Students Are Pushing Back Against Gender Ideology In Their Schools

[Kfox]

*head desk* Psychology is an interdisciplinary natural and social science. People who try to characterize psychology as purely non-physical as so out of their league its hard to know where to start.

I disagree. Biology, Chemistry, and Physics are natural sciences, they are peer reviewed, they have scientific theories associated with them, and are based on objective analysis.
Psychology is more of a theoretical/social type of science.

Also if states see thise two things as equal than those states are headed by medical illiterates. Because no medical establishment worth their salt sees gender dysphoria and body dystopia as simply a want or a choice, and addressing them as anything less than necessary medical treatment.

Nobody is saying gender dysphoria should not be treated, the question is HOW it should be treated. Using my previous example; if a person with a dysphoric condition wanted a limb removed due to identifying as handicapped, psychological treatment is in order, not surgery.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I disagree. Biology, Chemistry, and Physics are natural sciences, they are peer reviewed, they have scientific theories associated with them, and are based on objective analysis.
Psychology is more of a theoretical/social type of science.

Psychology also submits peer reviewed studies, have scientific theories associated with them, and are based on objective analysis, especially when pertaining to how the brain functions in behavioral analysis. E.g. that trans people have brains that align more with the sex commonly associated with their gender identity, rather than the sex assigned at birth.

Nobody is saying gender dysphoria should not be treated, the question is HOW it should be treated. Using my previous example; if a person with a dysphoric condition wanted a limb removed due to identifying as handicapped, psychological treatment is in order, not surgery.

Yeah your previous example is dumb. Because it's not a thing that exists or has decades of study pertaining to what treatment works and what doesn't. Trying to force trans people to align with their gender at birth works about as well as 'conversion camps' did for gay people. It doesn't, it makes them more mentally unstable, and is likely to result in comorbid depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

if a person with a dysphoric condition wanted a limb removed due to identifying as handicapped, psychological treatment is in order, not surgery.

Like seriously, this is the intellectual equivalent of saying 'If we accept gay people we may as well accept pedophiles.'

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The differences are biological.

So what goes on in a brain is not biological?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Sex is based on biological factors, while gender is more of a social construct. Sex is innate based on an entire chromosome instead of a few genes. There are two such entire chromosomes, that need to team up to procreate. We call these male and female.

Gender is based more on education, cultural norms, will and choice.

Yes, that's essentially what my quoted post stated.

Biology does not pick gender, but sets a natural platform for its optimization, connected to sex, pregnancy, birth, babies and children.

What kind of optimization? Are you referring to gender roles here? Mates attraction? If so, these can vary according to culture and environment. What is "optimal" is variable.

Social constructs for gender, can have an affect on biology, connected to will and choices, beyond natural instinct into the unnatural.

For example, women in the Middle East cover up their bodies, hair and faces, while women in the West are more revealing, thereby increasing the sexual libido baseline in Western men. This keeping the motor idling can cause divorce.

I am not sure men's libidos are any more revved up in the West than in the Middle East. The unnatural (if anything can be called that) would be the artificial covering of the body that we have evolved to respond to innately. Or the legal requirements for marriage and divorce.

In terms of culture and objectivity, the best genders, connected to natural sexuality, should not need a lot of propping up, since that wastes too much resources to be natural.

My assumption is your use of "natural sexuality" refers to any sexual activity focused entirely on reproduction. I have a problem with that definition since fulfilling sexual desire, while certainly being a way to entice reproductive activity, also has other purposes such as pair bonding and health benefits.

I am not sure how there is a "waste of resources" that makes anything else unnatural. It seems to be that if you are concerned about things being "natural," then suppressing natural sexual desire at all through social rules or legislation is a waste of resources.

Force feeding student this new gender construct, while punishing those who do not go along, all while sneaking behind parent's backs, tells me that this new construct is using brainwash style conditioning, that if blocked by parents would not allow the construct to take its full affect. If this was natural it would not be done like a Communist re-education camp, run by the State, and the shady Democrats Party Leadership.

Hyperbole aside, gender issues becoming a topic in schools did occur organically, because it is an issue that students have to face. It is even more imperative where there has been violence and bullying against students who struggle with gender. "Sneaking behind parent's backs" I assume refers to teachers not telling parents about a student's gender exploitation, and this is something that has developed specifically to protect children since this increases the likelihood of abuse.

Body art grew naturally and organically. It did not need regimented conditioning and oppression techniques to force a construct. It evolved with minimal push or pull; relaxed. Too much push or pull is a tell, for an extreme form of non organic conditioning.

Kind of like forcing human-created gender roles onto complex individuals requires years of social conditioning and training?

If you follow the money who gains by this brain washing. The Medical and Pharm Industries and the Democrat Party Officials who take their donations.

There certainly are problems with money in politics, but I don't seriously think the Democratic Party and Medical-Pharmacy companies are behind the scenes munipulating things to turn kids transgender. This appears to be connecting a real problem to something unrelated in order to create a conspiracy theory.

 

[Patrick66]

Do you understand the difference between "species" and "gender"?

Do you understand the difference between fact and fantasy?

If one can change their sex by wishing it to be so, then one can wish to identify as a different age, different species, etc., and everyone must play along with their fantasy and ignore the facts, right?

 

[Kfox]

Psychology also submits peer reviewed studies, have scientific theories associated with them, and are based on objective analysis, especially when pertaining to how the brain functions in behavioral analysis. E.g. that trans people have brains that align more with the sex commonly associated with their gender identity, rather than the sex assigned at birth.

Can you give an example of a scientific theory associated with Psychology? Example; the theory of evolution is an example of a biological scientific theory.

Yeah your previous example is dumb. Because it's not a thing that exists or has decades of study pertaining to what treatment works and what doesn't. Trying to force trans people to align with their gender at birth works about as well as 'conversion camps' did for gay people. It doesn't, it makes them more mentally unstable, and is likely to result in comorbid depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation.

I didn’t say teaching them to align their gender with biology, I’m just suggesting something else besides surgery.

Like seriously, this is the intellectual equivalent of saying 'If we accept gay people we may as well accept pedophiles.’

How did you make that leap of (Il)logic?

 

[Kfox]

So what goes on in a brain is not biological?

Your thoughts are psychological.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

*head desk* Psychology is an interdisciplinary natural and social science. People who try to characterize psychology as purely non-physical as so out of their league its hard to know where to start.

Also if states see thise two things as equal than those states are headed by medical illiterates. Because no medical establishment worth their salt sees gender dysphoria and body dystopia as simply a want or a choice, and addressing them as anything less than necessary medical treatment.

I've come across someone claiming gender dysphoria is a form of body dysmorphic disorder once before. The sad thing is it was a psychiatrist who claimed it, but as the psychologist reviewingthe material pointed out with gendsr dysphoria we tend to see improvements in the patient with treatment whereas with BDD it's an endless cycle where the patient keeps getting worse and worse with each surgery and alteration of the body.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your thoughts are psychological.

What do you suppose drives those thoughts amd makes them possible?

 

[Kfox]

What do you suppose drives those thoughts amd makes them possible?

Brain.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Brain.

More to than just that, but basically yes. And the brain and all the neurons and neurotransmitters are biological.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Can you give an example of a scientific theory associated with Psychology? Example; the theory of evolution is an example of a biological scientific theory.

Ironically Theory of Evolution also is a Psychological theory as it describes how biology influences behavior and behavioral dynamics within species. Anything behavioral is psychological in nature. Evolutionary study is also an interdisciplinary study for this reason.

How Theories Are Used in Psychology

A theory is based upon a hypothesis and backed by evidence. Learn more about psychology theories and how they are used, including examples.

www.verywellmind.com

Here's a bunch of psychology theories. Category:Psychological theories - Wikipedia

I didn’t say teaching them to align their gender with biology, I’m just suggesting something else besides surgery.

Such as?

How did you make that leap of (Il)logic?

Exactly. It is as much a leap of logic that two things with 'sexual attraction' somewhere in the description should be treated the same way, or two things with 'identity' somewhere in the description.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you understand the difference between fact and fantasy?

I'll take that as a "no" answer to my question, then. No worries. I'll go over it in brief.

Sex is a bimodal, biological form of classification, primarily defined by a collection of biological traits. In humans, it tends to be divided along male and female ranges, with rare instances of intersex. Males are generally defined by such traits as XY chromosomes, external genitalia, and sperm and testosterone production. Females by such traits as XX chromosomes, internal genitalia, ovum and estrogen production.

Gender, meanwhile, is a series of social labels that, while derived from biodimorphic associations with sex, are distinct from sex in terms of category. It encompasses a wide range of social functions, including pronouns that we use to refer to each other and a vast array of social expectations or restrictions (often depending on social context).

For example, when a doctor looks at a newborn baby's genitals and says "it's a girl!", they are identifying sex. However, following this identification, it is determined that, because this baby is a girl, it must wear dresses, play with dolls and grow up to be a housewife. THOSE things are the domain of gender; they are social roles and expectations that we tend to ASSOCIATE with a given biological sex, because for countless decades being born a particular biological sex made it almost mandatory that a certain set of these such expectations would be expected of (if not entirely forced on) you. Because these associations exist, we cannot avoid forming certain expectations and associations of people purely by what gender classification they fall into.

Now I have hopefully brought you up to speed, I will answer your question:

Yes.

If one can change their sex by wishing it to be so,

Not sex. Gender. They are two distinct things.

then one can wish to identify as a different age, different species, etc., and everyone must play along with their fantasy and ignore the facts, right?

No. Because gender is a social concept, whereas age and species are not.

If you want to join in this discussion, at least make an attempt to start with a basic grasp of what it's about.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My mistake was saying gender is not a part of this debate; obviously it is hence the name of the thread. I should have said it was not the point I was trying to make; which is why I choose to use biology.

No, your mistake was in alleging that I was the one who brought gender into our discussion when I explained that when trans people refer to "dozens of categories" they are referring to GENDER, not SEX, despite the fact that YOU were the first to mention trans people while I was talking about sex.

Just admit it, already.

Yes! Defined by biology, not behavior.

Except you would still be defining certain people into rigid categories that would inevitably develop their own archetypes again. The only difference is that people would not be able to amend, alter or choose that category (until people just reinvent the concept of gender).

I disagree. I think what lead to gender archetypes is when people equate biology with behavior and preferences.

That is inevitable when you rigidly state that how we refer to eachother - socially - should be defined by BIOLOGY. You will inevitably encode behaviours as being indicative or exemplified by one category or the other. Because that is literally what happened in reality.

Again; it’s okay to recognize usually females prefer this, and males prefer that; but it should be made clear that this is not always the case.

Why not just accept that what we like has no relation to our biology?

Why not?

Because that's literally how gender archetypes came to exist in the first place.

Why can’t you recognize there are exceptions to the rule when it comes to behavior?

Where on earth do you get the impression I don't recognize that? And what about our discussion has been about BEHAVIOUR? You've been arguing that we should classify people by their biology, not their behaviour.

Because you end up with the mess we have now where some of the most brilliant minds in the world don’t even know what a woman is.

But they do. It's just people like you who are still struggling with it.

Do you understand the difference between a man vs a woman?

Yes. One identifies as a man, the other identifies as a woman.

That's literally all it needs to be.

 

[Kfox]

No, your mistake was in alleging that I was the one who brought gender into our discussion when I explained that when trans people refer to "dozens of categories" they are referring to GENDER, not SEX, despite the fact that YOU were the first to mention trans people while I was talking about sex.

Yes you are right; I looked back and I think the post in question is #835. I said comparing biology to gender; that 3 categories (referring to biology) is a far cry from the dozens proclaimed by the trans community.

What I should have said was 3 categories is a far cry from the dozens of genders proclaimed by the trans community.
The way I phrased it, it sounds like I was saying trans claim dozens of biological sexes.

Except you would still be defining certain people into rigid categories that would inevitably develop their own archetypes again.

No we would not; especially if there were an effort to dispel such rigid categories; this is done everyday. for example:

*On average, guys excel at STEM (science, technology, education, & math) education when compared to women; but nobody would say STEM education is for guys, as a matter of fact there is an effort to get more women in STEM fields.
*On average women choose to be nurses more often compared to men. But nobody would claim the nurse profession is for women only.

Just because on average biological males choose A, and biological females choose B, that does not mean we would define biological males and females according to their choice of A vs B.

That is inevitable when you rigidly state that how we refer to eachother - socially - should be defined by BIOLOGY. You will inevitably encode behaviours as being indicative or exemplified by one category or the other. Because that is literally what happened in reality.

I disagree! As pointed out in my previous response; that doesn’t always happen in reality

Why not just accept that what we like has no relation to our biology?

I'm good with that.

Because that's literally how gender archetypes came to exist in the first place.


Where on earth do you get the impression I don't recognize that? And what about our discussion has been about BEHAVIOUR? You've been arguing that we should classify people by their biology, not their behaviour.

Yes. Gender is about behavior and preferences, I’m saying we should not classify people that way.

But they do. It's just people like you who are still struggling with it.

We have a supreme court judge admit to not knowing what a woman was because she said she was not a biologist.

Yes. One identifies as a man, the other identifies as a woman.

That's literally all it needs to be.

How does one identify as something if he can’t explain what it is? Naaw it's gotta be more than that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes you are right; I looked back and I think the post in question is #835. I said comparing biology to gender; that 3 categories (referring to biology) is a far cry from the dozens proclaimed by the trans community.

What I should have said was 3 categories is a far cry from the dozens of genders proclaimed by the trans community.
The way I phrased it, it sounds like I was saying trans claim dozens of biological sexes.

That was exactly what I said several posts ago, and your response to me pointing that out as to accuse ME of bringing gender into a discussion about sex.

No we would not; especially if there were an effort to dispel such rigid categories; this is done everyday. for example:

*On average, guys excel at STEM (science, technology, education, & math) education when compared to women; but nobody would say STEM education is for guys, as a matter of fact there is an effort to get more women in STEM fields.
*On average women choose to be nurses more often compared to men. But nobody would claim the nurse profession is for women only.

Just because on average biological males choose A, and biological females choose B, that does not mean we would define biological males and females according to their choice of A vs B.

Again, this is just wishful thinking. Archetypes develop WITHIN categories. If you are setting people and defining their social caste (even if that caste extends no further than, say, the pronouns they use), these archetypes and expectations WILL develop.

How do I know that? Because defining people socially by sexual characteristics is exactly what we DID do for thousands of years, and it LEAD to the exact outcome we have today.

I disagree! As pointed out in my previous response; that doesn’t always happen in reality

Every culture in the world developed specific roles and expectations for people along sex lines, and these became ingrained within the concept of gender. It does literally always happen, on a societal level.

Yes. Gender is about behavior and preferences, I’m saying we should not classify people that way.

Why not? It's better than defining them by something they have no personal choice, preference or connection to.

We have a supreme court judge admit to not knowing what a woman was because she said she was not a biologist.

Recent events should indicate to you that the supreme court is not exactly comprised of the smartest people in the world.

How does one identify as something if he can’t explain what it is? Naaw it's gotta be more than that.

Says who?

People define themselves as belonging to ambiguous labels all the time. Why make it any more complex than it has to be?

Remember, YOU are the one arguing that we should divorce the categories we refer to eachother as from any rigid expectations archetypes, and yet here you are saying that the label we use MUST mean something more than a label.

If you want people to be free of these rigid archetypes, why do you want these labels to carry archetypes?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your thoughts are psychological.

What causes a brain to have psychological thought?

 

[Kfox]

Again, this is just wishful thinking. Archetypes develop WITHIN categories. If you are setting people and defining their social caste (even if that caste extends no further than, say, the pronouns they use), these archetypes and expectations WILL develop.

How do I know that? Because defining people socially by sexual characteristics is exactly what we DID do for thousands of years, and it LEAD to the exact outcome we have today.


Every culture in the world developed specific roles and expectations for people along sex lines, and these became ingrained within the concept of gender. It does literally always happen, on a societal level.

Not if we don’t want it to. Consider race for example; on average black people commit more crime than white people. But nobody would ever claim black people are more violent than whites because that would be racist and vilified. So though we realize on average this might be true (statistics back this up) we conclude there are other social reasons for this; not race. If we can do this with race, we can do this with biology.

Why not? It's better than defining them by something they have no personal choice, preference or connection to.

Judging people by the average behavior of the group they belong to is taking away their personal choice. I’m saying we should define them by their personal choices regardless of which group they belong to.

Says who?

People define themselves as belonging to ambiguous labels all the time. Why make it any more complex than it has to be?

Because it IS more complex than it has to be. Just because I belong to a group does not mean I am gonna behave according to the average behavior of said group.

Remember, YOU are the one arguing that we should divorce the categories we refer to eachother as from any rigid expectations archetypes, and yet here you are saying that the label we use MUST mean something more than a label.

If you want people to be free of these rigid archetypes, why do you want these labels to carry archetypes?

Biology is not an archetype.

 

[Kfox]

What causes a brain to have psychological thought?

I don't know.