Gender Fluidity should be an Adult topic

[Bobby_2021]

1 minute ago, Nemra said:

Isn't this ambiguous?

That is their definition, not mine.

[Alexop]

2 hours ago, Girzo said:

 

You can't say it's because of genetics, because you DON'T KNOW that. You don't know causation and many other things. It's safe to always just share the insight of HOW you see things to be and not WHY they are this way. Because without you being a researcher on the topic or directly citing some advanced paper, your reasons why will probably be very ungrounded. It's hard to explain the 'why' in most topics in social science. Stay aware that if you do hypotethical, ungrounded 'why's' then yours are as good as the opposite side's.

Also you are mixing gender and sex all the time. Women this, women that, yes but being a woman is a cultural thing, culture makes up what being a woman means. It's what you do, not what you are. What it entails changes across time and cultures. 

 

 

Man, you're just spinning out bullshit. How is the "why" so hard to explain? There is clear research that shows that the vast majority of women show less interest for engineering than men. Focus on simplicity and forget this stupid "academicsplaining"

Being a woman is both a choice of identity and a cultural thing. You both are a woman and behave like a woman relatively speaking. Yes I know you are God and all of that on the absolute level.

When I say "I am a man", it is like saying I am an introvert, this is how I feel most authentic.

Edited April 24 by Alexop

[Nemra]

@Bobby_2021

It can be that I don't understand what the definition entails. It seems that for them, it's not ambiguous.

I can say things that people might think are ambiguous, but not for me and think that I'm incorrect.

[Girzo]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You not having seen the proof is not proof of it not existing. Go research on the "Gender Equality Paradox".

Have you read about this topic? First, it's about gender, so it's culture. Then, even on the wikipedia page there are descriptions of people arguing about the 'why's', because they are not obvious, no where are genetics pointed as the main factor as to why. Exactly what I was saying. You noticing the existence of the Gender Equality Paradox, that's great, we are describing reality. You jumping to conclusions as to why, no bueno, that's imagination.

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Then what is the source of those differences?

Everything. Culture, psychology, genetics, environement, life experience, etc. Both at the individual and collective levels.

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Having an advanced paper to support your claims does not mean what you are saying is true. If that was the case, all the experts should be agreeing with each other.

You are building up an argument as to why you shouldn't say WHY things are for sure, as even experts can disagree for a long time, but also 100% agreement is never needed for science to go forward, science is a dynamic process of discovery and inventivness not a religious dogma.

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Heck, the supposed more patriarchal countries have more women in stem than the advanced liberal countries. You do not address any of this and say there is not any proof.

You are doing what you accuse the feminists of. You boil everything down to some stupid patriarchy. Patriarchy is a bullshit explanation. Social reality is way more complex and there are other things that influence these results, as you have mentioned by mentioning the gender equality paradox.

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I do know. You are the one who does not know to be frank.

No you don't know, you don't even read the books or the current scientific research and it's very visible.

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Gender is a social construction. I have my own definition of gender and sex, which is a solid definition.

Gender fluidity literally means you can identify as whatever you want whenever you want. Such a world view is not even internally coherent, and ambiguous. I do not have ambiguity in my definitions. Which is what a definition is supposed to be.

I want clarity not mental gymnastics.

My man, you say you want clarity but you are not willing to spend 10 minutes to clarify for yourself what 'gender fluidity' means by reading a wikipedia article about it. Gender-fluid is an identity that an INDIVIDUAL can have, not a fucking concept that everyone's gender is fluid, the hell. It just tells you that there are some individuals who don't have a stable gender identity. SOME. INDIVIDUALS.

55 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

That is their definition, not mine.

It is your misunderstanding of the basic meaning of the term 'gender-fluid', you don't even know what it relates to, as I have said above.

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I heard that 50% of those papers in academia could not even be replicated. It is just a boatload of crap.

Just read them for yourself if you care and don't listen to others' opinions. Otherwise, you will just end up as opinionatied as them. Ups, too late.

Replication doesn't mean shit. I cannot replicate a tsunami hitting the Fukushima nuclear plant. Does that make the measurements of the impact invalid, because I can't measure it again? The fuck no. Every branch of science has a subbranch called Methodology and it deals solely with the problem of how to construct the research and do it properly. 

The replication problem you describe is meant to describe the shit that happens in STEM science, for example in chemistry, where mainly Chinese or Indian researchers mass-produce papers with fake results - they fail to prove something but write it worked to get money and points for publication, etc. Social science has different important issues than the replication problem.

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You can also derail a conversation by bringing in unnecessary complexities and technicalities and make the discourse go nowhere.

The problem with skipping them arises when these complexities are absolutely crucial for understanig the topic.

Edited April 24 by Girzo

[Schizophonia]

16 hours ago, Yimpa said:

I started feminizing HRT a week ago and I’d be happy to share the changes  and experiences I notice in the coming months and years 

You will develop gynecomastia and become boring and stressed from all this e2.
But you're never going to turn into a woman, all you're going to do is trigger serious long-term endocrine problems.

[Girzo]

17 minutes ago, Alexop said:

Man, you're just spinning out bullshit. How is the "why" so hard to explain? There is clear research that shows that the vast majority of women show less interest for engineering than men. Focus on simplicity and forget this stupid "academicsplaining"

"There is clear research that shows that the vast majority of women show less interest for engineering than men." This is ok. The END. Put a stop there. That's my whole argument. If you go further into venturing into saying with certainity about why that is, you will probably make a mistake. We can say our ideas of possible explanations, state our opinions, that's all good, to argue indefinitely defending them, or treating them as some proven truth is foolishness.

Edited April 24 by Girzo

[Girzo]

Also, Bobby,

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

gender differences are merely a social construction, which is the real bullshit.

I think your attitiude comes from thinking of social constructs as something worthy of the word "merely." Social constructs are real and very powerful. Money is a social construct. Gender is a similarly powerful social construct. They are not "merely" social constructs. They are so important and powerful you are willing to heatedly discuss about them online, spending your precious minutes of life on this instead of doing self-actualization. Very important.

Edited April 24 by Girzo

[Bobby_2021]

37 minutes ago, Girzo said:

Everything. Culture, psychology, genetics, environement, life experience, etc. Both at the individual and collective levels.

The whole point of the study was to eliminate the effects of culture/environment. And then extrapolate the findings.

We can measure the freedom and cultural limitations placed on individuals from different cultures. So the less limitations there are, the more women choose traditional career choices. Which is why India has more participation of women in stem than the United States or Sweden. In fact the more freedom you give to individuals the more they choose careers that are in alignment with their genetics.

If you eliminate the effects of culture, all that remains is genetics.

Which is why I said genetics is the reason for the differences in interests of men and women. 

But now you will say, " What proof do you have that  genetics determines the gender differences? "

44 minutes ago, Alexop said:

How is the "why" so hard to explain?

It is a bias from the "environmental/nurture" gang. They will demand proof for why genetics is the reason for the gender differences while they do not feel any obligation to prove why environment/culture is the deciding factor in determination of choices of individuals. They gloss over that point. We are supposed to accept that culture is the main factor in the differences without question.

The thing about environment/culture is that you can control it, eliminate it's effects and measure the effects of gender. The research has been done. I am not pulling this out of my ass. 

Also, I am not saying that environment has zero effect at all.  Obviously if you don't have access to food and water, then it is going to affect you a lot in the choices you make. But you can study people who are not binded by any cultural/environmenal  pressures of any kind.

The only explanation left is genetics.

Edited April 24 by Bobby_2021

[Girzo]

@Bobby_2021 You indeed are pulling things out of your ass. You are talking to a sociologist, I know when you pull stuff straight out of nowhere. I am done throwing bricks at this brickwall of your ideology.

Edited April 24 by Girzo

[Alexop]

16 minutes ago, Girzo said:

@Bobby_2021 You indeed are pulling things out of your ass. You are talking to a sociologist, I know when you pull stuff straight out of nowhere. I am done throwing bricks at this brickwall of your ideology.

Ok, if you are a sociologist, what do you think about Norway's "gender point system" which gives you an artificial headstart for applying to fields where your gender is in minority? I even heard (not sure if it is true) people who changed gender in order to have higher chances to enter into STEM.

Edited April 24 by Alexop

[Nemra]

11 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

We can measure the freedom and cultural limitations placed on individuals from different cultures. So the less limitations there are, the more women choose traditional career choices. Which is why India has more participation of women in stem than the United States or Sweden. In fact the more freedom you give to individuals the more they choose careers that are in alignment with their genetics.

Really? Maybe they have no other choice. 

Isn't India traditionalistic? Isn't tradition supposed to set limitations?

You also mentioned that women are more likely to want to be nurses. Now you say that when there aren't limitations, women want to participate in STEM. What am I getting wrong?

[Danioover9000]

@Alexop

4 minutes ago, Alexop said:

Ok, if you are a sociologist, what do you think about Norway's "gender point system" which gives you an artificial headstart for applying to fields where your gender is in minority? I even heard (not sure if it is true) people who changed gender in order to have higher chances to enter into STEM.

   If that's true, then that's ridiculous coming from a nordic country.

[Alexop]

3 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Alexop

   If that's true, then that's ridiculous coming from a nordic country.

It is the academic nurture/environmentalism ideology that pushed it for sure. Idk, you should deserve to be in a profession due to your competence, not gender. But a bit of encouragement of the minority would be ok in order to improve the perspective diversity in the field. The question is when do you go too far?

Edited April 24 by Alexop

[Danioover9000]

@Alexop

3 minutes ago, Alexop said:

It is the academic nurture/environmentalism ideology that pushed it for sure. Idk, you should deserve to be in a profession due to your competence, not gender. But a bit of encouragement of the minority would be ok in order to improve the perspective diversity in the field. The question is when do you go too far?

   Good question. If I'm pressured to answer and give a reasonable percentage, when the failure rate is between and above 40%-60%, and the economic failings have several cases where you can trace the failures back to state sponsored LGBTQ indoctrination in schools. When there's several cases with strong correlation and causation linking economic failings or other social areas to the state's gender point system is when I'd say it got too far. That's not to say they never should teach this say in high school-university, but again like Yin-Yang there's a balance there, too little and too much isn't good.

[Nemra]

@Alexop 

Do you think that removing the academic nurture/environmentalism ideology in Norway will lead to people entering professions based on competency rather than gender?

[Alexop]

2 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

 

but again like Yin-Yang there's a balance there, too little and too much isn't good.

Here is where most people fail, they just jump into the pool of ideology. 

[Alexop]

2 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Alexop 

Do you think that removing the academic nurture/environmentalism ideology in Norway will lead to people entering professions based on competency rather than gender?

They will listen to their own needs, likes and wants. Not being brainwashed into believing that everything we did in the past was wrong or we are all the same or some shit like that.

Teach them femininity vs. masculinity. Teach them how boys get on average double as much testosterone before birth and how that influences their brains. Stuff like that, then they will know who they are and what they want.

[Bobby_2021]

25 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Really? Maybe they have no other choice. 

Isn't India traditionalistic? Isn't tradition supposed to set limitations?

You also mentioned that women are more likely to want to be nurses. Now you say that when there aren't limitations, women want to participate in STEM. What am I getting wrong?

Because we are dirt poor in India. Women and Men are forced into high paying careers whether they like it or not. As a consequence more people choose stem fields. Even if you are man and you do not like stem, you have to study it. Women are not exception. There are not many choices here.

In Sweden, you have a lot more freedom to choose your career choices. So women naturally opt for traditionalist career choices. More power to them.

The idea that women faces discrimination in STEM and face more hurdles than men is way overblown to fit their narrative. In fact more women are forced into stem, because they generally pay more.

[Nemra]

@Alexop

So, are there no other (opposite) ideologies that can brainwash?

If so, do you think other ideologies are relatively better? Or does Norway don't have them?

[Danioover9000]

@Bobby_2021

5 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Because we are dirt poor in India. Women and Men are forced into high paying careers whether they like it or not. As a consequence more people choose stem fields. Even if you are man and you do not like stem, you have to study it. Women are not exception. There are not many choices here.

In Sweden, you have a lot more freedom to choose your career choices. So women naturally opt for traditionalist career choices. More power to them.

The idea that women faces discrimination in STEM and face more hurdles than men is way overblown to fit their narrative. In fact more women are forced into stem, because they generally pay more.

   This reminds me of the Indians who immigrated to Africa, developed the businesses there, and later displaced out due to collective jealousy and right wing sentiments: