Jump to content

aabattery

General Moderator
  • Content Count

    18,369
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    73

aabattery last won the day on August 20 2019

aabattery had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

38,033 Likes

1 Follower

About aabattery

  • Rank
    Turd in the wind
  • Birthday 06/04/1997

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Noo Zillind
  • Interests
    ?

Recent Profile Visitors

13,015 profile views
  1. I actually agree with the general premise that nature doesn't make mistakes. I think that implies a more humanistic intent to the whole thing than is really there; nature just is. Obviously the religion element can throw a spanner into that idea but I do think if one does have those beliefs, the interpretation of God's intentions can be flexible enough to account for the realities we find down here on Earth without making you a bad Christian; but this is just my interpretation as a more or less irreligious kind of guy. If there is a divine being in charge of it all, I don't expect our feeble minds to grasp the complexities of their plans. It's up to us to accept or deal with the consequences of messing around with ourselves and the world around us, but ultimately I think changing someones anatomy (be it through hormonal treatments or surgery) is a net good in the world on account of how much it helps the people who want it. I don't know if you know any transgender people yourself, but I can tell you from those I do know is that these treatments make them so much more comfortable in their own skins and in themselves. Climate 'alarmists' (I think that phrases implies that people are exaggerating the threat, which I would pretty heavily disagree with) I think, for the most part, aren't saying what we are doing is 'against' nature; obviously messages get muddled but I can tell you as someone who is an actual earth scientist is that climate change is the natural consequence of pumping a shit load of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Whatever happens, the world will keep turning and the big old rock we call home will probably keep being a big old rock, but the reality of it is that we are going to make the big old rock very uncomfortable not only for us but for all the other things that call it home unless we pretty drastically change what we are doing right now.
  2. Personally, I don't think it's fair to brush a small but still significant minority of people as mere anomalies. They're real people with real experiences and real lives and should be recognised as such rather than pigeon holed into our current binary. I think the great thing about science is that it isn't a static thing; we can look at the evidence and existence of these fringe cases and expand our terminology and understanding to make room for them. But I will say that it's hard to change the paradigm, and it can be hard to accept new things when they go against what we previously understood. It's true of almost every science I think; from my own field, (geology) there's a great example of it in the first proponent of the theory of plate tectonics, Alfred Wegener. Won't go into to much detail but when he first suggested it, the response was uniformly hostile. Guy was ridiculed for years, all the way up to his death in 1930. People were still denying it up into the 1960's. But the ball got rolling, and as people actually looked into it they found a lot of the ideas were supported by some pretty strong lines of evidence. These days we can even measure how fast the plates are moving, which is a far cry from the prior belief that they just stood still forever.
  3. There is a world of difference between gender identity and identifying as an animal or plant or whatever. Evolution wise, we split from plants over 1.5 billion years ago. To use your dog example from the other day, we have been evolving apart from them for an odd ~60ish million years. I guess there could be an interesting debate about species identity if other hominids were still walking around with us, but as it stands there is only ones species on this planet that we can currently procreate with. The difference between that is uncomprehendingly immense in comparison to the differences between biological sexes. The basic interpretation of biological sex is the whole XY and XX chromosome thing, but like all things in biology (and science in general) it is often more complicated than the binary we get taught in primary school, as the (objective) existence of intersex people can demonstrate. And even that can seem simple in comparison to how complex the workings of our brains are. I won't pretend to be an expert on the exact science of transgenderism and what not, but if someone who is in all ways biologically male can develop a uterus (this is a real thing that I mentioned the other day, Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome, look it up), is it not possible that someone who would appear to be biologically female could end up with a 'male' brain? Like I said, not an expert but I have enough familiarity with the field to recognise that that shit is much more complicated what most of us get taught. I know it's hard to comprehend, but if you actually listen to the words and experiences of transgender people, I think you might find a little bit of empathy and understanding of their position.
  4. Roman J. Israel would've made it and it would've won.
  5. Well, for context here is the sign(s) on the door. (it's blurry because the forums compression thing is shit but if you click on the image it should open in full-res in another tab). Make of it what you will I guess. Personally I feel like chucking up contentious stuff like that on your door is not particularly considerate or professional and doesn't really foster any actual scientific debate. It's a 1-sided message from a person in a position of relative power. I don't think anyone is going to be physically hurt or put in any direct danger from this stuff, but with the increasing awareness of mental health and all that (esp. in relation to transgender people) I can see why the faculty would push back here as I really don't think this fosters a positive working environment. I think it should also be worth noting that the article JB33 linked is basically only telling one side of the story; like I said, the situation is probably a lot more nuanced than either side would like it to be.
  6. Not sure where you're getting the outside student angle; it explicitly says in the article that the complaints were informal and anonymous. She can claim that everyone in her classes like them, but she's not a mind-reader. Regardless, she's not losing her teaching position so the people who don't have an issue with her views can still go to those classes. She's just not going to be in the front-facing student service role, which honestly just makes sense; if you hired a receptionist at some imaginary business who kept pissing people off and was driving customers away, would you be inclined to keep them on? Except in this case, she's not even getting fired; they're just pulling her back from an administrative position where she was not able to fulfill her duties without pushing people away from the faculty.
  7. Reading up on it the situation there seems more nuanced than you're painting it here. She didn't lose her job, she's still employed as an associate professor and I can't see anything to suggest that her ability to research or publish has been infringed. In general these types of roles don't actually garner you any extra pay; they just get you a release from some of your teaching responsibilities, so her bank account isn't going to be weeping. She has simply been removed from a service role as a Chair of Undergraduate programs. Obviously I'm not intimately familiar with how the University of Alberta's admin works, but to me that sounds like a role that would place her in direct contact with a lot of students, including trans-people (this is how it would work at my uni). If she was making students uncomfortable in that role, I don't see why it is outrageous to suggest that maybe she take a step back and focus on other areas of her job.
  8. Honestly, it just seems like a more specific term for the specific issue they're talking about. You could just say women, but that ignores the fact that not all women menstruate, either because they haven't hit puberty, they've hit menopause, they're on birth control or some other drug, or they have some other medical condition that prevents menstruation. So you could say women who menstruate if you must insist upon disavowing the acknowledgement of transmen for whatever reason, but where does this leave intersex people who have a functioning uterus alongside a set of male genitals (or at least male appearing genitals)? Or what about people who have Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome (I'll fully admit I only just found out about this after a quick google) in which a, by all reasonable standards, biologically male fetus develops a womb and thus goes through the whole menstruation thing? Obviously these cases represent the minority, but they do exist and I don't really see why the extraordinarily tiny amount of effort it takes to change one word in a headline is worth "rightfully" taking issue with.
  9. I'm willing to bet 90% of the protestors have seen Hot Rod. It is so powerful and well-made that it bounces around in your brain and burrows in, forming a dominant go-to pattern for your thinking.
  10. Pretty weird to quote the guy running concentration camps in the movie as the voice of reason.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.