Social Emotional Learning

[Cow Poke]

Thousands of non-western cultures have been using genders in ways that didn't conform to the Western binary, If there wasn't a term for it in the English language, then anthropologists would have needed to invent one to explain what was happening in those cultures. Fortunately English does have a term for this now: Gender.

Yeah, gender has been typically used to refer to a role either sex takes on.

[rogue06]

It's a red flag that I look for and I happen to know the direct citation for the myth. At least you're not denying the two were not lovers, as described by the Wiki article, rather that the youth was a rape victim as demonstrated by the text.

And demonstrates a willingness to be at best sloppy with the facts and possibly deliberately deceitful in pushing their agenda.

IOW, if they can get this instance so horribly wrong, what other errors of fact do their claims contain.

[Sparko]

From my post last year to Seer on this issue:

You keep using that word "female" to describe gender. But "female" refers to the biological sex. So "female gender" would be an oxymoron if gender does not also refer to biological sex. Especially in a world where there are supposedly 70+ genders.

[Diogenes]

And demonstrates a willingness to be at best sloppy with the facts and possibly deliberately deceitful in pushing their agenda.

IOW, if they can get this instance so horribly wrong, what other errors of fact do their claims contain.

Iirc, the Talmud does in fact address what we would consider intersex individuals. What's interesting when people bring up other cultures is that it's done so to avoid a more modern scientific and analytical viewpoint. It's essentially cultural appropriation to justify an ideology. They would never accept the culture in which these were produced. For example, Native American culture was shamanistic but modern 2 Spirit advocates and allies would never partake in spiritualism, divination, or folk healing. It's no different than pink washing. Modern societies that have traditions of these instances would be consider backwards in other regards. Also, these tend to be rarities. What is the historical rate of chibados in the Kingdom of Ndongo? They don't know the history nor do they care. They are merely using traditions as a kind of blackface, as a performance.

[Cerebrum123]

These are getting long, so I'm going to cut a bit and try to reduce the amount of work required to answer your post. Please do not take offense - I will necessarily have to leave some comments unanswered to do so.

I'm fine with that. I know that my responses tend to be larger than average.

This is not something one can say without drawing out first what was the same and what is different. For one, part of the legacy of Slavery, Racism, and the follow-on elements like the war on drugs is the undermining of the basic family construct and other environmental characteristics that influence basic life elements like skill, character, and basic work ethic. I go back to basic assumptions here. There is no fundamental difference out of the gate between the average capabilities a black man, and American Indian, a white man, and Asian and so on. Given this assumption differences in success are environmental. So we must look at what has shaped the environments that are shaping these populations to understand why one or the other may statistically fare better or worse, in addition to understanding what the differences or similarities are between the environmental obstacles to success they face as adults.

A second observation - if we can't find an environmental difference, it means we missed something. Because fundamental assumption 1, there is no difference out of the gate between the average capabilities of a Black person, an American Indian person, a White person, or an Asian person.

There are definitely environmental factors at play here. Yet many of these environmental factors are along the lines of class rather than race. If you look at low-income white neighborhoods you will find high crime rates, high rates of single mothers, and many people trying to use the welfare system for the most money with the least work. Areas like this are usually referred to as "redneck" or "white trash" neighborhoods.

Direct Racial Discrimination is likely not the primary deleterious environmental effect of the Legacy of Slavery and Racism - especially since the 1980's or 90's. The primary deleterious effects are the environments Black people grow up in - which includes systemic racism - that perpetuate the divide. Those environments, I believe, are the direct result of the cumulative effects of Slavery, past overt Racism and a combination of current covert and systemic racism.

That comment was regarding racial discrimination per se, which includes the more subtle kinds. The overt kind has been mostly removed from the law and once it was people from those groups were able to succeed significantly more than before. In the case of Chinese and other Asian immigrants, we see them surpassing whites by a significant margin despite the more subtle forms of racism still being in play and a history of overt racism.

Any adult immigrant coming from a forming environment that created basic skills and character has a huge advantage over a Slave freed without any education or life skills. Likewise a child brought up in drug infested, crime ridden ghetto where the only way to survive is to be a gang member. There are a lot of factors here you are not taking into account. The environment that shapes a child more often than not has the most significant impact on their future success over and above their individual capabilities - physical and mental gifts. Some overcome in spite of it, but not many, not the majority.

Yet there are those from the Caribbean who came over here after facing the same kind of discrimination in their homeland. Overt and large-scale discrimination coupled with long-term slavery should have the same effect on culture should it not? Thomas Sowell has gone over why a legacy of slavery is neither sufficient nor necessary to explain the disparities that exist in his book Discrimination and Disparities. His YouTube channel has much of the same information available.

Again, you must take into account what formed them as people. The Jewish culture especially is very close nit, prizes very highly intellectual success in and through the teaching of the scripture, has very high moral standards, and from its inception stood against a world that thought it strange. If a Black American child from the Ghetto was dropped into such an environment as a baby, you can be almost guaranteed whatever obstacles they face, they would turn out better and more successful than being left in the existing ghetto.

It is my fundamental contention that the destructive environment that surrounds a much larger percentage of the Black population than the White population is the Legacy of Slavery and Racism in this country.

The black community used to share many of the same traits. A strong work ethic, high moral standards, and high regard for scripture used to be prominent in the black community as a whole. It wasn't until after certain groups exploited racial tensions and other factors did we get to where we are now. During the "sexual revolution" of the 60s and 70s single motherhood was increased and the family unit was destabilized for everyone which impacted the poor disproportionately. Muslims advertised Islam as the "black man's religion" and spread disdain for Christianity as "the white man's religion" leading many in the black community to reject Christianity and accept Mohammed's standards of morals. And then the popularization of teachings like Patricia Bidol and Judith Katz led to an increase in racial tension with its overtly anti-white teachings and denigration of hard work, objectivity, punctuality, and other traits that lead to success.

What you call discriminating based on race I call eliminating racially enforced barriers to success.

Discrimination based on race is discrimination based on race regardless of whom it supposedly "benefits". All policies that use this as their basis are a net negative to society.

That depends greatly on what is taught and how it is taught, and what is actually done. This statement is just far too broad to be correct. We can each likely find examples where it works and where it fails.

No, it doesn't depend on that because we see the same outcomes everywhere that corporate responsibility is taught in any significant capacity. We are actively seeing the very problems I mention being directed at whites now in the USA by minorities. Those who began to accept it in Christianity started pogroms against the Jews, and the Jews of Jesus' time used it against the man born blind. Point to any society that teaches this in any significant degree and you will find the same problems.

I disagree. They have grown out of a fear of losing ground, of losing control. Anti-racist training and teaching may touch that nerve and amplify that fundamental fear, but it is not 'the cause'.

The ground was already long lost before those groups started to regain any amount of relevance. They would have completely died out if not for the popularization of teachings like Patricia Bidol and Judith Katz among other so-called "anti-racists". As long as you teach that some people are inherently guilty for what they were born with or from whom they descend you will foment supremacist groups on each side. They feed on that kind of teaching and without sustenance, they will die out. Instead of starving them out like had previously been happening the left decided to throw crap at them and as you know crap is a great fertilizer.

Talking about Trump will derail the discussion, but the current direction of the GOP in general is to embrace and nurture as allies against 'liberals' and 'liberalism' white supremacist and nationalist groups.

And the current direction of the left is identifying with evil and the demonic too. Satanists, while not religious are leftists and they are being heavily pandered to. The Democrats have a history, even recent history of being supported by white supremacists like the KKK. You can't lay the blame solely at the feet of the GOP either then or now.

We agree there. But embracing a person that chase down people that are victims of a horrible tragedy to accuse them of being part of some absurd and depraved conspiracy puts such a person outside the bounds of human decency or sanity. And yet, she is rising in the ranks of the GOP. That represents a fundamental collapse of the legitimacy of Republican leadership and values.

Yet we know many of her ilk were funded by the Democrats in an attempt to create easy-to-defeat politicians. The right has woken up to this tactic after many years of smear campaigns and watering down of terms that used to be agreed upon as evil has lost power. Conspiracy theorists, Nazis, racists, etc. have all lost their power. Now you need to show that not only is this person bad but that they are worse than their opposition. That's significantly harder to do without consistent definitions that apply equally to everyone.

I never said that comment was OK. I said it wasn't what it was claimed to be. It can't be generalized as it was, and it was obviously a tease, not anything meant to be taken seriously. Now - have others been raked over the coals for less - yes. So again, Biden - I'm not a fan. But I'm even less a fan of misinformation and propaganda.

I didn't say you said the comment was OK, I was asking you a question. Even if it is "an obvious tease" that doesn't change the extremely bad implications of it. It encourages the idea that black people who don't vote Democrat aren't "really black". This is an idea that has become pervasive in the black community and the Democrats rely on it to keep power. The other statements I brought up weren't "obvious teases" and show a history of racist policies and statements from Biden that have continued to his presidency.

When Trump had his "grab her by the *****" remarks on Howard Stern dug up from years ago he wasn't given the same leeway by you or the left. The context of the quote is on a show by a known shock jock and Trump is making the point that when you are rich people will let you get away with a lot of stuff. The whole point of Howard Stern's show was to say shocking stuff and Trump played the part while on the show. It's still obvious that he at least was a womanizer and likely still is given the Stormy Daniels stuff.

I will say that I think no group should be off-limits when it comes to jokes. However, anyone doing something like that needs to be going after everyone equally. I'm not really a fan of South Park, but they are an example of going after everyone and sticking to those principles. Sometimes a joke is just a joke, even if it is in bad taste or crass. However, with Biden and Trump we have evidence there is more going on there.

[Cerebrum123]

Iirc, the Talmud does in fact address what we would consider intersex individuals. What's interesting when people bring up other cultures is that it's done so to avoid a more modern scientific and analytical viewpoint. It's essentially cultural appropriation to justify an ideology. They would never accept the culture in which these were produced. For example, Native American culture was shamanistic but modern 2 Spirit advocates and allies would never partake in spiritualism, divination, or folk healing. It's no different than pink washing. Modern societies that have traditions of these instances would be consider backwards in other regards. Also, these tend to be rarities. What is the historical rate of chibados in the Kingdom of Ndongo? They don't know the history nor do they care. They are merely using traditions as a kind of blackface, as a performance.

Yes, the Talmud does that. But if you actually read it they were using a more scientific methodology for differentiating various groups. It was all based on physical characteristics during development rather than how a person "identified".

[rogue06]

Iirc, the Talmud does in fact address what we would consider intersex individuals. What's interesting when people bring up other cultures is that it's done so to avoid a more modern scientific and analytical viewpoint. It's essentially cultural appropriation to justify an ideology. They would never accept the culture in which these were produced. For example, Native American culture was shamanistic but modern 2 Spirit advocates and allies would never partake in spiritualism, divination, or folk healing. It's no different than pink washing. Modern societies that have traditions of these instances would be consider backwards in other regards. Also, these tend to be rarities. What is the historical rate of chibados in the Kingdom of Ndongo? They don't know the history nor do they care. They are merely using traditions as a kind of blackface, as a performance.

Look at the wiki article on 2 Spirit. It's a modern term, not universally accepted, that, as they note,

was not intended to be interchangeable with "LGBT Native American" or "Gay Indian"

which is pretty much how the LGBTQ+++etc. community use it.

But yeah the "cultural appropriation" crowd has no problem with ripping something from its culture and exploiting it for their own benefit.

[Starlight]

"Female" is a sex and you reference it in your definition".

Oh, that's what's causing your weird statements?

No, I am no referring to female as a sex in my definition. The definition literally said "the female gender". Not a sex: a gender.

There is a female sex, and there is a female gender, and the two are not the same. One is a biological category, and one is a social category. The word female has two different meaning and so I am being unambiguous and explicit when I say in my definition that I am referring to "the female gender".

And please don't follow up by pretending you can't mentally cope with words that can have more than one meaning. Lots of words in English do.

Again, "female" is a sex, unless you are denying "female" is a sex.

...Again, "female" is a sex, unless you are denying "female" is a sex.

...Is "female" a sex designation?

Hopefully I have clarified this misunderstanding on your part. Female in English can have different meanings. It can be referring to the female sex, or it can be referring to the female gender. That is why in my definition I said "the female gender" to make absolutely clear I was referring to the female gender and not the female sex.

I am denying "female" is a sex in the sense that in my post when I said the words "female gender", that is not a sex.

Is "female" a sex designation?

It can be a sex designation or a gender designation depending on the context. You can have the female biological sex, and the female gender, and those two things are not the same.

[Starlight]

Thousands of non-western cultures have been using genders in ways that didn't conform to the Western binary, If there wasn't a term for it in the English language, then anthropologists would have needed to invent one to explain what was happening in those cultures. Fortunately English does have a term for this now: Gender.

No, they haven't

So you're going for outright reality-denial, to defend your science-denial stance on transgenderism? Can't say I'm too surprised.

[Starlight]

Okay, so technically, you can string together some words and then point to it and say, "That's my definition of a woman."

Indeed. Hence I can provide a definition of "a woman" when asked. Hence, I am not like some out there that can't answer the question when asked to provide a definition of "woman".

The problem, of course, is that the definition you present is nonsensical.

Sure, MM, sure.

[Starlight]

You keep using that word "female" to describe gender. But "female" refers to the biological sex.

gender. Though the same English words happen to be able to also be used to refer to the biological sex, that is a different meaning of those words, and a coincidence of the English language. Many words in English have more than one meaning, and this generally causes no problem for us in every day life, because the context we are using them in lets us know which meaning is being used. Occasional it leads to ambiguities, and we navigate those when we encounter them.

So "female gender" would be an oxymoron if gender does not also refer to biological sex.

Since "female" could refer to gender or sex, adding the word "gender" or "sex" helps clarify which meaning of the word female is being used. So it's a clarification not an oxymoron.

[Starlight]

And demonstrates a willingness to be at best sloppy with the facts and possibly deliberately deceitful in pushing their agenda.

I would say in this instance it demonstrates a random person has inserted a random sentence in a wiki article that happens to be false. Generally I tend to ignore such incorrect insertions when I encounter them. (I know, I should be a good citizen and edit the wiki articles to remove them, but I don't)

[Gondwanaland]

So you're going for outright reality-denial, to defend your science-denial stance on transgenderism? Can't say I'm too surprised.

No, I am going to deny the post-hoc attempts of trans-radicals of trying to twist history to pretend their insanity has been around for years. The morons who bleat about 'two-spirit' when it was something they invented in the 90s and want to pretend Native Americans used to believe in. Etc.

[Starlight]

No, I am going to deny the post-hoc attempts of trans-radicals of trying to twist history to pretend their insanity has been around for years. The morons who bleat about 'two-spirit' when it was something they invented in the 90s and want to pretend Native Americans used to believe in. Etc.

Many, perhaps most, Native American tribes, appear to have allowed people the ability to change gender. There is really good evidence for this going back hundreds of years. Sticking your head in the sand is just sad.

[Gondwanaland]

Many, perhaps most, Native American tribes, appear to have allowed people the ability to change gender. There is really good evidence for this going back hundreds of years. Sticking your head in the sand is just sad.

No, they didn't. Believing stories made up in the 90s to make trans people feel better just makes you look retarded