• We're currently experiencing a minor issue with our email system preventing emails for new registrations and verifications going out. We're currently working to fix this
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Prejudice Plus Power and Racism and Sexism

Scammel

Well-Known Member
I haven't heard much about this guy before today, but according to Wikipedia he compared using somebody's preferred pronouns to Marxist genocide. That should pretty much invalidate his claims as hate speech and not scientific at all.
I think Peterson is a borderline crank who makes a handful of good points in an overly combative and obtuse fashion, but if you want to disprove the 99.7% stat, you have to actually disprove the stat. I struggled to find an exact source for the 99.7% quoted, but the UK National Health Service website tells us that

A survey of 10,000 people undertaken in 2012 by the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that 1% of the population surveyed was gender variant, to some extent.
It seems a very bad idea to dismiss measurable stats on the basis of the person reporting them without first getting to grips with the numbers themselves.
 

snorlax512

Well-Known Member
I haven't heard much about this guy before today, but according to Wikipedia he compared using somebody's preferred pronouns to Marxist genocide. That should pretty much invalidate his claims as hate speech and not scientific at all.
Source? This sounds awfully taken out of context.

when did you ever prove it was mostly innate?
Changing the topic, eh? Experiments on primates and infants, as well as hormonal effects on behaviour have proven that gender differences have a root in biology. This is well explained by evolutionary psychology.

How big is that extent? The experiment on David Reimer, as unethical as it is, showed that cultural influences did not triumph his genetic predisposition.

Here is my evidence. So please, if you want to argue otherwise, present some of your own to back yourself up.

monkeys and wheels didn't do you much favor, and neither did the existence of variance of masculinity across the world.
I've explained this before:

There are aspects of gender norms which are socially constructed, and colours are one of them. Blue and pink are merely symbols for masculinity and femininity, and they can be flipped at any time.

When I'm talking about gender expression, I'm referring to the innate behaviour differences - hormones such as androgen may cause infants to be predisposed to certain things (e.g. trucks as opposed to dolls). When companies make masculine toys blue and feminine toys pink, girls who play with these pink dolls will begin to associate the colour pink to femininity. That does not mean pink and blue are intrinsically linked to gender differences.

@Baba yaga, the same stands for flowers. These are symbols that reflect masculinity and femininity, and nothing to do with the innate aspects of gender. For example, you will find the fact that men tend to commit most violent crimes holds true for virtually all cultures and societies.
 
Last edited:
Lemoncat already tried to explain to you that there was much more involved in David Riemer's death than the surgery. Furthermore, the existence of transgendered people doesn't prove that gender is mostly innate. You're ignoring the existence of trans people who don't feel the need to transition. This is where you're starting to be an obtuse shithead, in my opinion. We acknowledged the role that biology plays, but argued that it must be small in comparison to cultural influences given the wide variance in gender expression across cultures. We gave you specific examples but you dismissed them as "symbolic" and that they weren't the kind of gender expression that you were talking about. Seriously?

Fine. If you want to play that game then there are hardly any innate differences between men and women.

Source(s):

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/brains-men-and-women-aren-t-really-different-study-finds

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117135943.htm

The differences that can be found are extremely subtle and have no way of being immediately translated to behavior (at least not yet), i.e. women being more chatty. Even if we could, these behaviors would still pale in comparison to other things that compromise someone's self identification as being a man or being a woman. Long hair and dresses for females, for example, are much more vivid signifiers of feminity than reporting a high verbal intelligence.

The problem is that you're redefining what gender expression is to fit your argument. You can't argue that gender is mostly innate by saying that the other examples of gender expression don't count because they aren't innate. Good God, man.

And cool it with this "I've explained this before" shtick you've got going. We understand what you're saying, you're just not making a lot of sense. Shouting "DAVID RIEMER" at us isn't helping you much.

You should also be careful when invoking evolutionary psychology. I'm not saying that the field does not have legitimate questions to answer, like say, why humans are afraid of snakes and spiders, but there are numerous problems within it.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/2l7/problems_in_evolutionary_psychology/

Over 99.7% of humans identify with their biological sex (male or female) (Source: Dr.Jordan Peterson; Clinical Psychology Professor UofT). There can certainly be exceptions due to gene variation but the evidence is overwhelming for the claim that "1's biological sex is absurdly highly correlated with the gender 1 identifies with".
So? In some countries over 90% of people are Christian but you wouldn't argue that religion is something innate. Social constructs can be extremely rigid. In the 1950's I bet over 90% of the populace identified as heterosexual. Among the millenials, what is it, almost half report being sexually flexible in some way? Throwing out this statistic doesn't really mean anything. If the statistic continues to hold up throughout the ages even when all forms of gender expression have become accepted and destigmatized then this point would be a bit more powerful.
 
Last edited:

bobjr

EVERYONE WANTS THE BIG CHAIR MEG
Staff member
Moderator
Basically we had what we considered fairly simple and strict rules, and it's looking like that's not the case. Even among behavioral scientists there's debate, but really to me it feels like how many exceptions must happen before we realize the rule isn't exactly there.
 

snorlax512

Well-Known Member
Lemoncat already tried to explain to you that there was much more involved in David Riemer's death than the surgery.
Lemoncat didn't explain anything. I have yet to hear a valid reason as to why, if gender expression is mostly cultural, David Reimer, who was socially conditioned to be a girl in every way possible, didn't feel, nor act like one.

We acknowledged the role that biology plays, but argued that it must be small in comparison to cultural influences given the wide variance in gender expression across cultures. We gave you specific examples but you dismissed them as "symbolic" and that they weren't the kind of gender expression that you were talking about. Seriously?
Yes. Gender expression refers to the behavioural differences. Symbols that represents masculinity do not count. If in a hypothetical culture, 'masculine' meant acting like a girl, and 'feminine' meant acting like a boy, that is not an indicator of variation in gender.

In how many cultures are women more aggressive than men?

Fine. If you want to play that game then there are hardly any innate differences between men and women.

Source(s):

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/brains-men-and-women-aren-t-really-different-study-finds

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117135943.htm

The differences that can be found are extremely subtle and have no way of being immediately translated to behavior (at least not yet), i.e. women being more chatty.
Great. Your study says that no one has a 100% male or female brain. WE KNOW THAT. That's why on average, more boys play with trucks than girls, but not every single boy plays with trucks. There are countless sex differences in the brain if you slook for it, which exist as averages.

Hormones act on the brain. Men and women have different hormones. If you give females testosterone (this has been done in both rats and humans), they behave differently.

Even if we could, these behaviors would still pale in comparison to other things that compromise someone's self identification as being a man or being a woman. Long hair and dresses for females, for example, are much more vivid signifiers of feminity than reporting a high verbal intelligence.
I believe gender expression and identity are different things. Correlated, but not intrinsic to each other. A person who perceives him to be the opposite gender will want society to recognise him as such, so will wear dresses and long hair to do so.

You should also be careful when invoking evolutionary psychology. I'm not saying that the field does not have legitimate questions to answer, like say, why humans are afraid of snakes and spiders, but there are numerous problems within it.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/2l7/problems_in_evolutionary_psychology/
Sure, you can't throw evolutionary psychology to explain everything, but something with such a large selection pressure, over such a long time? Do you think men who were couldn't hunt passed on their genes?
 
I'm just going to leave this here since I've been up all night.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_Behavior_in_the_Absence_of_Social_Roles#rft

Women are just as aggressive as men if not moreso when accounting for social norms.

Keep in mind also that society itself is capable of shaping the brain. London cab drivers for example have greater density of gray matter. This casts some doubt on the study regarding playing with girls and boys toys, considering that children learn to make gender associations at just 18 months old.

Now, regarding David Riemer. You should know that he wasn't reassigned until he was 22 months old. That is still a long time for male socialization during formative years. Money, the person heading the experiment, did many sexually inappropriate things to him that he did with other patients like show him pornography and ask him sexual questions, but in order to "teach him to be female", Money made Reimer and his brother act out sexual positions so Reimer would experience being in the receiving, submissive, feminine position. So, not only did he have prior socialization as a male his socialization as a girl was abusive.

Yes. Gender expression refers to the behavioural differences.
Then you don't understand what gender expression is. There is no definition anywhere that supports your narrow view of it. It is simply the public expression of someone's internal sense of gender - behavioral or otherwise.

Great. Your study says that no one has a 100% male or female brain. WE KNOW THAT. That's why on average, more boys play with trucks than girls, but not every single boy plays with trucks. There are countless sex differences in the brain if you slook for it, which exist as averages.

Hormones act on the brain. Men and women have different hormones. If you give females testosterone (this has been done in both rats and humans), they behave differently.
No. You're deliberately misinterpreting the data! Stop. The studies say that the male and female brain, on average, contain a nearly equal amount of male and female characteristics.

So how to explain the idea that males and females seem to behave differently? That too may be a myth, Joel says. Her team analyzed two large datasets that evaluated highly gender stereotypical behaviors, such as playing video games, scrapbooking, or taking a bath. Individuals were just as variable for these measures: Only 0.1% of subjects displayed only stereotypically-male or only stereotypically-female behaviors.
“There are very few people at the male / female extreme ends on any feature, and, where we are on the male-female axis will vary for different features. We are all a mixture,” she said.
If this is true, then the differences between men and women, boys and girls, such as preferences over toys or discrepencies within STEM would be statistically negligible after accounting for social factors but they aren't.
 
Last edited:

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
I see we're still dealing with a debate mostly about obtuse semantics I see.
 

snorlax512

Well-Known Member
Now, regarding David Riemer. You should know that he wasn't reassigned until he was 22 months old. That is still a long time for male socialization during formative years. Money, the person heading the experiment, did many sexually inappropriate things to him that he did with other patients like show him pornography and ask him sexual questions, but in order to "teach him to be female", Money made Reimer and his brother act out sexual positions so Reimer would experience being in the receiving, submissive, feminine position. So, not only did he have prior socialization as a male his socialization as a girl was abusive.
Are you're saying his socialisation as a male for the first 22 months is enough for Reimer to reject female socialisation for the next 12 years of his life? I'm fairly sure the genders are treated more differently (a.k.a more social conditioning) during childhood than when you can barely talk.

Let's say it's true that your gender is mainly shaped by social influences during the first two years of your life. By this logic, if Reimer, a biological male, was treated like a girl for the first 22 months, then conditioned back to be male ever since, do you really think he would identify as a girl because of that?

By this logic, people also need to stop saying girls are discouraged from STEM in schools, because the societal influence at that age would be negligible compared to how one was raised during the first two years of his/her life.

Also, what does sexual abuse have to do with altering one's internal sense of self? I'm not aware of a correlation between being sexually abused and experiencing gender dysphoria.

Then you don't understand what gender expression is. There is no definition anywhere that supports your narrow view of it. It is simply the public expression of someone's internal sense of gender - behavioral or otherwise.
Fine. If you want to include symbols that represent masculinity and femininity as part of gender expression, then I will cede that there are aspects of gender (i.e. pink/blue) that are socially constructed. The differences in behaviour, however, are still mostly innate.

No. You're deliberately misinterpreting the data! Stop. The studies say that the male and female brain, on average, contain a nearly equal amount of male and female characteristics.
Where does it say that? Your study says the brain contains a mixture of male and female characteristics, but nowhere does it state they are equal.

How do you think they define 'male' and 'female' characteristics in the first place? By identifying regions which are more common in men, or women! Your study even states a few of these differences lol.

If this is true, then the differences between men and women, boys and girls, such as preferences over toys or discrepencies within STEM would be statistically negligible after accounting for social factors but they aren't.
What... it literally says that only 0.1% of boys play video games, play soccer, shoot guns and do absolutely everything that is considered stereotypically male. It does not mean that if you pick a particular area, e.g. soccer, there won't be statistical discrepancies between the genders.
 
Last edited:

bobjr

EVERYONE WANTS THE BIG CHAIR MEG
Staff member
Moderator

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/2/jason-whitlock-slams-lebron-james-race-comments-le/

I have a somewhat new topic for the thread. It relates to a sportscaster saying the recent racist attack on Lebron James isn't as bad because he's rich. Other black athletes have chimed in and have said it's really not that different and racism is one giant beast, but others have argued that it's less bad if the person has enough money or fame to metaphorically deal with it better.
There was a Fresh Prince of Bel-Air episode about that issue.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
I wouldn't say it's less bad but it is different. LeBron has classism related privilege over us at the moment, but race still plays a factor in how fans treat him in comparison to other athletes. There's been a good study on these things... black athletes feel the worst of hate compared to white athletes.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
I wouldn't say it's less bad but it is different. LeBron has classism related privilege over us at the moment, but race still plays a factor in how fans treat him in comparison to other athletes. There's been a good study on these things... black athletes feel the worst of hate compared to white athletes.
LeBron sounds French. I looked it up. LeBron is French for James. That's crazy.
 

Scammel

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't say it's less bad but it is different. LeBron has classism related privilege over us at the moment, but race still plays a factor in how fans treat him in comparison to other athletes. There's been a good study on these things... black athletes feel the worst of hate compared to white athletes.
Sounds about right (though I wouldn't necessarily equate class with income). The personal/social impact of racism can't ever be lessened, and it's just as abhorrent whether directed towards rich or poor. Economically, he's clearly managed to break free of the economic stultification brought about by institutional racism, but that definitely doesn't suggest that such stultification doesn't exist. He's had the talent, commitment and sheer dumb luck to overcome it.

Importantly, that's also not to say that other communities and social groups don't suffer economic disadvantage for a number of other reasons. Probably best not to tell a young white person from an economic backwater in the middle of nowhere that James has it harder than them, which is where I think the baby sometimes gets thrown out with the bathwater.
 
Last edited:

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
That's where intersectionalism comes in. When it comes to learning about oppression, we must realize that there are different ways we are oppressed and privileged and very rarely is there a person who only oppresses or is only oppressed.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
That's where intersectionalism comes in. When it comes to learning about oppression, we must realize that there are different ways we are oppressed and privileged and very rarely is there a person who only oppresses or is only oppressed.
I am only oppressed. They didn't even let me be an admin of these forums.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
have you not been paying attention to this entire discussion?
 
Top