Jump to content

Ben Shapiro


Your friend

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Kelly said:

A rather good write-up on him is here:

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ben_Shapiro

I wouldn't cite RationalWiki, given that no one outside the feminist segment of the online skeptic community actually takes them seriously, and they also have a tendency to cite random blogs and Q&A posts as if they're reputable academic literature. This is especially ironic given that you were criticizing me for citing Tim Poole earlier, despite the fact that Tim Poole is an actual journalist with years of experience working in the industry for a variety of reputable media outlets, whereas the people who write RationalWiki are mostly just militant atheists living in their parents' basements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Some guy said:

I wouldn't cite RationalWiki, given that no one outside the feminist segment of the online skeptic community actually takes them seriously, and they also have a tendency to cite random blogs and Q&A posts as if they're reputable academic literature. This is especially ironic given that you were criticizing me for citing Tim Poole earlier, despite the fact that Tim Poole is an actual journalist with years of experience working in the industry for a variety of reputable media outlets, whereas the people who write RationalWiki are mostly just militant atheists living in their parents' basements.

While I agree RationalWiki is far far from a source I would cite, others are free to cite it and we are free to disagree with them citing it, but why launch ad hominem after ad hominem on the writers of the RationalWiki? That weakens your basic argument (that RationalWiki is unreliable) and threatens to reduce any further discussion to mere demagoguery. It threatens to now shift the conversation away from Ben Shapiro or even RationalWiki towards feminism, atheism, etc.; moving it away from a discussion on ideals and ideas towards one of mere identity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Some guy said:

What is your opinion of him?

While he makes points I don't agree with, I will respect anyone with the balls to publically put their opinions out there. 

 

Especially so, in a world where political correctness at the expense of the truth at times is now the norm.

 

Some of his points are well researched, and spot on accurate. 

 

I don't have an issue with the brutal truth if someone put research behind their words. 

 

This isn't about sensitivities here. To me, if a point he makes is accurate, why should he have to peddle to groups to avoid offending them. 

 

Reminds me of a date I was on which complained all the men she has dated had beaten her or cheated. I immediately knew she had serious daddy issues (based not only on this but how in depth she had dumped her issues on me on our first encounter making me know the date was over), but then blamed all men including me, who had never cheated nor struck or even yelled at a woman. 

 

I then pointed this out, also mentioning she kept picking the men, and the quickest way for her to end the cycle was to fix what it was that attracted her to controlling and abusive men.

 

I also told her often times one picks partners based on role models that most disappointed you growing up.

 

I hate when someone caters to someone out of fear of offending, when they would do them a better service being honest. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
FindingTheta
1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

 

This isn't about sensitivities here. To me, if a point he makes is accurate, why should he have to peddle to groups to avoid offending them. 

Pander.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Some guy said:

his argument style is completely logical and flawless

I have to disagree about this. He's actually not quite that logical when it comes to things that he doesn't understand enough to research. Take gender, he believes in the binary gender because he doesn't do the research and knows that here "feelings" is the same as the "facts" he tends to prefer. As with religion, I believe he's totally biased in his conclusion about things (I'm going to admit I don't remember his claims here, but I believe he's Christian and that in itself tends to make me think he prefers feelings over facts regarding the possibility of a god-figure). 

 

There are a few people on the internet I know who have gone over him. Hugo and Jake just started doing a series on him. Some More News did a long video about the problems with his style and claims about being logical. I could find more but I'm at work atm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@sithgirlix A Christian? No, he's Jewish, and he's pretty open about it. Also, the gender binary does exist. Any third genders you can come up with are just combinations of the original two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, as a random comment about Ben, he sometimes entirely disregards things he finds irrelevant. Like how a lot of people argue anti-abortion by claiming that 10% of women who have abortions (a stat I pulled out of my ass, so please don't hate) do so for reasons other than medical necessity, disregarding the 10% who don't. People will say, "What about an eleven year old who's raped and you're now forcing to have a baby" and he'll claim it's an outlier and doesn't deserve consideration. 

 

Sometimes this happens when people get very specific, but he has been shown to disregard the minority when talking about laws that would apply to them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Some guy said:

@sithgirlix A Christian? No, he's Jewish, and he's pretty open about it. Also, the gender binary does exist. Any third genders you can come up with are just combinations of the original two.

Ah, right. I remember someone saying that. I just assumed they meant ethnically so. There goes my assumption. Thanks for letting me know!

 

As for the gender binary, sorry but you're wrong. I'm not going to claim specific genders that exist outside the binary are good labels (just because I don't want to argue semantics, not that I'm saying they don't exist), but studies have shown gender is a lot more complicated than sex. It's not as simple as "You have XY chromosomes, you're male, you're a boy", nor is it as simple as "You were born with female genetalia but your brain chemistry says you're a boy." While I don't agree with Butler when she says sex is socially created, gender certainly is, and therefore not fitting neatly in one of two boxes is perfectly normal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sithgirlix said:

Oh, as a random comment about Ben, he sometimes entirely disregards things he finds irrelevant. Like how a lot of people argue anti-abortion by claiming that 10% of women who have abortions (a stat I pulled out of my ass, so please don't hate) do so for reasons other than medical necessity, disregarding the 10% who don't. People will say, "What about an eleven year old who's raped and you're now forcing to have a baby" and he'll claim it's an outlier and doesn't deserve consideration. 

 

Sometimes this happens when people get very specific, but he has been shown to disregard the minority when talking about laws that would apply to them. 

Yeah, his stance on abortion is another thing I just can't agree with. He made a good point, which is that you have to draw the line somewhere between when something counts as life vs. non-life and conception is the most logical point, but I still think it's a violation of a person's autonomy to force them to carry a child they don't want. Notice I'm being careful to avoid gendered language here, because I don't see reproductive rights as a feminist or women's issue. Abortion is nothing more than a special case of everyone's basic right to autonomy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sithgirlix said:

Ah, right. I remember someone saying that. I just assumed they meant ethnically so. There goes my assumption. Thanks for letting me know!

 

As for the gender binary, sorry but you're wrong. I'm not going to claim specific genders that exist outside the binary are good labels (just because I don't want to argue semantics, not that I'm saying they don't exist), but studies have shown gender is a lot more complicated than sex. It's not as simple as "You have XY chromosomes, you're male, you're a boy", nor is it as simple as "You were born with female genetalia but your brain chemistry says you're a boy." While I don't agree with Butler when she says sex is socially created, gender certainly is, and therefore not fitting neatly in one of two boxes is perfectly normal. 

You're strawmanning my position. I never said gender was dependent on sex, I said that there are only two basic genders, and any other genders you can come up with are just combinations of these. As for gender being socially created, I'm afraid the empirical evidence disagrees with you, as even children who are raised in gender-neutral environments naturally deviate into their expected gender roles in the vast majority of cases. The presence of people with nonconventional gender expressions doesn't disprove the existence of the gender binary or its applicability to the majority of the population.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

While he makes points I don't agree with, I will respect anyone with the balls to publically put their opinions out there. 

 

So you respect Trump?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Some guy said:

You're strawmanning my position. I never said gender was dependent on sex, I said that there are only two basic genders, and any other genders you can come up with are just combinations of these. As for gender being socially created, I'm afraid the empirical evidence disagrees with you, as even children who are raised in gender-neutral environments naturally deviate into their expected gender roles in the vast majority of cases. The presence of people with nonconventional gender expressions doesn't disprove the existence of the gender binary or its applicability to the majority of the population.

I didn't mean to strawman your argument. What genders are you referring to, then? I did includ a trans example, but maybe you thought I assumed you didn't believe in trans people. Sorry, if that was the case.

 

I'm going to make a claim here by saying that there is no such thing as a gender-neutral environment. Such a thing would violate so many laws. When walking down the street, babies with blue hats are told they look strong, confident, handsome, and other masculine terms. Same with babies with pink hats and feminine things. (Don't have a study to cite here, but my professor in college did this with his own baby, to this day I have no idea what the gender of his child is). People call their male babies "he" and their female babies "she" (nothing against this, pointing it out that this is technically gendered). It's very subtle and not intentional. My parents, for example, would not say they pressured me to act feminine or "be a girl", but I can remember many instances where I was told to not do something because it wasn't "lady-like", or to wear a dress or skirts because it was a formal event. You cannot possibly make a gender-free environment to test gender and how it appears without outside influence. Such a thing would require social isolation or a Truman Show-esque environment. 

 

Such things make it difficult to study gender. I would, however, appreciate this empirical evidence you say disagrees with me. When I look up things in google scholar, I find many writings on nin-binary genders as if they exist and don't even need to be proven exist (I'm still looking for studies that prove them, just getting distracted easily). I mentioned Butler before, and I mostly remember her name because of the "sex is socially created" thing, as well as her being a big name in gender studies, but I remember reading many published works about different gender expressions and identities firmly believing in a spectrum rather than strict binary. 

 

EDIT:

Sorry, but I'm getting excited and just remembered something.

A lot of hate has been thrown at the "Boys will be Boys" thing. It's the belief that boys will be roudy, messy, and violent because of their biology rather than social pressures. However, during college I read a study about how teachers treat their male and female children differently. I REALLY hope I can find it because I thought it was interesting. Basically, teachers would unintentionally scold girls more than boys for roudy behaviors. Subtle and unintentional, but gendered and socially pressured behaviors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@sithgirlix Okay, so how do you explain the fact that a gender binary of male and female has existed in literally every culture in every part of the world throughout history, including isolated societies like those in the New Guinea Highlands? You'd think something that's a social construct would be less universal and less cross-cultural. Also, your argument is a classic example of special pleading. You're basically coming up with reasons why your position can't possibly be proven correct, so that you can avoid having to do so. I suggest you read up on special pleading and other logical fallacies before continuing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Some guy said:

Okay, so how do you explain the fact that a gender binary of male and female has existed in literally every culture in every part of the world throughout history, including isolated societies like those in the New Guinea Highlands?

Except it hasn't. There are a number of cultures that include a third gender, and some that include more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, daveb said:

Except it hasn't. There are a number of cultures that include a third gender, and some that include more.

Those third genders don't invalidate the original two though. And male and female are the only genders that exist universally across cultures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, daveb said:

It's not a binary if there are more than 2.

But as I said, third genders are always combinations of male and female. So there is a definite gender binary, because there are only two basic genders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Some guy said:

are just combinations of the original two.

Sorry, I'm going to point out a flaw in my earlier posts. I didn't catch this little tidbit here and focused on the "the gender binary does exist" thing.

 

Let me explain. Gender is a spectrum. What you call the ends of the spectrum is up to you, and in English we generally go with "male and female", or the other terms. When I say "gender binary" I mean the denial of such a spectrum. That there are only boys and girls, but no one in between. That only "boy" and "girl" exist as legitimate lables and others are just fooling themselves.

 

So yes, third genders might be combinations of the two (I'm curious about agender or non-gender, but don't know enough about these people to say anything towards or against their legitimacy, though personally I view them like I view asexual compared to other sexualities), but the gender binary doesn't exist. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sithgirlix said:

Sorry, I'm going to point out a flaw in my earlier posts. I didn't catch this little tidbit here and focused on the "the gender binary does exist" thing.

 

Let me explain. Gender is a spectrum. What you call the ends of the spectrum is up to you, and in English we generally go with "male and female", or the other terms. When I say "gender binary" I mean the denial of such a spectrum. That there are only boys and girls, but no one in between. That only "boy" and "girl" exist as legitimate lables and others are just fooling themselves.

 

So yes, third genders might be combinations of the two (I'm curious about agender or non-gender, but don't know enough about these people to say anything towards or against their legitimacy, though personally I view them like I view asexual compared to other sexualities), but the gender binary doesn't exist. 

I think you're splitting hairs here. You're basically arguing that gender is a social construct because it can be seen as a spectrum. That doesn't mean it's a social construct at all. I've made my point about male and female genders being universal across cultures, and that should be enough to see that the gender binary (that is, the existence of male and female genders and the existence of certain secondary traits characteristic to each one) does exist, which is a fact that is easily observable and verifiable. It is possible to acknowledge the existence of people who are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum without invalidating the identities of all cis people. Because that's basically what you're doing when you deny the gender binary. You're denying the legitimacy of cis people and implying that they only act the way they do because they've been brainwashed to do so. It's just as bad as transphobia in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Some guy said:

Also, your argument is a classic example of special pleading. You're basically coming up with reasons why your position can't possibly be proven correct, so that you can avoid having to do so. I suggest you read up on special pleading and other logical fallacies before continuing.

Special pleading, Google says it's this: "argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view." Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't believe I'm doing that. In fact, I think you're ignoring things that are unfavorable. You said there are children raised in gender-free environments but how so? I pointed out ways in which every environment is gendered and you argue I'm special pleading? 

 

Asking someone how a person would develop outside society is cruel, but a legitimate question. An example would be language: take a child and raise them in 100% isolation and see if they develop language. No one is going to do that study. People have attempted to study children who were abused or found living in the wild or otherwise in terrible situations that were corrected after the fact, but these are hardly substantial studies. 

 

Gender is like this. You cannot remove someone from the environment enough to figure out how they develop or display gender because the environment itself makes it impossible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alrighty you two cool it down some.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sithgirlix said:

Special pleading, Google says it's this: "argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view." Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't believe I'm doing that. In fact, I think you're ignoring things that are unfavorable. You said there are children raised in gender-free environments but how so? I pointed out ways in which every environment is gendered and you argue I'm special pleading? 

 

Asking someone how a person would develop outside society is cruel, but a legitimate question. An example would be language: take a child and raise them in 100% isolation and see if they develop language. No one is going to do that study. People have attempted to study children who were abused or found living in the wild or otherwise in terrible situations that were corrected after the fact, but these are hardly substantial studies. 

 

Gender is like this. You cannot remove someone from the environment enough to figure out how they develop or display gender because the environment itself makes it impossible. 

Well, Google was wrong. Special pleading is basically the psychic who has their psychic powers put to the test and disproven and then says that the reason they didn't work is because the observation process took away their psychic powers temporarily. Also the Invisible Boy from Mystery Men who can only become invisible when no one's looking. That's special pleading. It doesn't matter what the logical fallacy you pulled is called, it's still a logical fallacy. If you're going to argue about semantics, then you're just nitpicking, and that's not an actual argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Neutral Charge
15 minutes ago, sithgirlix said:

An example would be language: take a child and raise them in 100% isolation and see if they develop language. No one is going to do that study. People have attempted to study children who were abused or found living in the wild or otherwise in terrible situations that were corrected after the fact, but these are hardly substantial studies. 

 

 

There is reasearch on the learning of complex language(like our languages), the only way humans dont develop language is off biological nature, if they are missing a component of the speach mechanism or a lack of learning component, such as hearing sounds/teaching models.

 

Most people who suffer long exposure to childhood trauma or constant traumatic enviroment dont ever get fixed

There is research to prove the first 4 years are essential to emotional development and perception of what that means, further to that the next 6 y establish whom you will be as a person, the best psychology/psychoterapy and other fields that involve both mind and body can only assist from the outside with methods and ways of coping, adaption and attempts at integrattion but there is no cure for a bad development caused by where and how you were born and raised, inside, the traumas never really leave.

This as an add to the specific fragment above.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Some guy said:

I think you're splitting hairs here. You're basically arguing that gender is a social construct because it can be seen as a spectrum. That doesn't mean it's a social construct at all. I've made my point about male and female genders being universal across cultures, and that should be enough to see that the gender binary (that is, the existence of male and female genders and the existence of certain secondary traits characteristic to each one) does exist, which is a fact that is easily observable and verifiable. It is possible to acknowledge the existence of people who are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum without invalidating the identities of all cis people. Because that's basically what you're doing when you deny the gender binary. You're denying the legitimacy of cis people and implying that they only act the way they do because they've been brainwashed to do so. It's just as bad as transphobia in my opinion.

No, I think you're being unclear and we're misunderstanding each other.

 

I say a gender binary doesn't exist. All gender is on a spectrum (even if you insist on saying the "binary" is the ends of this spectrum), and society created how one views themselves and others as gender. We have gender expression which is how we choose to show others our gender. Sex is just our genitalia or chromosomes or otherwise our biology. 

Society tells us "girls wear dresses and you're a girl, so you should wear dresses", which is taking a possible female, assuming their gender and telling them the gender expression acceptable for that gender. Society tells us what we are and how we should act. There people people who say "No, I like monster trucks and don't fell like you say a girl should feel, so I'm a boy" means gender isn't absolutely tied to sex, so society adjusted. Now, people are saying "I like dresses AND monster trucks, and I don't feel like either a boy or a girl 100% of the time, I feel like both" so where is the reaction? 

 

Gender binary means there are two boxes, you might be assigned one or you might be able to jump into the other one, but there are only two.

Gender expression says there's just one giant rectangular box we all fit into somewhere. Or circular, or whatever vicual you're looking for. Basically, there's room for everyone and we can move along the line or stay where we're at. Maybe you're at the "boy" end of the rectangle, and maybe you're at the "girl" end of the rectangle. That doesn't mean the bigender person in the middle is any way different.

 

Can you explain the secondary traits you mentioned? I know sex, gender, and gender expression and I know that there are primary and secondary sexual characteristics, but I'm not sure what you mean.

 

"It is possible to acknowledge the existence of people who are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum without invalidating the identities of all cis people." I don't see how you think I'm delegitimizing cis people. I deny the gender binary as I've explained. Because it means "Two boxes, choose one" NOT "two boxes, but if you've got a foot in each, that's cool too." (I bolded it to visually separate it from my giant wall of text.) Cis people are born with a sex, agree with the gender they're assigned, express gender according to their desire, and are fine. They're just on one end of my rectangle example.

 

Brainwashed. Touchy word there. Negatively biased. Tends to make people throw up walls.

You'll have to tell me what you mean by it because I've looked up multiple definitions, none of which I'm 100% happy with because they are saying slightly different things.

Let me explain.

People are born. They're taught how to interact with the people around them. That's socialization. That's society teaching people how to behave. That's what I mean. We're all taught how to act and feel based on society's interpretations of us. 

I believe a definition of brainwashing could be used to describe that, but it would include far too many things to properly maintain it's true meaning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Member114264 said:

Alrighty you two cool it down some.

But I love this. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sithgirlix said:

No, I think you're being unclear and we're misunderstanding each other.

 

I say a gender binary doesn't exist. All gender is on a spectrum (even if you insist on saying the "binary" is the ends of this spectrum), and society created how one views themselves and others as gender. We have gender expression which is how we choose to show others our gender. Sex is just our genitalia or chromosomes or otherwise our biology. 

Society tells us "girls wear dresses and you're a girl, so you should wear dresses", which is taking a possible female, assuming their gender and telling them the gender expression acceptable for that gender. Society tells us what we are and how we should act. There people people who say "No, I like monster trucks and don't fell like you say a girl should feel, so I'm a boy" means gender isn't absolutely tied to sex, so society adjusted. Now, people are saying "I like dresses AND monster trucks, and I don't feel like either a boy or a girl 100% of the time, I feel like both" so where is the reaction? 

 

Gender binary means there are two boxes, you might be assigned one or you might be able to jump into the other one, but there are only two.

Gender expression says there's just one giant rectangular box we all fit into somewhere. Or circular, or whatever vicual you're looking for. Basically, there's room for everyone and we can move along the line or stay where we're at. Maybe you're at the "boy" end of the rectangle, and maybe you're at the "girl" end of the rectangle. That doesn't mean the bigender person in the middle is any way different.

 

Can you explain the secondary traits you mentioned? I know sex, gender, and gender expression and I know that there are primary and secondary sexual characteristics, but I'm not sure what you mean.

 

"It is possible to acknowledge the existence of people who are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum without invalidating the identities of all cis people." I don't see how you think I'm delegitimizing cis people. I deny the gender binary as I've explained. Because it means "Two boxes, choose one" NOT "two boxes, but if you've got a foot in each, that's cool too." (I bolded it to visually separate it from my giant wall of text.) Cis people are born with a sex, agree with the gender they're assigned, express gender according to their desire, and are fine. They're just on one end of my rectangle example.

 

Brainwashed. Touchy word there. Negatively biased. Tends to make people throw up walls.

You'll have to tell me what you mean by it because I've looked up multiple definitions, none of which I'm 100% happy with because they are saying slightly different things.

Let me explain.

People are born. They're taught how to interact with the people around them. That's socialization. That's society teaching people how to behave. That's what I mean. We're all taught how to act and feel based on society's interpretations of us. 

I believe a definition of brainwashing could be used to describe that, but it would include far too many things to properly maintain it's true meaning.

No, the term "gender binary", when interpreted literally, implies that there is a dichotomy between male and female. It doesn't mean there's nothing in between. If that's what the trans community says it means, then the trans community sucks at communicating ideas and should revise their lingo so it's more clear. A better term would be "discrete genders", because that would imply a finite set as opposed to a continuous spectrum.  "Binary" just means that there's a basis of two entities, which all other entities are constructed on top of. You know, like binary numbers, where there's 1 and 0 but there are infinite possible strings of 1's and 0's. When I say that there's a gender binary, I mean that there are two basic genders, and anything else you can come up with is a combination of those two. This is the most logical meaning of the term "gender binary", and it's the one I will continue using.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Some guy said:

Well, Google was wrong. Special pleading is basically the psychic who has their psychic powers put to the test and disproven and then says that the reason they didn't work is because the observation process took away their psychic powers temporarily. Also the Invisible Boy from Mystery Men who can only become invisible when no one's looking. That's special pleading. It doesn't matter what the logical fallacy you pulled is called, it's still a logical fallacy. If you're going to argue about semantics, then you're just nitpicking, and that's not an actual argument.

Well, you completely ignored the rest of what I was saying to argue definitions.

 

I looked up other definitions after posting that and I believe you're right about what you think I was doing. 

 

Speacial pleading would be like relgion, yes? Like Ben Shapiro and everyone else who is religious does? (mentioning him because back on topic? maybe? I'm still enjoying the gender discussion). Like, "there's an all powerful god out there but you can't prove they're there." 

 

If so, you think I'm saying that proving gender is socially created is impossible, therefore it is true. Yes? Please let me know if I'm oversimplifying, and I am truely trying to understand you.

 

But let me explain. I pointed out ways in which people can unconsciously adjust their behavior around others. They react to people differently and treat others differently based on their perception of the other's gender. That's what we look for to prove the social construction of gender. It is precisely because people would not approve of a study in which someone is put into a Truman Show-esque environment that we look for indications that society creates gender in other places.

 

I mentioned passers-by treating a child they perceive as male diffrently than one they perceive as female. I mentioned teachers treating their students differently based on their genders. I don't know how much you're expecting me to give you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sithgirlix said:

Well, you completely ignored the rest of what I was saying to argue definitions.

 

I looked up other definitions after posting that and I believe you're right about what you think I was doing. 

 

Speacial pleading would be like relgion, yes? Like Ben Shapiro and everyone else who is religious does? (mentioning him because back on topic? maybe? I'm still enjoying the gender discussion). Like, "there's an all powerful god out there but you can't prove they're there." 

 

If so, you think I'm saying that proving gender is socially created is impossible, therefore it is true. Yes? Please let me know if I'm oversimplifying, and I am truely trying to understand you.

 

But let me explain. I pointed out ways in which people can unconsciously adjust their behavior around others. They react to people differently and treat others differently based on their perception of the other's gender. That's what we look for to prove the social construction of gender. It is precisely because people would not approve of a study in which someone is put into a Truman Show-esque environment that we look for indications that society creates gender in other places.

 

I mentioned passers-by treating a child they perceive as male diffrently than one they perceive as female. I mentioned teachers treating their students differently based on their genders. I don't know how much you're expecting me to give you.

Jesus, the passer-by treating a child differently based on perceived gender is exactly what I mean when I say "special pleading". You're arguing that your position would be impossible to prove or disprove because "people are treated differently no matter what", therefore it should be accepted as correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...