# Feminists and Liberals Gets Owned by Fake Studies



## SG854 (Jan 14, 2019)

Here are some videos that are extremely important that hilariously exposes leftist corruption in Acedemia.

We all know that college campuses have a huge leftist bias, majority of professors are in the left, and some produces fake studies about feminism, male female differences, white hetero patriarchal oppression, and transgenderism. 

These fake studies are taught to students, and they go out into the real world to spread beliefs they learned, sometimes aggressively and using force. There is sort of a hive mind mentality.

Then it creeps out of colleges into public life, politics, and people get fired over being politically incorrect and/or not following the dogma. Researches are afraid to speak out about leftist corruption in academia out of fear of loosing their jobs, and some even leave academia.

We’ll there are these researchers that created fake studies and gave them to liberal feminist researchers to see if they would give it their seal of approval and publish them. And believe or not, they did. 

Some of these studies are completely ridiculous. One study about how they beat male dogs but not female dogs. And they made up statistics. And the conclusion of the study was that feminists should train men like we train dogs in order to get rid of rape culture. That if we put men on a leash that will solve our sexism problems. And this study got publish by feminist gender studies academics. And even won their award.

Another fake study was they got a chapter of Hitlers Mein Kampf, replaced the word Jew with Hetero White Male, and gave it to feminist professors, and it got published as an academic paper! And I’m not making this up. The gender studies researchers saw this paper, it went through peer review and thought it was good to publish in Acedemic Journals. Another fake study was they can get rid of transphobia if hetero white males pleasure themselves and shove objects up their butt. And it got their A-OK approval.

I’ve linked videos that talks about it, it’s hilarious and shows that gender studies, fat studies, hetero white cis masculinity oppression racial studies are nonsense. We have a serious problem of fake studies and leftist bias in academia. That’s people use in everyday life and it’s being taught.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 14, 2019)

You mean they teach propagandic views in public and private educational institutions? Say it ain't so!

On a serious note, good read, fun watch.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 14, 2019)

You mention this but neglect to mention them being under fire for "experimenting on humans"?


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jan 14, 2019)

Ben shapiro said it best, "this is incredible"


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 17, 2019)

I'm in two minds on the issue. And the way the OP is structured shows why: specific examples are generalized and misrepresented in order to push an opposing narrative through our throats.

Case in point: feminism and political tendencies are independent issues. Feminism is commonly classified as being a political left (liberal) ideology - probably because it has its roots there - but that isn't always true. The 'woman supremacy' that some self-proclaimed feminists preach or lobby towards, has far more in common with racism than with emancipation of the sexes.


I've read an article about these fake studies as well. And it's indeed a wake-up call to see that the adacemic world isn't unbiassed. I can recall reading how some (genuine) articles were met with such criticism that they were shot down rather than investigated. And yes, these were 'politically rightwing' articles (I can't recall details, but it was about migration culture). Especially seeing now how some other articles aren't even checked for validity, this really begs the question: is the peer review system really a tool to debunk frauds and needed to find out the truth about the world...or is it a filter for political use?

*sigh*

I still think there are still many scholars and academics who are on the level. Who might be left- or right-leaning, but understand that this should be a CONSEQUENCE of the perception of the world, and not a way to try to create a reality. In my view (I'm left-leaning myself), the "huge left bias" is mostly because most of the right ideas can't be intellectually explained. That's why (again: still IMHO) they cater more to lower class. Better educated people point out that things like xenophobia or economic inbalance are historically proven to not work.

As to Ben Shapiro...I gave the guy a chance to explain his ideas, but thus far, I've only seen him derange in throwing mud at opponents I didn't know. Of course he'll like this scandal: now he can say whatever he wants, and as soon as someone points out it's untrue, he can (and from what I've seen from him: also will) counter with "says who? Your biassed studies?".


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 17, 2019)

If some of them (it was noted that one was more or less a pay to publish rag) were among the higher end journals for the field though it speaks to something far deeper there.

I am not one to write research papers (I would rather write reports or proposals, or draw up specifications) but I have knocked about with those that did in the fields I touch upon. The amount of scrutiny papers are given, the types of notes returned... peer review is no joke*, and even for the things I do people get a chance to scrutinise it before it goes high. The things these guys managed to pull off is horrendous if you are wishing for your field to maintain even a veneer of academic or scientific respectability. The push back they are getting from ethics committees also really grates -- I know I should expect rules lawyering from such people (typically combined with high end abstraction when it befits them) but the preventing embarrassment in the future (one of the aspects of the rules I see repeatedly contemplated) I can not find a way to justify for failing in such a profound way.

*you get the occasional cello player's scrotum slip through http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/28/uk.cello.scrotum.hoax/ , and repeatability studies and flawed or methodology used narrowing the scope but it is not something one can walk in off the street (or use a word replace function of a text editor on dubious documents) to bypass.

I would too look down upon those that dismiss things out of hand, partially because it is bad form but more because it usually more fun to try to read the studies cited and laugh at those.


----------



## linuxares (Jan 17, 2019)

Let's talk about feminism. In the roots, it was a basic simple approach. Equality. Equality is a good thing, there is of course biological difference that we can never come over, but at a side. If a woman wants a career in Welding, she should be allowed to as long as she fills the standards at the employer sets/sat. Same job should equal same pay. Simple no?

This NEO-Feminism that it's called, is damaging and it's a control tool. It's exact same thing as the facist and communist regims use. Fear, fear and fear. Extremism in any view is bad. Plain and simple.


----------



## Coto (Jan 17, 2019)

linuxares said:


> Let's talk about feminism. In the roots, it was a basic simple approach. Equality. Equality is a good thing, there is of course biological difference that we can never come over, but at a side. If a woman wants a career in Welding, she should be allowed to as long as she fills the standards at the employer sets/sat. Same job should equal same pay. Simple no?
> 
> This NEO-Feminism that it's called, is damaging and it's a control tool. It's exact same thing as the facist and communist regims use. Fear, fear and fear. Extremism in any view is bad. Plain and simple.



Agreed. But let extremists take stances and go full circle... education is not just a tool or has an intellectual purpose, so it´s great to see common sense here (means things being in balance).


We have a saying here: feminists between 18 ~ 30 yo after that is marriage lol (this is a joke)


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 17, 2019)

linuxares said:


> Let's talk about feminism. In the roots, it was a basic simple approach. Equality. Equality is a good thing, there is of course biological difference that we can never come over, but at a side. If a woman wants a career in Welding, she should be allowed to as long as she fills the standards at the employer sets/sat. Same job should equal same pay. Simple no?



I am all for if you can do the job then you get to play, only real reservations come for military combat units (which I am very much not for splitting standards in -- one standard) but will need to further research that -- either top down or bottom up approaches could yield interesting data there, reasoning for things varying.

Equal pay is a tricky one, both conceptually and at enforcement. Perfectly fine with "because you are [sex] we are paying you less" or "because you are a [sex] we are not hiring you" being a thing of the past but having to try to correct for less desire to string pay/raise negotiations out gets to be tricky. Similarly how I am not supposed to reward those that put in the overtime, aggressively bring things to the company (fill in the rest of the largely male traits that bring value to the company), and at that point you tend to change it for a bonus based contract so again those working hardest get the most.


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Jan 17, 2019)

In response to the above, don't forget that maternity leave is often ~3 months of paid vacation, and can be invoked repeatedly. So potentially, a female could get paid equal money, but for less effort. My psychiatrist is out for maternity and there's a huge chunk of time she's just not available. But imagine what would happen if this wasn't an option for these people. Some will abuse it, but the system is still needed. It's things like that, however, that end up necessitating a pay difference.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Jan 17, 2019)

This thread is cancer.

OP, please tell me more about "leftist corruption". Give me one example that has affected you or someone you know *in real life* beyond online articles about most likely BS extremists written in an attempt at defamation. Learning to be conscious of how not to offend different types of people is not, by any stretch of the mind, an issue.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jan 17, 2019)

TobiasAmaranth said:


> In response to the above, don't forget that maternity leave is often ~3 months of paid vacation, and can be invoked repeatedly. So potentially, a female could get paid equal money, but for less effort. My psychiatrist is out for maternity and there's a huge chunk of time she's just not available. But imagine what would happen if this wasn't an option for these people. Some will abuse it, but the system is still needed. It's things like that, however, that end up necessitating a pay difference.



often? isn't paid maternity leave limited to like 4 or 5 states or so?
and repeatedly also sounds wrong...

also, i love how op thinks that people with an extreme right bias have any moral superiority over people with an extreme left bias.
like, you know that bullshit in academics is an issue in pretty much all fields.


----------



## J-Machine (Jan 17, 2019)

it's not corruption. It's a simple matter of not knowing how to fact check and not understanding how an argument works. Oh and I suppose a dash of frustration thrown in cause their mentality is fueled by vanity and being seen as wrong is no longer acceptable to them.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 17, 2019)

Lucifer666 said:


> This thread is cancer.
> 
> OP, please tell me more about "leftist corruption". Give me one example that has affected you or someone you know *in real life* beyond online articles about most likely BS extremists written in an attempt at defamation. Learning to be conscious of how not to offend different types of people is not, by any stretch of the mind, an issue.



Failure at such a fundamental level to do peer reviewed scientific journal very much troubles me, and the subsequent retaliation, and poses a problem for the state of science as a whole (I don't want to see what would happen when the similar set to anti vaccine cretins arises for this sort of thing). Similarly we are seeing hiring and firing advice become some very odd things, and the fear of offending people cause all sorts of trouble for all sorts of people (see various fun and games comedians, artists of many different stripes, executives in companies, advert campaigns causing backlashes among general consumers....).

I can't say the OP mindset is for me, and the characterisations of groups being very much wanting (or at least very modern American which always amuses when looking on as an outsider), but I reckon there is some kind of discussion which can be salvaged here (I saw this starting to unfold months ago but decided against a thread here, now it is though we might as well.).


----------



## mattytrog (Jan 17, 2019)

The left are responsible for a great deal.

Someone who I know got fired from his teaching job in a college for holding a door open for a woman who was carrying some files.

He opened the door and said "Come on, Love". As all of us do in UK.

He was roasted by her for assuming her gender and dismissed for "being inappropriate" after an investigation.

I shit you not.

So, I make it a mission to be as politically incorrect as I can be. There are two genders. You either have an X chromosome or you have a Y chromosome.

I filed it under "You couldn`t make it up."

That was in 2015.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jan 17, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> The left are responsible for a great deal.
> Someone who I know got fired from his teaching job in a college for holding a door open for a woman who was carrying some files.
> He opened the door and said "Come on, Love". As all of us do in UK.
> He was roasted by her for assuming her gender and dismissed for "being inappropriate" after an investigation.
> ...



I'll file it under you're either making it up or grossly misrepresenting what happened...


----------



## mattytrog (Jan 17, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> I'll file it under you're either making it up or grossly misrepresenting what happened...


Do you know what? I wish I was.


----------



## notimp (Jan 17, 2019)

Three months old story. 

OP uses the example of a study about "rape culture" between dogs. This was a famous hoax study - that was openly discussed and the people responsible for the journal that published that where publicly ridiculed.

See: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/arts/academic-journals-hoax.html

So there was public ridiculement as a result, which also is the better answer than to go with a radical "lets beat on higher education institutions" standpoint by the way. 

//

Here is how I'd address most of the points made.

1. Academia is left leaning. Yes, and corporations as well as its organizational structures are right leaning.  Problem solved. Corporations rule the world. Solution: We need more left leaning universities - respectively financing for people that dont want to enter a corporate work force directly after. 

(Hint: OP is already winning.  )

Lets look at whats going on here. The political right is defined as "value conservative" - meaning, they hardly want to change anything, and leave stuff the way it is - as long as it somewhat functions.

Universities are (ideally) a place for critical thinking and incubating change concepts. Especially in the US they are largely financed by private (that is corporate) sponsorships and grants. And private debt (yay!  ).

So they are kind of left leaning by design (while even usually financed by "the right".). Of course there are politics and sociology departments that are supposed to be incubation spaces for the political right as well - but thats still there and functioning.  Its just hard in nature, to get a university degree, and want to build a wall, right after.  It kind of doesnt comply.. 

2. Social studies, especially recently, are in a general legitimacy crisis. Has to do with statistics, and that the principal of "reproducibility" didnt quite hold up, more often than it should have. Math was fine - but could be "fudged" too much in many cases (massaging your sample). They havent quite bounced back from that, so try to not punch them too hard on this one.. 

3. "The exotic, ideological studies", where always there and part of the faculties to pronounce "diversity", but the intelligent people didn't pick them. So you could just as well argue, that people became less intelligent..  Joking (I kid, I kid) aside, they always where somewhat needed to represent maybe more fringe interests/developments of society, and in the interest of having a more diverse discussion it was important to have them as well. Some work done there was good, some was exceptional, most of it was poor (sorry - opinion..  ). Not many people bothered.

-- Something happened --

(And I'm not talking about metoo that movement was warranted.)

And all of a sudden, all of that became the thing for millennials to virtue signal on social networks, if they wanted to be seen as socially caring on facebook. Probably their fake smiles didn't cut it anymore - or something. They needed something extra - they needed to be able to be part of, without people immediately being able to tell everyone, "they are just faking it". So minority rights for very, very small minorities was the perfect fit.

Great for those minorities, and I really mean that. Uncynically (in contrast to the last paragraph).

Puzzling for everyone else. Here is why.

(This is a thesis, not a "truth")

4. Because the social norms "switched" that quickly and without properly changing peoples minds with arguments, you can just change them back in an instance. Trump announces to "push back" on (notLG)BTQ rights (there is a newer acronym being used currently I believe, if someone wants to bring me up to speed...) and crickets, because the general public just doesnt care.

5. If you see it in popular media (Movies, ..) thats them trying to surf on a trend. 

And in case this "sticks" (which I sincerely hope for people who are part of those minorities) thats actually great as well. You literally have maybe 500th of the population being directly affected by those changes in social norms. For them its great.

Everyone else largely is crying, that they cant have their nostalgia the ways they used to have it. In comics or movies. 

To those guys and gals - you are in the right in regards to that the virtue signaling on this from parts of the left is strange and stupid.
So this time you are the moral winners. And all that you have to do in exchange, is stomach, that maybe one of your favorite comic book figueres gets a different background story. Thats all. Its almost a win/win. 

(LG)BTQ win, right wingers win for calling it overblown and being right for once.  And all anyone is taking from you is a comic heroes background story.

Stop making our children more diverse, is kind of a stupid warcry to begin with. (I heard they do it with supliments in the water *trollolololol*l 

Lastly. Also - yes, universities also produce, or publish bullshit. But they also have ways to filter it (peer reviews (failed in this case), scientifc canons, meta studies, reproducing findings of another study to see if they are reproducible...)

Its kind of how science works. The more eyes you have looking at a thing, the more "valid for the timeperiod" it becomes (Canons often turned out to be wrong, but models still were useful, or still are useful, if not fully explained (think quantum physics addition to newtonian physics)).

In this case the main issue is actually digitalization again. The entire "peer reviewed" journals thing, got highjacked by "everyone can now proclaim they are a publisher" - and people gaming this system, which puts pressure (financial, time, ...) on even established outlets and...

If there is a system, people will game it, or as in this case - show that it will be gamed. There are other fallbacks. With social studies, less so than with other scientific fields.. 

Transparancy - as in this case, is important as well (hence (even) the "center left" NYT printed it..  ).


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 17, 2019)

TobiasAmaranth said:


> In response to the above, don't forget that maternity leave is often ~3 months of paid vacation, and can be invoked repeatedly. So potentially, a female could get paid equal money, but for less effort. My psychiatrist is out for maternity and there's a huge chunk of time she's just not available. But imagine what would happen if this wasn't an option for these people. Some will abuse it, but the system is still needed. It's things like that, however, that end up necessitating a pay difference.


How can one abuse maternity leave? I'd love to hear this. Also, "less work" ? Really? It's less work if the mother chooses to be irresponsible.. The restless nights, fussing, screaming, feeding, cleaning and other responsibilities.. You're serious? Not to mention the potential of medical issues.


----------



## notimp (Jan 17, 2019)

Yeah, thats a no - you cant "abuse" maternity leave.

Thats just insane, even in concept.

You know how humans are made? You know that society values, that humans are made? You know that the business sector values that humans are made? You know that there is a side effect of this that somehow includes, that babies aren't fully developed, when they get birthed? You know that the process of giving birth is mentally and physically exhausting?

We have all agreed, that you cant "abuse" maternity leave. In fact, in european countries, we give women (and later parents (can be split)) much more of it.

But thank you for your valid attempt to argue, that the US should let in more migrants at the border. Those are workers you didn't have to pay any maternity leave for. I'd see how you'd go with immigration over subsidising the first three months after birth. Much better for the industry. I agree.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 17, 2019)

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.  Reminds me of conservatives who thought Stephen Colbert was genuinely on their side while the Colbert Report was still on air.


----------



## mattytrog (Jan 17, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> I'll file it under you're either making it up or *grossly misrepresenting what happened...*



Tell you what...

Tell that to the poor sod who had an unblemished career ruined by this crap.

Go on. You look in his eyes and say "grossly misrepresenting what happened"


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 17, 2019)

Memoir said:


> How can one abuse maternity leave? I'd love to hear this. Also, "less work" ? Really? It's less work if the mother chooses to be irresponsible.. The restless nights, fussing, screaming, feeding, cleaning and other responsibilities.. You're serious? Not to mention the potential of medical issues.


Probably would want to be a different topic but going here for now. 
From certain perspectives there are those that companies would ideally not have if they care for best returns on investment. In this case it has been seen for people to more or less get fully trained up*, pop a sprog out (if you can go on leave at 6 months, and stay off for a while after that, possibly longer on half pay) and then come back for a few months only to repeat it all over again. Time frame wise this can happen for several years, and be on your wages for several of those years.
Compare that to a dude that might never take anything, or maybe take a few months paternity, and then a load of overtime to pay for things, and the cost - benefit ratio skews far in their favour.

*it being fairly noted in medicine - 5 years in school plus another 8 to become a consultant means about 30 for most (assuming you do Uni at 18 like most people) which is when those biological clocks start ticking (something medics are typically rather aware of, seemingly unlike the population at large. For those wanting some numbers -- https://www.babycentre.co.uk/a6155/your-age-and-fertility ). I have also had discussions about it for those in finance, amusingly as it is not uncommon to bounce in and out of departments every 8 months or so it can lead to "long term employees" either not being known by or not knowing people that have put in, relatively speaking, a fair bit of time.

Similarly if you are playing the long game then someone doing the above is by simple "not enough hours in the day" going to be out gaining clients, doing jobs/improving their skills... and generally becoming a more and more valuable employee. Career earnings and pay rates (and increases thereof) when comparing women with and without children being a fun one here.

What to think about it all is complicated from where I sit. For one I don't want to move away from "if you do the work then you get the pay" but at the same time I am quite OK with the general idea of maternity leave, and find the lack of a mandated thing in the US to be very odd. Going beyond that there are a lot of poor old women out there (projections given levels of debt among those set to be old are also not great), and the areas under graphs if magically equalised would alleviate something there. Some of it might be spending habits as well but if we look at the typical training-earning-retiring diagrams and what each stage is supposed to represent...
Discussions of birth rates (them being rather low, indeed below replacement among native populations for a lot of places) is also a popular subject of discussion these days and while I am generally OK with it being as such** if you did care to increase them then as "finances" tend to be the top answers when asking the fertile people of today "why so few kids" then ensuring a measure of security there goes somewhere.

**the concerns with it are very real if things do carry on, however I would opt for a change in models used and technology to cover the gaps rather than propping up old ones made on faulty assumptions.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jan 17, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> Tell you what...
> 
> Tell that to the poor sod who had an unblemished career ruined by this crap.
> 
> Go on. You look in his eyes and say "grossly misrepresenting what happened"



lol, a career ruined? don't make me laugh, even if you are not grossly misrepresenting what happened OR making it up (and you are), this wouldn't be so much as a pebble on the road for anyones career.

you'd have to have swallowed a ton of red pills to believe that holding a door could be blown out of propotions that much OR that he couldn't just move to the next best institution if his work was worth anything at all.


----------



## notimp (Jan 17, 2019)

@FAST6191 Answer to this is simple as well. This may be the ONLY form of CSR I actually believe in.  Because its legally mandated.

Can be put in very simple terms. There is value to "reproducing society", that not expressed in wages.

Answer to your deliberations seems to be to make maternity leave > parental leave after some time, and make it socialy acceptable, that ypu also have dads instead of moms are attending to their children. Thats also what legislators around the world are doing. I'm sure the OP would love to hear that. 

As well as better wage models on part of corperations (but those never happen). (Because wage in capitalism is "reflective" of productivity - and "what would you pay" - is not an objective measure. (markets arent intelligent, they just markets.))


----------



## omgcat (Jan 17, 2019)

the whole "there are only two genders because xy/xx" argument is not scientifically sound. there are various sex chromosome arrangements from
xx: female

xy: male

X0: no second sex chromosome(turners syndrome)

XX males: SRY gene translocated to X chromosome

XY female: androgen insensitivity(no reaction to testosterone)

xxy: kleinfelter's syndrome

xyy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome

XXYY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXYY_syndrome

XXX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_X_syndrome

XXXX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrasomy_X

and xxxxx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentasomy_X

there are also various possible arrangements of the genitalia should they not form correctly in utero,

in this case the quiggly scale is useful for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quigley_scale

intersex is just as common as having red hair, ~2% of the population.

this isn't even touching on the fact that one's mental identity can totally not match their physical makeup(classic idea of what it means to be trans).

it is amazing how many people run around with less than high school biology, but claim to be intellectuals.


----------



## notimp (Jan 17, 2019)

omgcat said:


> intersex is just as common as having red hair, ~2% of the population.
> 
> this isn't even touching on the fact that one's mental identity can totally not match their physical makeup(classic idea of what it means to be trans).


So to get this correct - these are states often not identifiable, without you taking a DNA test. Of which symptoms - in some cases are "none - to few". And which wouldnt match the persons mental identity anyways.



And its as common as having red hair! The thing with potentially few to no symptoms, that shouldnt define what identity a person can have.

So - would you have male/female toilets, for red haired people if their hair was brown, but they felt it was blond?

Dang, that logic. But debunked the xy/xx argument as a valid selector for the last 95th percentile. Statistics ftw.  (I don't want to focus in on what combinations symptoms may be more out of the norm, and what percentage of the population is affected.)

Here is maybe a more valid number in contrast. According to surveys, 0.5% of americans self identify as transgender. Recent polls.


----------



## mattytrog (Jan 17, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> lol, a career ruined? don't make me laugh, even if you are not grossly misrepresenting what happened OR making it up (and you are), this wouldn't be so much as a pebble on the road for anyones career.
> 
> you'd have to have swallowed a ton of red pills to believe that holding a door could be blown out of propotions that much OR that he couldn't just move to the next best institution if his work was worth anything at all.


Whatever you say, son. Whatever you say.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



omgcat said:


> the whole "there are only two genders because xy/xx" argument is not scientifically sound. there are various sex chromosome arrangements from
> xx: female
> 
> xy: male
> ...


We are NOT talking about genetic chromosomal abnormalities. We are talking about freaks who DO have an intact correct human genome but who choose to identify as something else but won`t have surgery to correct their body. Thought that was kind of obvious.

People can be born into the wrong body. People can understandably go through a cosmetic sex change for their own mental wellbeing. 

This is about certain individuals "identifying" as something because it is currently the done thing to do in this dystopian society we live in.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 17, 2019)

omgcat said:


> the whole "there are only two genders because xy/xx" argument is not scientifically sound. there are various sex chromosome arrangements from
> xx: female
> 
> xy: male
> ...



A curious way to approach things, and potentially at odds with tumblr approach to such things where such things get very odd indeed. Similarly a great many of those would be infertile by default, not typically show any traits that would be a blend or a new expression, massively handicapped such that conscious/subconscious gender expression is tricky to meaningfully determine or otherwise functionally either of the common two.
That said I am still somewhat at a loss why there are two genders is such a contentious phrase for some -- you get the two most fall into, and then some for whatever reason that have both their head go with the one not matching their genitals and actually care about such a thing*. Where you go from here as far as pronouns and rules concerning segregation of genders, age limits, treatment options to be made available, treatment options to be paid for by various entities (not always the same as those available), might depend upon a few things but I would probably go with if someone is making the effort (including the living as part in the case of those places that do that, something I quite for) then it is a bit a cunt move to not go with it. Similarly for the man on the street test would knowing that trait affect their ability to do stuff or be a decent human (answer from where I sit would be no. Don't know if there is even a statistical thing for a larger grouping).

*for extra fun we also have the "future science makes a pill that will make you not care" debate.

I will also have to say I have only once met someone that changed, for want of a better term, "on a whim". They had dementia and were skipping around ages at that point. I can't then rule out people changing on the daily but between that and it not typically being discussed, even by those that I would expect to do so and have it in their diagnostic criteria, I would have to wonder.

As far as 2% for redheads then I would urge caution here as that is a global stat and different areas do different things here which may lead to the wrong inference ( https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/country-with-the-most-redheads-gingers/ ).



notimp said:


> @FAST6191 Answer to this is simple as well. This may be the ONLY form of CSR I actually believe in.  Because its legally mandated.
> 
> Can be put in very simple terms. There is value to "reproducing society", that not expressed in wages.
> 
> ...



To spin an old phrase. Markets are the worst way to do things, except for all the others.

That said I am not sure what you were aiming at from my post, and what thing from it your proposal aims to address.


----------



## notimp (Jan 17, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> we are talking about freaks


Dont you dare using this word.

One of us, one of us.

Here is the part thats actually hard to believe though. Sadly as well.
0.5% (self identified transgender) = 1 in 200 people. The chances of a left leaning activist to actually personally care about someone with a visibility that "high" are slim. So there are other multiplier factors in play. ("It became a cool group to identify with on social media." being my current guess.)

This isnt bad btw. f.e. we also probably mostly care about the effects of "pick something", because of someone prominent - it just is. To me its interesting in regards to how political opinions are formed these days, which is separate from that its morally proper to also care about smaller minorities.


----------



## omgcat (Jan 17, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> Whatever you say, son. Whatever you say.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



if a chromosomal error is possible, then so is a hormonal/proprioceptive error. proprioception is the ability to feel that your body is intact, there are a few disorders that follow this, such as Body integrity identity disorder. if one's mental identity does not match their physical identity, this can manifest itself as body dysmorphia, in the same vein as anorexia. does the world need to be black and white for people to be able to function? it just seems to me that the idea of a gender spectrum makes things too complicated for some people and they freak out because it is hard to understand. humans rarely do things as a binary, and most things run as a spectrum, emotions, height, weight, skin color, hair color, eye color, voice tone, sexual interest(homosexual,bi-sexual,heterosexual), and even gender identity (masculine to feminine). it is all not that complicated and honestly not that shocking. just look at the rest of nature, everything is weird in the animal kingdom and we are no exception.


----------



## mattytrog (Jan 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> Dont you dare using this word.
> 
> One of us, one of us.
> 
> ...


Read the whole post Mr. Wall-Of-Text.

I`ll use whatever words I feel fit and I don`t need schooling thank-you.

People who choose to identify as something just because they wake up one day and choose to... Example non-binary. No such thing. Its revolting. And they ARE FREAKS. Freaky as the day is long and they need some discipline.

People can genuinely be born into the wrong body. It can make them miserable and even suicidal. And if these people want to undergo surgery then they absolutely SHOULD.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> Dont you dare using this word.


Not a phrase I expected to hear from a person that spends as much time as you lambasting the younger members of the species.


----------



## m_babble (Jan 17, 2019)

I've been using this site for well over a decade and every time I see this kind of shit, I think about deleting my account.

Why is alt right propaganda given a pass here?
Seriously. Can any of the mods tell me how they rationalize this?

@Costello @shaunj66 @T-hug @Chary @BORTZ @Issac @tj_cool @Cyan @Depravo @FIX94 @Foxi4 @porkiewpyne @Sicklyboy


----------



## mattytrog (Jan 17, 2019)

m_babble said:


> I've been using this site for well over a decade and every time I see this kind of shit, I think about deleting my account.
> 
> Why is alt right propaganda given a pass here?
> Seriously. Can any of the mods tell me how they rationalize this?
> ...


Whats alt-right about it? Having an opinion that even DARES to stray to the wrong side of the centre-line?

The extreme-left nutters can mouth off all they like. However when even remotely conservative views are expressed, they are alt-right?

Do me a favour.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 17, 2019)

corruption goes 2 ways don't think all conservatives are all pure and holy most racist are right/alt right also anti gay are the same (not saying some liberals  aren't that way but far fewer)


----------



## notimp (Jan 17, 2019)

Mr wall of text (me  ) still has to insist, that you don't call anyone in that context freak. Not even freaky - because of potentially implied meaning.

Here is the background. Humanity in all its splendor chose in the past to take people like them, put them in freakshows, and show them around for money to uneducated morons. Often in accordance with families, who didn't care silt about them - because they might not have been "the norm".

The word freak is tainted in this context. Can't be used.

I mean, you could... But you really shouldnt. This coming from someone who rants against PC culture that ruins everything good today.

The word is just tainted, and no good in this context. (Except if you want everyone to fight from the start.)


----------



## Xzi (Jan 17, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> The extreme-left nutters can mouth off all they like. However when even remotely conservative views are expressed, they are alt-right?


Perhaps it's because the 'extreme left' want free college and guaranteed healthcare for all citizens, whereas the 'extreme right' want genocide and a whites-only authoritarian ethnostate.  Maybe some of those viewpoints are less controversial than others.  Just a thought.


----------



## mattytrog (Jan 17, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> corruption goes 2 ways don't think all conservatives are all pure and holy most racist are right/alt right also anti gay are the same (not saying some liberals  aren't that way but far fewer)


True.
Just like radical islam. People say it is Waycist to dislike it. We should "understand", empathizew.

I`d like to know when Islam turned into a race. I must have blinked and missed it.


Xzi said:


> Perhaps it's because the 'extreme left' want free college and guaranteed healthcare for all citizens, whereas the 'extreme right' want genocide and a whites-only authoritarian ethnostate.  Just a thought.


Free college? Guaranteed healthcare? Good old socialism.

They aren`t extreme left views. They are views of normal people surprisingly enough.

If the extreme right want those things, the extreme left want everybody to be the same. Everybody get a trophy. Everybody is equal. Everybody MUST have these views. If you don`t have these views, you will be prosecuted for "hate crimes". Thats what the fucking far-left want.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 17, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> If the extreme right want those things, the extreme left want everybody to be the same. Everybody get a trophy. Everybody is equal. Everybody MUST have these views. If you don`t have these views, you will be prosecuted for "hate crimes". Thats what the fucking far-left want.


You're talking about PC culture, not the far left.  PC culture is fairly mainstream and it extends to the right-wing as well.  Just look at their reaction to recent Gillette advertisements.  Anyone can be offended/act offended over something innocuous.


----------



## mattytrog (Jan 17, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You're talking about PC culture, not the far left.



Exactly. Exactly right. It is PC culture. 

However it is interesting that is only seems to be people on the far-left of the spectrum have these views.

Its only those with an axe to grind that make these non-issues.

Genuine centre, or centre-left or centre-right people couldn`t give two shiny shytes. They will see it as another cynical Advertising Agency boardroom idea to sell people more razors.

They won`t take anything else from it. I didn`t. I seen the commercial. I don`t give two sh*ts about it one way or the other. People actually have lives to live.


----------



## J-Machine (Jan 17, 2019)

paterni


TobiasAmaranth said:


> In response to the above, don't forget that maternity leave is often ~3 months of paid vacation, and can be invoked repeatedly. So potentially, a female could get paid equal money, but for less effort. My psychiatrist is out for maternity and there's a huge chunk of time she's just not available. But imagine what would happen if this wasn't an option for these people. Some will abuse it, but the system is still needed. It's things like that, however, that end up necessitating a pay difference.


paternity leave is a thing


----------



## mattytrog (Jan 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> Mr wall of text (me  ) still has to insist, that you don't call anyone in that context freak. Not even freaky - because of potentially implied meaning.
> 
> Here is the background. Humanity in all its splendor chose in the past to take people like them, put them in freakshows, and show them around for money to uneducated morons. Often in accordance with families, who didn't care silt about them - because they might not have been "the norm".
> 
> ...


Remind me never to serenade you with the song "Cos tonight Baby, I wanna get FREEKAY with youuuuuu".

You will send the lynch-mob after me.


----------



## WeedZ (Jan 17, 2019)

J-Machine said:


> paterni
> 
> paternity leave is a thing


Not really in the US


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 17, 2019)

m_babble said:


> Why is alt right propaganda given a pass here?



What part of this discussion would you categorise as alt right? Granted we would probably have to have a discussion about what alt right is (it seems to vary between people, though it seems to be a racial thing at its core which I am not seeing much discussion here) but I will skip it for now.

The thread seems to have started with a discussion about how some people managed to... I can't even say slip past as much as showcase the rank awful nature of vetting in some journals, including some rather prominent ones, in various fields they labelled grievance studies (an umbrella term for a lot of different, and rather prominent, fields that traditionally would have fallen under the humanities or social sciences but variously wander out to give other fields a spin -- history has quite a few now, and geography is following, more hard science is not even without issue), up to and including gaining an award and being asked to fill a journal vetting position on the back of said "work".
It was then noted that the authors (or one at least) appears to be facing sanctions for ethical conduct because they dared to do such a thing -- for a more hard science it would have amounted to sending the journal a bit of spam and maybe costing their submissions editor 30 seconds of time, 2 minutes if they have to write an email back saying no thanks. It going through here making it a slap in the face to the general ideas of research, journals, peer review and the like (these days there is also a lot of internet stuff that some researchers/paper writers are finding intriguing but that is possibly a different topic, even if we might be said to be engaging in such a thing in this very thread), or at the very least the idea of respectability for the fields in question.

This has all verifiably happened, and is not the first time such fields have run up against science. https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/10/math-paper-censorship-quillette-pc-left for something that happened in similar timeframes.

The OP might have been a bit hyperbolic, was for my taste anyway, and I would have to question the framing used by the OP as far as writing the title, but we can still have a discussion about the events outlined above anyway.

We later went a bit off topic but such is forums. Nobody appears to have gone into "alt right" territory there either though, mind you if I skipped a paragraph somewhere then please point out where.


----------



## notimp (Jan 17, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> If the extreme right want those things, the extreme left want everybody to be the same. Everybody get a trophy. Everybody is equal. Everybody MUST have these views. If you don`t have these views, you will be prosecuted for "hate crimes". Thats what the fucking far-left want.


Let me try one thing at this point.

Lets go through LGBTQ.
L and G already fought for their societal recognition successfully - before social warriors were actually a thing.
B comes almost for free with that. 
T shouldn't bother anyone too much - simply, because they are a smaller minority (0.5% of the US population) of society.

Q is mostly terminology at one point. (If you dont want to talk "sisgender" I'd actually understand that - because its an actually big departure for everyone to pick up as the new default just because...)

But looking at those groups of people. The percentage of population number they actively concern becomes smaller and smaller.

So is there a real reason, why the efforts "opposing" at least the societal acceptance of those groups grow bigger?

Not really. Its just people imagining things, that they'd classify as something "too strange", but which they will probably never have many "issues" with in their lifes.

Theres really something to be said to give societal recognition to this group as a whole - and call it progress.

The thing with taking over all the proposed definitions of "mental gender" as a societal default is a different discussion, and nothing I'd see happening too soon. But at least the recognition that those groups exist and it might be ok for them to do - seems like something thats actually ok.


----------



## bodefuceta (Jan 17, 2019)

Don't worry about leftists, brother. Civilizations rise and fall, it's natural, they're already too brainwashed and soy-ridden to be saved. My muslim brothers will rule and save the world, step by step, slowly occupying all their lebensraum.


----------



## notimp (Jan 17, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> Remind me never to serenade you with the song "Cos tonight Baby, I wanna get FREEKAY with youuuuuu".
> 
> You will send the lynch-mob after me.


Context.

Use of the word freaky is fine pretty much any other time - here, because its derived from freak - its not.

Not so funny once you get it..  Also you used the noun first, then the adjective. I do rhetorics as well.. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



bodefuceta said:


> Don't worry about leftists, brother. Civilizations rise and fall, it's natural, they're already too brainwashed and soy-ridden to be saved. My muslim brothers will rule and save the world, step by step, slowly occupying all their lebensraum.


Saved? Is the rapture finally coming? Oh boy...


----------



## mattytrog (Jan 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> Let me try one thing at this point.
> 
> Lets go through LGBTQ.
> L and G already fought for their societal recognition successfully - before social warriors were actually a thing.
> ...



I just don`t see it.

Straight = Fair play
L= Fair play
G = Fair play
B = Fair Play
T = Fair play
Q = Fair play

Its the rest of the nonsense. Pan-gender, Two-Spirit, Non-Binary etc etc... I`ve never heard such rubbish in my life. Those people who fit into one of these groups are just a bunch of social mis-fits and inadequates trying to justify why they are so "different" and deserve special treatment.

People like that... How are they going to get on in life? Anyone says "boo" to them and they will have someone on a charge for a hate crime.


----------



## notimp (Jan 17, 2019)

Then you are fine.

Thats not becoming a societal default anytime soon.  Imho. And also imho rightly so. ("The inuite have x words for snow.")

Let people have some recognition that deviations from the norm exist, and they have to acknowledge and live with that, and the rest will be defined by the majority as usual. A time, when a kindergardener learns 5 terms concerning different gender concepts, all scale based, will probably never come.

Thats probably material for that university course in perpetuity.


----------



## mattytrog (Jan 17, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> Don't worry about leftists, brother. Civilizations rise and fall, it's natural, they're already too brainwashed and soy-ridden to be saved. My muslim brothers will rule and save the world, step by step, slowly occupying all their lebensraum.


Great... Thats something to look forward to then. Our society owes you and your "muslim brothers" a lot. You have perfected time-travel. Something until now thought impossible.

You can take society back to the year 700AD in a decade. Remarkable.


----------



## Chary (Jan 18, 2019)

m_babble said:


> Why is alt right propaganda given a pass here?


We don't back any political views. The thread may have a slightly inciting title, but the people within the thread have given their own opinions and shared their thoughts; rebuking, agreeing with, or being neutral on the OP's stance. How is that propaganda? It doesn't matter what way it leans so long as it provides a discussion that doesn't devolve into petty bickering. If the OP's title was "Alt right nazi gets rekt by feminist", it'd be the exact same case, just with a left leaning title.


----------



## m_babble (Jan 18, 2019)

Chary said:


> We don't back any political views. The thread may have a slightly inciting title, but the people within the thread have given their own opinions and shared their thoughts; rebuking, agreeing with, or being neutral on the OP's stance. How is that propaganda? It doesn't matter what way it leans so long as it provides a discussion that doesn't devolve into petty bickering. If the OP's title was "Alt right nazi gets rekt by feminist", it'd be the exact same case, just with a left leaning title.



Yeah, I don't know. After seeing this one a while back, I'm definitely starting to give this site the side eye. 
https://gbatemp.net/threads/sjws-are-ruining-everything-we-love.505025/


----------



## WeedZ (Jan 18, 2019)

m_babble said:


> Yeah, I don't know. After seeing this one a while back, I'm definitely starting to give this site the side eye.
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/sjws-are-ruining-everything-we-love.505025/


You know those arent staff members posting these threads right?


----------



## m_babble (Jan 18, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> You know those arent staff members posting these threads right?


Yes. I'm aware. I'm asking staff members why they're allowing an amazing gaming resource to turn into a breeding ground for incel turds.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 18, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> Free college? Guaranteed healthcare? Good old socialism.


That's socialism? Then so is all our public services that people use with no problems.


----------



## wormdood (Jan 18, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> *Free college*? *Guaranteed healthcare*? Good old socialism.
> 
> They aren`t extreme left views. They are views of normal people surprisingly enough.
> 
> *If the extreme right want those things*, the *extreme left want everybody to be the same*. Everybody get a trophy. *Everybody is equal*. Everybody MUST have these views. *If you don`t have these views, you will be prosecuted for "hate crimes". Thats what the fucking far-left want*.


it so it sounds like you reject the left because they dont disagree with the right on what is best ?. . . bro do you read what you post or just decide to roll with it no matter how stupid you sound


----------



## WeedZ (Jan 18, 2019)

m_babble said:


> Yes. I'm aware. I'm asking staff members why they're allowing an amazing gaming resource to turn into a breeding ground for incel turds.


Because we're not going to censor based on political alignment or personal opinion, that's fascism. You also happen to be in a sub forum that is used for discussions that are often politically charged. You're also derailing so that's all I'm going to say about it.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 18, 2019)

(note: I've read/skimmed over most replies. They're interesting, but I really have to start from this post rather than what was said later on).


mattytrog said:


> The left are responsible for a great deal.
> 
> Someone who I know got fired from his teaching job in a college for holding a door open for a woman who was carrying some files.
> 
> ...


Okay...lemme start to say that I believe you. And not in a "but...<blablabla you're wrong>" setting, and I think what happened well...really happened. Heck...I can tell you of one of my former girlfriends who wanted to use her pregnancy to basically blackmail me. That didn't work (long story), but in that process I certainly learned that as far as the law is concerned, women can get a way with lots of shit.


But here's the thing I don't understand: why do you blame politically left for this? Oh, I won't deny that if women still had the same rights as...erm...before feminism was a thing*, then this wouldn't have happened to your acquaintance (or to me, for that matter). But that's the thing with equal rights: it comes with equal responsibility. And thus, with equal chance to screw it up (meaning: women can be evil, just the way as men, just the way as anyone not fitting either).

Now...I know quite some transgenders. I can ask them if you want, but TBH I already know their answer: they would condone that action by that one person. These people I know just want to get on with their lives. Forcing labels on them that they don't identify with** not only won't help, but will work counterproductive. Why traumatize people unneeded***? Do 99% of them really deserve your dismissal of their situation because 1% abused SJW-things to enact an undeserved revenge?



*I assume this was around the 1950s, but I honestly don't know how far back gender issues really go
**oh, I admit: I sort of dance around the sentences where I have to address one of 'em as masculine or feminine, because I don't know (about a month ago, I met again with one of them who now has a beard and identifies as a male, whereas a year ago, she identified as a women). But while strange, I think it's more fascinating than awkward (again: I know them. How they're doing at their job and their hobbies are far more interesting topics to me than how they identify as gender).
***make no mistake: even when they're talking casual about it, gender is of huge importance to...well...at least the transgenders I know.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 18, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I'm in two minds on the issue. And the way the OP is structured shows why: specific examples are generalized and misrepresented in order to push an opposing narrative through our throats.
> 
> Case in point: feminism and political tendencies are independent issues. Feminism is commonly classified as being a political left (liberal) ideology - probably because it has its roots there - but that isn't always true. The 'woman supremacy' that some self-proclaimed feminists preach or lobby towards, has far more in common with racism than with emancipation of the sexes.
> 
> ...


Title was click bait. Generalization=Bad usually, except in comedy where sometimes you need to generalize for fun. People get so attached to their stupid political parties that they feel they emotional hurt, or triggered, or whatever you want to call it. People really need to let go and be individuals. It makes them biased, hence the problem on college campuses. And I have a feeling some people don’t actually care about politics, they just want to win debates for their ego. And just want to display how such good people they are and how just smart they are for social media likes.

Feminist movement grew out of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. It’s literally a copy and paste with the theories they push around. And they treat their hypothesis as conclusion without ever testing it.

And this whole thing is basically a religion. Hetero White men are born with original sin, the sins of their ancestors past, people that criticize social justice are blasphemers. This became their new religion after religion is on a decline. This gets into the academic world and the majority of people are sick of it. They are tired of Hollywood and media pushing their stupid narrative. Especially with the recent Gillette commercial.

You seem to be on the defensive and trying to downplay Ben Shapiro. With your of course he’ll like this scandal comment. Who wouldn’t like this scandal it’s hilarious. And points out a problem on colleges campus. It seems you’re trying to downplay him and not give him any shred of fun for whatever personal reason just because you disagree with him politically.

This is all the studies that did and didn’t make it.

https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/


----------



## SG854 (Jan 18, 2019)

m_babble said:


> I've been using this site for well over a decade and every time I see this kind of shit, I think about deleting my account.
> 
> Why is alt right propaganda given a pass here?
> Seriously. Can any of the mods tell me how they rationalize this?
> ...


How on the Hell is this alt right. This is exaclty what they talked about in the video and exactly why they pulled off bogus studies. Any decenting opinion even if the people are left wing, and the 3 researchers that did the bogus studies are left wing liberals, are labeled as alt right. Even the most hard core socialists are labeled alt right. They also recognize a left leaning bias in academia.

They are pointing out a corrupt system in the academic world because they want to bring real research back. You can’t help people if you do bad research.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jan 18, 2019)

Man,I haven't been on GBAtemp in a while. What happened to GBAtemp's liberal bias? A few years ago this would have been flamed to death and locked.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 18, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Man,I haven't been on GBAtemp in a while. What happened to GBAtemp's liberal bias? A few years ago this would have been flamed to death and locked.


People got tired of social justice creeping into everyday life. People got tired of being called alt right when they support all groups of people. 

It is a fun thread for laughs. And I wanted to see how many people will come to try to defend what obviously shouldn’t be defended. Academic integrity should always be above bias. I like seeing people go at it in the comments. It’s entertaining.

Just look at the dislike ratio on this recent commercial and you’ll see people are tired of this stuff that starts in colleges creeping into every day life.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Jan 18, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Failure at such a fundamental level to do peer reviewed scientific journal very much troubles me, and the subsequent retaliation, and poses a problem for the state of science as a whole (I don't want to see what would happen when the similar set to anti vaccine cretins arises for this sort of thing).


 I actually agree with you, but it's important to note that there's shit science for every cluster of the political spectrum. My friend, who is trans, was sent an article by his transphobic mum about "rapid onset gender dysphoria" (i.e. a study that basically says being trans is contagious/if you are exposed to other trans people you "become convinced that you're trans too") from Stanford, which was subsequently removed from the Stanford website, NOT because of its offensive nature, but because the trials carried out have been criticised by a plethora of other psychologists for being genuinely shitty, inconclusive experiments combined with confirmation bias on the researcher's part. Bad science is not an issue of the left, it's an issue of humanity as a whole and how people will see 'evidence' of their baseless opinions in anything. As you mention, take a look at anti-vaxxers and their autism defence as another example.



FAST6191 said:


> Similarly we are seeing hiring and firing advice become some very odd things, and the fear of offending people cause all sorts of trouble for all sorts of people (see various fun and games comedians, artists of many different stripes, executives in companies, advert campaigns causing backlashes among general consumers....).


I think that in an ideal world, offending people is worse than a comedian being shamed for making a joke that offends people. "Wah I can't make racist jokes anymore" – cry me a river man! You know?

Anyway, the bottomline of what I was trying to say is that the title of this thread is just incredibly clickbait-y and inflammatory, almost as though OP was trying to start shit. I dislike threads like these because they bring out the worst in people. Life is a wild ride when you're a member of multiple minorities for whom respect and protection is somehow controversial and up for discussion. It must be draining. I would rather take a step back and try to understand how/why things hurt people, avoid doing those things, and move on, rather than whine about "mah freedums", if you feel me.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 18, 2019)

I can't say I feel you there. Nobody has the right to not be offended, mainly as it is so arbitrary and unknowable beforehand. Similarly it tends not to be out and out racist jokes that are bothered but superficially racist ones (to say nothing of the bollocks that it the prejudice+power model some espouse, or the "no biological differences" set when it comes to sex) with the crux of the joke being how ridiculous the idea of being racist is. If you want to try to live that way then so be it, personally I will continue to meet people as individuals and assess their ideas and character rather than try to group people and try generalisations.

As for the other part I am not sure how the paper mentioned would be offensive in nature. If it was done with poor experimental procedure and sub par analysis then by all means strike it down.
As far as your mate goes then hopefully they get where they need to be, however that would seem to be more an example of why we tend to only let people with the relevant training to try do things in this sort of scenario.

I would agree bad science is a problem for everybody, in this case though it is a field promoted, researched and utterly dominated by the American left, one that still has to prove its legitimacy and is generally failing at such, is generally seen to be troubling all sorts of other fields, one that has been repeatedly observed to depart from academic ideals, and has people doing all sorts of odd things based upon it. Had the OP been similar in tone and about maths or physics it would be a different matter.

These sorts of threads around here tend to do OK. Occasionally you have to knock people back on topic and it pays to have a relentless focus on logic but such is forums in general.




spAik said:


> I stopped wondering why they allow alt right propaganda fake news in here. It is sad we have to read this political nonsense on a gaming site. This aint 4chan and no one really gives a fuck about their "opinion"....
> Why are these inbred white supremacists so scared about women, muslims, blacks and the left or even - god forbid - educated university students? Seems like they arent so superior after all* ¯\_(ツ)_/¯*


The researchers as mentioned genuinely got this stuff published, something that speaks to a systemic failure in the field covered. They are genuinely in the middle of a backlash from their overseers because of it, one that people struggle to assign merit to.

As for politics then discussions of it have been here as long as I have, and far as I can tell we here before that as well, and they often garner hundreds of replies in a given discussion. We even have a nice section for it these days. There are apolitical sites and gaming sites, this never has been one though.

I could speculate as to the reasoning used by said inbred white supremacists but I am not sure what relevance it has here; they don't appear to be the ones doing the research, posting it here, pushing the narrative or otherwise of any great relevance to the goings on under discussion, and are generally of such small number and lacking any real clout in any field.


----------



## spAik (Jan 18, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> You know those arent staff members posting these threads right?


but its the staff members like you, who are participating and defending these threads. Protecting the opinions you like and removing replys of opinions you dont like.
Good job, bro 



WeedZ said:


> Because we're not going to censor based on political alignment or personal opinion, that's fascism. You also happen to be in a sub forum that is used for discussions that are often politically charged. You're also derailing so that's all I'm going to say about it.


Well, looking at these threads I see some censor. Well, removing an argument you pretend of being "offtopic" is a way of censoring and doesnt really contribute to a discussion. Get your facts straight and dont use big words like facism, when you cant even stick to your own standards...



Memoir said:


> Vipera, is that you?


I dont know her (?) - i bet she was someone with an own opinion.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 18, 2019)

spAik said:


> but its the staff members like you, who are participating and defending these threads. Protecting the opinions you like and removing replys of opinions you dont like.
> Good job, bro


Vipera, is that you?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WeedZ said:


> Not really in the US


My company introduced it this year and I'm gonna take it. So excited. It sucks how rare it is here.


----------



## WeedZ (Jan 18, 2019)

spAik said:


> but its the staff members like you, who are participating and defending these threads. Protecting the opinions you like and removing replys of opinions you dont like.
> Good job, bro
> 
> 
> ...


At least I can spell fascism. You are the one that wants topics and posts you dont agree with removed. If you made your own thread and kept it on topic and respectful instead of derailing this one, I promise I wouldn't delete your posts. That goes for anyone in this thread that feel they need to discuss things not related to this topic. Im going to start issuing warns for continued derailment.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Jan 18, 2019)

If feminists really cared about women how come they're not rallying up against pornography which is the number one female degrading aspect of our society? At best teaching the young male generation to objectify women and at worst teaching sexual violence. I haven't seen a single feminist even mention it. Has anybody? Have you looked into what happens to the majority of women who get involved in the porn industry? It's really nothing short of being a sex slave. Again you don't hear a peep from feminists.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 18, 2019)

comput3rus3r said:


> If feminists really cared about women how come they're not rallying up against pornography which is the number one female degrading aspect of our society? At best teaching the young male generation to objectify women and at worst teaching sexual violence. I haven't seen a single feminist even mention it. Has anybody? Have you looked into what happens to the majority of women who get involved in the porn industry? It's really nothing short of being a sex slave. Again you don't hear a peep from feminists.


I would fundamentally disagree with your assessment, both on the basis that people should be free to do what they want when it is not hurting others, and that it is a degrading concept. If there is a fault with the industry then that is a fault with the industry and not a thing inherent to the concept. That said there are plenty of anti pornography campaigners among various things falling under the umbrella of feminist or social activist.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Jan 18, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> I would fundamentally disagree with your assessment, both on the basis that people should be free to do what they want when it is not hurting others, and that it is a degrading concept. If there is a fault with the industry then that is a fault with the industry and not a thing inherent to the concept. That said there are plenty of anti pornography campaigners among various things falling under the umbrella of feminist or social activist.


You think it's not degrading to women? lol, maybe you just want to justify your porn addiction. Not only is it degrading to women, research has proven time and time again that it is detrimental to the man's mental well being. porn addicts are less likely to get married and have a family probably due to the fact that women aren't attracted to guys who sit at their computers with their pants down.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 18, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Just look at the dislike ratio on this recent commercial and you’ll see people are tired of this stuff that starts in colleges creeping into every day life.



I already brought this example up earlier in the thread.  It's an example of the right-wing's PC culture.  Nothing is going to change or improve if everyone keeps getting offended over innocuous stuff, like that commercial.  "Don't beat or sexually harass women/children or put up with people that do" didn't used to be a controversial stance.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 18, 2019)

spAik said:


> any one else noticing missing posts? might there be someone censoring posts?


I can see all the removed posts. comput3rus3r started blathering on about abortion despite being told to stay on topic so it went and lives https://gbatemp.net/threads/how-do-you-feel-about-abortion.501574/ (the 500 odd reply thread we had a few months back that they were also involved in) now.

Everything else was not adding anything to conversation, name calling, decrying that there is a thread with a slightly political nature in a forum that has had threads of a political nature* for the better part of two decades now (search engine has troubles going too far back so here is a 2007 thread https://gbatemp.net/threads/jack-thompson-is-a-douche.49277/ , 2006 https://gbatemp.net/threads/is-jap-still-considered-a-racial-slur.36349/ ) and stuff like that.

*... thread incoming as that might be an interesting discussion.


----------



## mattytrog (Jan 20, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> That's socialism? Then so is all our public services that people use with no problems.


Absolutely correct. Thats why our economy is called a "mixed economy". An attempt to combine the best of socialism and capitalism. It works for the most part.


----------



## piratesephiroth (Jan 20, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> Absolutely correct. Thats why our economy is called a "mixed economy". An attempt to combine the best of socialism and capitalism. It works for the most part.


Yeah, capitalism is good for the people and socialism is good for corrupt politicians.
It just works.


----------



## notimp (Jan 20, 2019)

Quick comment on the Gillette commercial. (If thats the one that was in the news recently. Havent seen it then, and now..  )

Thats just the advertisers playing everyone.. 

Dont take the bait.

Here is how 'it worked' conceptually.

"Super PC - why can't we have more caring characteristics in men" is a "trend".

Gillette marketing department sees it, captures it in a spot. They know that this will provoke. They know that PC culture and left wing (you neednt make this political though) progressive positions are on their side.

'Culture war' breaks out. Media outlets write about the horrible right wing yesterdayers who conjured up boycott campaigns.


In the end it even gets talked about in here == FREE PUBLICITY.

Now here is the calculation on the part of the ad department:
1. Its a trend
2. Its controversial
3. People who get triggered by this are a minority
4. PC and public morals will be on their side.
5. Most people orient themselves around what everyone else says
They've got all the big groups of people covered. They can promote a controversial issue. They get news coverage. They don't get burned in any way.

Its the perfect PR/marketing ploy.
//

Lets look at the "issue" here. Are 'romantic' interpersonal relationships something where 'power differences' (which can change situationally, playfully...) exist? Yes. Will this change? No.

Lets say - this becomes a "new default" for all young people growing up. This might hold for the first few relationships they are in, then they'll probably realize, that this - is still a thing - sometimes. ( https://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymou...ask-if-they-can-kiss-me-and-i-blame-feminism/ , there were more prominent recent (after metoo) articles on this 'concept' as well, but this is the first one I found on google.)

Now, dont be idiots, dont be jerks, dont go out and rape people (*duh*), and you'll be fine.

You cant be "de-emasculated" by a "be more considerate" movement.

Also understand who these ads target. Young, impressionable males, who are deciding on what razors to buy for the rest of their lives. No one is taking anything away from you.  People are playing to current societal trends. (Poor generation being young and still naive right now..  )

The field is large, human psyche is complex and not rational. No one is asking you to give up your 'male ideals'. If during courtship 'being more considerate' becomes a trend. It wouldnt be the worst. (In other relationships it wont matter as much.) But thats on the level of in 16th century europe: Everyone wore powdered white wigs.

Doesnt change human psyche.

Dont be stupid and get up in arms about this one.

Or simpler. Just never do what ads insist you do. In general. Your IQ (EQ rather) rises by about 20 points automatically.


----------



## piratesephiroth (Jan 20, 2019)

notimp said:


> Quick comment on the Gillette commercial. (If thats the one that was in the news recently. Havent seen it then, and now..  )
> 
> Thats just the advertisers playing everyone..
> 
> ...


It worked fine for Nike but those were only shoes. Their customers are stupid people who will still buy anyway just because of the brand name.

I'm not so sure about Gillette though. The target audience of that commercial is very different from the vast majority of the company's actual customers.
It's not so difficult to use that as an excuse to try a different brand that most certainly has a better price.


----------



## notimp (Jan 20, 2019)

Gillette is a multi generations brand by now. They need to 'capture' new trends.

Stupidity works in both ways.  ("But I bought mine, because it was the fighter pilots brand.."  (Commercials, where suddenly fighter jets flew through the image, while the guy was shaving.))

They are targeting a new generation of young customers right now.


----------



## mattytrog (Jan 20, 2019)

notimp said:


> Gillette is a multi generations brand by now. They need to 'capture' new trends.
> 
> Stupidity works in both ways.  ("But I bought mine, because it was the fighter pilots brand.."  (Commercials, where suddenly fighter jets flew through the image, while the guy was shaving.))
> 
> They are targeting a new generation of young customers right now.



You aren`t going to stop men being men. No silly advert is going to change human social ideas overnight.

A few easily triggered people will probably take offence at it. However these are in the minority.

Heres a newsflash... You can still be masculine without being a complete arsehole. This advert exaggerates this arseholery deliberately.

Personally, in a commercial, I would like to know why I should buy a Gillette razor rather than a competitors` razor.

Does it give a closer cut? Does it stay sharper for longer? etc etc

Too many commercials nowadays are just about causing controversy to get people talking about the brand. Doesn`t matter anymore if its any bloody good or not.


----------



## notimp (Jan 20, 2019)

And it isnt even their intent. They want to sell. They want some controversy and maybe brand recognition. And if in three years the boyband craze has died down (and we all have learned a thing..  ) they'll make new ads.

Here is how brand recognition works.

In stuff thats "impulse purchase" (i.e. where you dont sit down and weigh the pros and cons of what to purchase) - you'll buy what you know. So recognition trumps everything - even emotion (if the brand is not entirely charged with that theme).

It basically goes like this: You are convinced, that you are making good/better than average decisions. You dont care to do research. You stand in front of a store shelf. What do you pick? The brand you know.

How do you "know" it - by having it seen 3-10 times in any context. As long as you didn't make an active effort to decide if thats really something you want - you go by "I've heard of it" > "so people are talking about it" ('thats what advertising buys' at least the notion, if not the act) > "so it must be good". The rest then is a selfenhancing effect of "I'm not stupid, so if I bought it, it must be good > look that guy agrees". And now you have understood the 4/5 stars principle on amazon.

(In other cultures they give harsher ratings..  )

Thats also why "spread/mass" works. (Why superbowl ads still are valuable.)

On stuff people do research on ("What is best") - so non impulse purchases, you highjack decision making differently, by for example agenda setting (telling people which aspects of your product they should look at, or whats important ("But is your phone new enough?, OLED has the inkiest blacks - or much more fun by telling them "what is best" (People dont want to do research, but the feel that they've done research. Its stupid.  )").


----------



## notimp (Jan 20, 2019)

The fight between feminists and nerds, is ultimately a "battle of the social outcasts".

So feminism currently seems to be a little ahead and "winning". The thing is, I dont even care.  Never was interested in armchair sports.. 

I'm posting, this, because by now I've seen the video, and laughed about the long row of slightly overweight men with BBQ spatulas in their hands pronouncing "boys will be boys". (And specifically not "men will be men".)

Thats marketing egging you on to be outraged. And you were. And then society didn't care. But people wrote that you have something against children with aspirational hopes and glinty eyes (final image of the ad).

Playing off minorities against minorities is stupid.

The subtext in this ad was basically - fat people should work out, doing garden BBQ's is not high value behavior, and listen to your friend that tells you that catcalling is not ok. Buy Gilette. 

Same as it ever was. Society agrees. 

The children with them tears in their eyes are a new addition to the Gillette "repertoire", so is the "don't look away - shame a friend" concept, but hey - marketing people have to do something to earn their living too..


----------



## notimp (Jan 21, 2019)

Here is a startup with the mission statement to fight "broism":


Mouth open. Don't know what to say yet. 

edit: But people he talks to think of them as a charity initiative, and ask themselves "is this idea good enough". Still - lost for words.

He then tells them, there is a fantastic financial arbitrage opportunity there. (Paraphrased.) Mouth just opened a bit more.

(Still watching for the stories of the others though.)

Rest of the panel was good, I can recommend watching it.


----------



## notimp (May 23, 2019)

If you ever need help getting someone, or yourself out of a "all women are evil feminists" loop (not implying that feminism is evil), watch this clip.

https://streamable.com/p0p5w

It doesnt get better than that. The editor was a freaking genius. 
(I just shortened the clip slightly.)

edit: Dont watch it loop, that ruins the effect.


----------



## osaka35 (May 23, 2019)

This sounds like they found one of those "pay-to-publish" publishers and used their shadiness to leverage a particular result which was then twisted and misrepresented. This is only an "ahhah!" thing if you don't really know how this sort of thing works. when you only have a vague understanding of how these things works, you can be exploited and lead to believe all sorts of dumb things.



Maluma said:


> Man,I haven't been on GBAtemp in a while. What happened to GBAtemp's liberal bias? A few years ago this would have been flamed to death and locked.


The manipulation machine on the extreme right has been working overtime. Kids grew up with their parents watching fox news, and have been mislead about how the world works. Public education didn't help them break through it, and they haven't gotten to a point they can question it themselves. facts gave way to anger and perception. It's very annoying. And very much a problem.


----------



## dpad_5678 (May 23, 2019)

Okay and Ben Shapiro is a weak man who's scared of gay dudes, so what's your point?


----------



## SG854 (May 23, 2019)

dpad_5678 said:


> Okay and Ben Shapiro is a weak man who's scared of gay dudes, so what's your point?


This thread is old, my opinions have shifted since then.


Are you talking about Transsexual being classified as a mental disorder? That’s how it’s classified in the medical field. And being classified as that helps get funding from the government to help trans pay for medical stuff. If it wasn’t called a disorder then surgery would be classified as cosmetic similar to plastic surgery or a boob job and trans would have to pay full price out of pocket.


----------



## notimp (May 23, 2019)

edit: Better suited to the Spank Children thread: Moved the content of this posting there.


----------



## osaka35 (May 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> This thread is old, my opinions have shifted since then.
> 
> 
> Are you talking about Transsexual being classified as a mental disorder? That’s how it’s classified in the medical field. And being classified as that helps get funding from the government to help trans pay for medical stuff. If it wasn’t called a disorder then surgery would be classified as cosmetic similar to plastic surgery or a boob job and trans would have to pay full price out of pocket.


Nah, that was back in 1987. The science has come a long way since then, as well as our understanding of underlying reasons. It's just a thing, it's not a disorder to be corrected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_transsexual_people


----------



## SG854 (May 24, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> Nah, that was back in 1987. The science has come a long way since then, as well as our understanding of underlying reasons. It's just a thing, it's not a disorder to be corrected.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_transsexual_people


I wouldn’t trust Wikipedia for that rather an expert in the field.


It’s still classified as a disorder. How they use the terms Medically is different from common every day colloquial use.



Transgenderism is an umbrella term and not the same as transsexualism.

Milder versions Gender dysphoria is classified as a disorder in the DSM 5.

Transsexualism is the extreme form of gender dysphoria and is definitely a mental disorder.


Them removing Transsexualism/Gender Identity Disorder from the DSM and replaced it with gender dysphoria does not mean that transsexualism is no longer consider a mental disorder. This is a common mistake people make. The name change had a lot to do with making people happy to avoid the word disorder.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BlanchardPhD/status/1129395850176815104

https://mobile.twitter.com/BlanchardPhD/status/1127286054858502152


----------



## SG854 (May 24, 2019)

@osaka35 Dr. Blanchard is also not a nobody. He has high credentials in the trans research. He contributed to the DSM 5 which was in the link you gave.



> Dr. Blanchard earned his A.B. in psychology from the University of Pennsylvania and his Ph.D from the University of Illinois.
> 
> He served as the head of clinical sexology services in the law and mental health program at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto from 1995 to 2010.
> 
> ...



He explains in this interview why it’s a mistake people make with the removal of transsexualism that it’s somehow not considered a disorder anymore. And that activists holds contradictory views that milder levels of gender dysphoria is considered a mental disorder in DSM 5, but somehow transsexualism is not.
_
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/ray-blanchard-transgender-orthodoxy/amp/
_


----------



## osaka35 (May 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I wouldn’t trust Wikipedia for that rather an expert in the field.
> 
> 
> It’s still classified as a disorder. How they use the terms Medically is different from common every day colloquial use.
> ...


finding one person with a phd who keeps it old-school isn't a strong argument. (edit) I'll check out his arguments in a bit, but i suspect they're not exactly saying what you think they're saying.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/

that may satisfy your needs a bit more if you're looking for more technical wording.

wikipedia tends to be more simply and straightforwardly written, making it a good primer for a longer discussion. it, at any rate, generay outlines the current held belief.

and if you're getting this technical, it's probably important to establish what's meant by "disorder" and "mental disorder". it's going to be understood colloquially differently than what's actually intended.

for instance, some folks will take "it's a mental disorder" to mean feeling that way means you are broken. that every step along the process, no matter the resolution or end-point, means you're "wrong" or "broken" . it's important to make the distinction between what is understood and what is, because topics on mental states are harshly misunderstood and misrepresented.


----------



## SG854 (May 24, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> finding one person with a phd who keeps it old-school isn't a strong argument. (edit) I'll check out his arguments in a bit, but i suspect they're not exactly saying what you think they're saying.
> 
> https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/
> 
> ...


A mental disorder is something that causes high distress or negative outcomes in a persons life.

There’s a lot of people that use pop psychology where they read an internet article and think they can diagnose people, but that’s not how that works. There is a lot of nuance involved that only experts can properly measure.


Just because someone checks out on all the bullet points on the list of disorders doesn’t mean they have that disorder because of one missing ingredient which is it has to cause a negative effect on life. If it doesn’t negatively affect a persons life then it’s not a disorder no matter how perfectly someone fits a mental disorder description.


----------



## osaka35 (May 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> A mental disorder is something that causes high distress or negative outcomes in a persons life.
> 
> There’s a lot of people that use pop psychology where they read an internet article and think they can diagnose people, but that’s not how that works. There is a lot of nuance involved that only experts can properly measure.
> 
> ...


i usually see it used as a tool to discredit people's worth or value, to show they're "broken" or "wrong" for being a certain way. i've seen people think transgendered folks are liars or something XD.

it is a fun topic, i just don't want anyone confusing a technical assessment as validation for...poor behaviour.


----------



## SG854 (May 24, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> i usually see it used as a tool to discredit people's worth or value, to show they're "broken" or "wrong" for being a certain way. i've seen people think transgendered folks are liars or something XD.
> 
> it is a fun topic, i just don't want anyone confusing a technical assessment as validation for...poor behaviour.


Ya, for sure. But transsexualism is definitely a disorder since it’s the extreme form of gender dysphoria.



Blanchard also explains in the interview trying to get young kids to see if they accept their biological sex is probably the best thing they can do for the child that can benefit since around 60-80% of kids normalize their gender when they get older even without medical intervention. Trying to muddy things with Misinformation and liberal propaganda, trying to influence treatment for cases of kids that will do better on the long term by just simply accepting their anatomical sex.


And that the trans activist community trying to discourage parents from doing this with using words like “conversion therapy” to describe that situation is a cynical strategy since that is not comparable to “pray the gay away” to kids that think they are trans. That’s just the trans activists trying to piggy back off the success of the gay rights movement.


----------

