@zecarlo, agree. And they’ll straight up tell you this. Queer theory, and gender studies is full of critical theory, intersectionality and Marxism applied to gender. It’s all about identity politics which is why the third wave feminists love it. You look at what they’re talking about, even go read the Wiki page for Queer theory and it’s all about postmodernism, Marxism, intersectionality, and critical theory.
They believe MLK’s vision that we learn to see people as individuals regardless or race (or gender here) was naive, and did not work, because we’re not yet post-racial or free of sexism as a society. I’ll agree with them on that, but I believe a universal ethics for human rights, and in seeing people as individuals is the way to go, rather than focusing on privilege and victim status.
I’ll put this here. All of this applies to people like Thadeus Russell, but with gender here.
Of course there is serious science going on, but it’s mostly over in the neurosciences or social sciences. Of course there are legit people doing work in Gender Studies, but there’s also a lot stuff that has nothing to do with science.
This is what postmodern history professors, and gender studies people are calling “science.” It’s postmodernism, playing with linguistics, redefining language, and it’s all based in Marxism.
BTW, I am Astergender.
Are you asking this question to someone in particular, or to the thread?
I’m going to call someone by whatever name they request. If I ran into Janae Kroc, and she introduces herself as Janae, then I’m going to call her Janae. I’m going to use “she” or “her.” If the TG person requests, I would try to remember to call them “their.” With regard to work, It’s codified in CA law that schools use the student’s chosen name and pronouns.
That’s what I’m saying. Referring to someone as they would like is not an acknowledgment that you agree with them. If someone is named Mary or Jesus, am I supporting Christianity if I use their names? If someone is named Muhammad, I support Islam if I call him that?
Agree. Acknowledging that this could get ridiculous with all the invented genders and infinite invented pronouns. If someone wants to live their life as a TG person who associates with the other mode, I’m going to be kind and compassionate to them. Even if someone feels neither, lets say they’re truly intersex or want to live as an androgynous person, and really wants to be referred to as “they or their,” I’m going to accommodate that. Sure. I have some compassion for that.
I do have issues with someone who says their preferred pronoun is “ZenaWarriorPrincess,” or “clouds,” and their gender is from some list of ever changing list of inventions.
@ legit people studying gender. My BFF has a PhD in Religion, with an emphasis on religion and gender. She is a professor, and teaches courses like religious ethics. Her research involves things going to Africa or Latin America and researching how women experience faith, and how that may be different across cultures, or is changing over time. She’s into analyzing oral histories. It’s really interesting. People like Thadeus Russell are doing people like her a harm. Why they’re allowed to flourish in the academy, I can’t say. I assume the left doesn’t know how to notice when “the emperor has no clothes.”
About MLK. I really like this quote. This is someone commenting on the E is True blog, bit can be applied to both race and gender.
"Let’s embrace the biology, and celebrate that it has not made us, by any stretch, different enough to justify different rights."
That’s one of the problems with freedom, people will always abuse it.
This is why I don’t agree with legislating speech with this issue. The idea that there could a 100 different pronouns out there and if you make a mistake you’ve broken the law, is silly. And the people who push these ideas do those who genuinely “need” them no favors by making the entire issue look ridiculous. The idea that a man considers himself a woman is not equivalent to a man thinking he is a cloud or a rainbow.
@thunderbolt23, I’ve been thinking out loud here about the idea of binary, bimodal, or spectrum. Most of my talking here is me thinking, trying to articulate my ideas.
Nobody in biology is thinking of sex/gender as a true digital binary, where all individuals are 0 or 1. That’s become a strawman argument for people like Russell. It’s a smart person, using a debate tactic. Look, some people aren’t 0 or 1, so you’re wrong, there is no binary. Wrong, we’ve long known about intersex people, or exceptions like XXY, for example. Still, I like the term bimodal better, because it helps people picture that there’s some overlap, and more rare things on the ends of the curve are part of the normal distribution.
And even if we talk about a spectrum for orientation, of course most individuals are going to be hetero. It’s not some kind of evenly scattered distribution along the x axis.
Gender science, something you do when you cannot hang in regular classes that are supposed to make you smarter, so you get dumber instead.
Certainly they are trying to avoid the inevitable conclusion that men and women are different. They apply a value scale to the differences. The problem is that’s exactly the wrong way to look at it.
At the risk of coming of as a Peterson nut hugger (there are worse things…), I like his basic take. Gender Studies, aside from being a corrupt “science” (I wouldn’t know) is rooted in the concept of intersectionality, but the intersectionality road ultimately ends at individualism because there’s an infinite number of group intersections. I personally think that’s the only rational way to look at the world.
As an aside, we just discovered a “men only” barber shop in our hometown and it’s glorious. I can’t believe such a thing exists in 2018.
I think naming your kid Jesus is a terrible idea. It’s like a passport to prison. If you look at you local mugshot web page, half the people on there are named Jesus.
About 7+ billion x the numbers of intersections each one chooses to be apart of, to be exact…
I’d love to get a proper, hot shave at a barbershop. Only problem is that I’d lose the beard and that cannot happen.
Same and I think I’m going to give it a shot in a week or two (gotta let it grow a bit).
Intersectionality, as a way to examine issues has merit. Originally it was about the differences between black women and white women when it came to women’s issues and feminism as a movement. I don’t think it’s crazy to think that a black woman’s experience is different from a white woman’s. The problems happen when you take it too far. You can say that a poor white woman’s experience is different from a middle class white woman’s experience. The poor white woman wants to get out of poverty, the middle class one wants to get in the boardroom. However, thinking that by reducing everyone to being representatives of the various forms of oppression they have endured, you will somehow solve their problems is silly.
So a black woman can say that she has it worse than a white woman because not only does she face oppression for being black and for being a woman but she faces oppression from black men, as well as white, something white women don’t have to worry about. Then you could have her one upped by a black lesbian who can claim that in addition to those things she faces oppression from straight black women. And it can go on. It might make people feel good, and there may even be some truth behind it, but what solutions does it offer?
This is what happened with the civil rights’ movement. At first it was about black people and MLK got a lot of things done. The message was simple. Now everyone is lumped in together and who comes out on top? Those who argue about bathrooms and compare their plight to what blacks endured under Jim Crow. There are sorts of prejudices and bigotry out there and now they are all seen as equivalent in how they manifest themselves. I don’t see how getting lynched is equivalent to being denied using a certain bathroom. If someone is against gay marriage he is a Nazi. Because somehow what the Nazis believed and did is the same thing.
Is Joshua OK?
Sure. The problem is exactly what you wrote, though:
And that’s what he’s referring to. The use of intersectionality to push identity/grievance politics is too far.
I know some people see how it leads to what should be considered incongruities. Like, how feminists and homosexuals will include Muslims among their victim circle jerk. This is why you will see women here march against rape culture in America but won’t say anything about what is happening to women in other cultures. And if one does, she is a traitor. It’s all a way of trying to find a common enemy, the irony being that intersectionality shows how everyone has been oppressed and has also been an oppressor.
The worst outcome is that identity politics has taken center stage in the civil rights movement and left those who initiated it behind. Some white transgender Ivy League student thinks his life travels on the same path as some inner city kid whose father is in prison and mother is on drugs. Or some poor rural white kid whose community is devastated by meth and alcohol.
Let me check the mug shot page…
Several Jesus’s, 1 Joshua, and surprisingly a couple of Mohamed’s. And an Abdulkadir…