelming majority of people are not going to arbitrarily choose for themselves heavily stigmatized social identities. That applies as much for transgender people now as it has for gay people throughout most of our history, if less so now.

There's a difference between posting parroting something that was wrong and totally inconsequential to the point I'm making, and lying. There's also a large difference between being totally transparent about where I got the misinformation and being totally open to the scrutiny it received vs a "duck and cover routine."

I'm sure well named also recognizes the difference between being mistaken and lying. I'm pretty sure when he comes back around he'll ask you to refrain from calling someone a "lying piece of ****" for making an honest mistake

Anyways the purpose of that post was in fact to present a case of why we should de-legitimize what I see as habitual academic fraud in the humanities/grievance studies. That short and separate point about sociology was to point out that it's not about people I disagree with being destroyed, it's about going so far passed the line its fraud.

Unlimited genders is widely taught and accepted in humanities. Gender and sex are taught as independent in sociology. I believed someone who was a college student doing an interview at a college campus as a sociology student that their textbook taught unlimited gender theory. This seemed very believable to me based on what I know, the circumstance, and the fact that unlimited gender identity is something that is accepted in canadian law. I have my problems with sociology which I briefly pointed at above (and I will tie in), but that's different than calling something fraudulent. Again I'm trying to distinguish what I disagree with and what I think should be disgraced

As I said there's an endless stream of absolutely absurdity coming out of the humanities/grievance studies. They are so bizarre it actually has an entertainment value

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6cQPBSXkAAVl9_.jpg:large

An incredible thread with amazing insight in to dog ownership

https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/s...65529753456642

you got any numbers for these claims of habitual academic fraud, endless stream of absolutely absurdity, etc., or just a couple more dubious pics and whatnot? I mean you were just reprimanded for making very strong claims without providing support.

Gender and sex are not taught as completely independent in sociology. To quote from the chapter you referenced previously (bold mine):

They are conceptually distinct, and that is important for doing certain kinds of analyses, particularly because various cultural values/norms/beliefs/attitudes/etc. don't reduce in any simple way to biology. In other words the distinction is in part a rejection of pure biological determinism. But it does not follow from the conceptual distinction that they are entirely independent and that is not taught.

Pretty much all modern sociology textbooks will try to explain that the nature/nurture dichotomy (biological determinism vs. pure blank slate socialization) is false. So for example, again using the text you found, they discuss this in chapter 5, on socialization, which refers to examples of the importance of both factors and their mutual interdependence.

Also: re: piling on and lying/being wrong. I don't like too much piling on and I was somewhat uncomfortable with a few of the posts. I decided to leave them anyway because I also feel like there is some social value in a discussion forum for people to express disapproval of others' posting, and that can sometimes be productive. Like if I post something that turns out to be totally wrong I wouldn't want to moderate people pointing out sharply that I was egregiously wrong. At the same time, I'd like to avoid personal attacks and some of it was pretty personal. So I dunno, I think it's tough, YMMV, hopefully this makes some sense. I don't think the rules should protect people from getting honest feedback on their posts; I do think the rules should aim to avoid having conversations degenerate into nothing more than personal attacks. So probably this is all fine provided we move along :P

Disagree; 10 thread points awarded.

You have to slow down on the bolded. Everyone makes assumptions and misreads on other posters but you have done this in posts regarding me in like 90% of your posts. It's literally a train wreck of strawman and goal post shifting. If you aren't misrepresenting me, you're then re framing topic. I pointed this out multiple times in the "trump" thread. Try to do better

I think transgender is complicated. I think homosexuality for example are mostly people born that way. That doesn't mean that nobody just chooses it. People are born intersex. There's also no shortage of people with mental illness and identity issues that aren't related to their gender. I don't pretend to have all the answers but my piping hot take is that the vast majority of "gender fluid" people have serious mental illness. I feel sorry for them

I also noticed that suicide rates and attempts among transgenders is higher than that of just about any other "marginalized" group i've seen by a long shot. If you're trying to kill yourself at a higher rate than slaves or prisoners, there's definitely something to look in to.

On top of that, I went to highschool with a metal head who ended up being trans. Nobody even suspected he was gay or different. A little bit weird but fit in socially. Definitely didn't stand out as weird. He now posts pictures of himself in womens underwear on facebook constantly. I had a bunch of classes with him and he was a friend of friends so we hung out in the same circles. Based on what I saw, I find it unlikely he just chose to be this way one day. I haven't seen or spoken to him since he came out so I'm not sure about his mental state.

All that said, he is a male and always will be imo. I don't mind playing along with his identity out of politeness (or anyone else) but I'm definitely not shifting my actual beliefs of reality.

Given the guidelines of this forum, e.g. that we ought to respect the shared humanity of the people we are talking to and about, I am going to suggest that we should be pretty careful about asserting that the "vast majority" of any large group of people is mentally ill based on so little evidence. Transgender people face enough stigmatization without being casually labeled mentally ill (another heavily stigmatized group) on top of it.

I don't want to make it impossible to have a conversation about transgender issues that completely excludes skepticism about the nature of transgender identity, because I think we as a culture probably have to have these discussions and it's certainly very mainstream in American culture to be skeptical about transgender identity. I'm just going to ask you to tread carefully and try to be respectful in your choice of language.

Me: what's the meaning of life?

You: blah blah blah

Me: CITE!!!! YOU GOT NUMBERS FOR THAT???????

Dude, I'm providing information to back up my opinion/pov. Settle down. All you're doing is repeatedly failing an IQ test. I tried to included you, like for example asked you how you would define and implement and affirmative action plan along with other questions, and you refused to participate. Sitting back to bark and whine about everything is kind of pathetic. Offer something of value or keep the low content nonsense to yourself. We get it, you're here. Hi.