The very real and ongoing effort to censor the internet is years in the making and soon to be achieved. The establishment is getting creative in their methods.

submitted by BraveAndStunningTERF from self.GenderCritical

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Futon_Everlasting 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The problem is that essentialism was one of the tools used to exclude women from rightful access to education and career opportunities, among other things. It's also known as "lady brain". I'm not ready to completely discount the idea that some non-reproductive behaviors could be tied to sex, but being a scientist, you'd better damn well bring the evidence for me to not dismiss it out of hand. And I've read oodles of crappy science too. Most of the "evolutionary psychology" I've seen is just laughable motivated reasoning, and has less empirical support than the weirdest astrophysics.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

suppress information that is contrary to dogma particular to radical feminism. For example I just cannot believe that humans are the only animal species to have no sexual behavioral dimorphism, that's almost as impossible a claim to me as "JY is a literal female". I do not think it's science-based.

What I'm trying to say here, in regards to OP, is that it seems to me like there are some positions that are enforced here on the basis of dogma. And if the motivation is that challenging those ideas might lead to negative outcomes for women, then I can see why people might be motivated to be dogmatic about those ideas. But that's exactly why we have science! That's exactly the sort of reason heliocentrism met with such resistance, in a different time.

I'm not ready to completely discount the idea that some non-reproductive behaviors could be tied to sex

For me it seems like that's what's going on when I look around. The birds male and female have somewhat different behaviors, the lizards, the bees, maybe the spiders. It seems like humans would have to be very unusual for things like that not to exist in humans too.

I think also, from my observations, that often when people make claims about biological inferiority in this or that task, it's exaggerated and intended to demean or harm the "inferior" person. For example there are human subpopulations that are probably measurably biologically advantaged in certain ways at certain sports, but that doesn't mean humans from most populations can't do those sports well, or that they won't improve their performance through training or other interventions. There's also a ton of stuff we probably just don't understand, like that Wim Hof guy. Also behavior and social situation affects hormones and stuff. We just don't understand everything about how humans work at all. So when someone comes along and says "we shouldn't let X people do that because they have Y measurable comparative disadvantage," ... well, idk. I feel like I should consider it, but usually when you see it on the internet it seems like people are trying to feel superior when it's not warranted for them personally, or trying to discourage someone when it's inappropriate (again c.f. Wim Hof).

I haven't read many other people's scientific explorations of this topic in humans though. If looking into existing scientific exploration of this topic interests you, this comment about it that might be interesting.