Gendering animals (a paper arguing that animals might have gender...)

submitted by BiologyIsReal from (link.springer.com)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]lefterfield 15 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

fits naturally with some traditional Indigenous ways of thinking about other animals and their relations with humans.

Riiiight. WHICH "Indigenous ways of thinking"? Some indigenous people considered owning livestock bizarre. These types always seem to assume tribal culture was a monolith across multiple regions.

But the whole idea of it is insane anyway. To have a concept of social gender an animal would need to have a sense of 'self.' There are very few animals that are known to have this. Cats and dogs don't seem to. We've barely scratched the surface of understanding animal communication in any species. What could this possibly reveal other than a lot of human assumptions and gender ideology?

[–]PenseePansy 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

fits naturally with some traditional Indigenous ways of thinking about other animals and their relations with humans.

Riiiight. WHICH "Indigenous ways of thinking"? Some indigenous people considered owning livestock bizarre. These types always seem to assume tribal culture was a monolith across multiple regions.

Yeah, and HOW do those espousing this fail to see that it's not just patently-absurd, but also... BIGOTED? What with all the ignorance, and condescension, and presumptuousness, and using REAL PEOPLE and their REAL CULTURES as... mere vehicles for trendy western bohemianism; politically-correct cartoon characters. They're just (conveniently enough) whatever SJW types want them to be. Oh, yeah-- THAT'S not racist! Isn't this simply the latest iteration of the same tired old "noble savage" stereotype?

Furthermore, where do they get the harebrained idea that "indigenous = WOKE"? Have never understood this. Like, the Comanche (who scared the shit out of pretty much everyone) were just mellow pacifists? Who probably kept track of how far they walked with a FitBit and shopped at Whole Foods? I guess these multi-culti nitwits have gotten so reflexively hostile to the western/white that anyone who ISN'T automatically becomes good, and, indeed, must necessarily side with THEM. Meaning share their values. Which I suspect would come as a GREAT surprise to pretty much every indigenous person ever.

Christ, the STUPID... it burns...

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I guess they don't have much, if any, contact with actual indigenous people, so it's easy to pretend they are brave saviors defending indigenous people's rights and culture despite the fact they know very little about them.

[–]MezozoicGay 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This sounds very nazist (or racist?) - to think that those tribes and nationalities are too stupid to understand differences between men and women, and that they were too stupid to do anything until white europeans introduced them to such concepts.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, it's incredibly racist and condescending.

But the fact these racist eejits overlook is that no indigenous peoples in the time of gathering-hunting-trapping-fishing would have survived - nor would humans ever have invented agriculture and animal "husbandry" and domestication - without closely observing nature and coming to understand how all plants and animals reproduce, how/when young plants and animals develop and mature, and how other animals care for their young (and old and infirm) and behave more generally.

People, indigenous or not, who raise crops, work directly with animals, hunt, fish, trap and generally "live off the land" but have not had the opportunity to go to school know a lot more about biology including sexual reproduction than all the urban and suburban TRAs with PhDs in the "advanced" economies/countries of the world combined.

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

Yes, despite all their talks about intersectionalism, they are very racist.

[–]VioletRemi 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What I've noticed "intersectional feminism" and "intersectionalism" in gender movement - do not understand what "intersectional" even means.

Intersectional feminism should be like this: There is disabled woman, poor woman and woman of color. They all have problems because they are women. However, each of them have their own additional problem because they are disabled but also woman, they are poor but also woman, they are of color but also woman. They have one main goal which is intersected by different problems, so intersectional feminism should be focusing on doing help to all women and deal with special cases of being treated differently - like it should be checking racism against women, not racism in general, etc.

Intersectional feminism nowadays: "We must solve all problems, racism for men, global warming problems for everyone, prostate cancer for men, and so on, everything!". And none of those issues is intersecting with each other in any way at all. They are all different issues with nothing in common.

So no wonder they are so racist, albeist and so on.