LogFAQs > #884139335

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Stanford Medicine - Two minds: The cognitive differences between men and women.
GiftedACIII 08/03/17 8:02:18 PM #76:	scar the 1 posted... GiftedACIII posted... scar the 1 posted... GiftedACIII posted... And that's why radfems are idiots. Gender roles are gender stereotypes. For there to be roles and stereotypes of something, that something has to exist separate from them. They're idiots because you don't understand and/or agree with their vocabulary? Pleasing you sounds fickle. That's a dumb deflection. Their vocabulary is wrong because it's illogical, which I just explained. Abortion isn't child murder just because it is in a pro-lifer's "vocabulary". Covfefe isn't a word even if Trump's administration wants to pretend it's part of their "vocabulary". No, but the vocabulary of radfems comes from a pretty well explored feminist theory. You might not like or agree with it, but it's not the same as a lobby or a typo. It's a reference frame used by many different actual scholars to refer to the same phenomenon. Surely you can see the distinction from political sensationalism (abortion example) and that. The vocabulary of radfems are neither well explored nor up to date. It's why they're called radfems. It is barely any different than the pro-life lobby and political sensationalism. The reference frames were made before the neurological and cognitive differences were common knowledge and is merely a theory with the absence of that knowledge. There are scholars who used to say homosexuality was a mental illness too. --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:884139335] in Stanford M... [t:75582776]...</cite> <quote><cite>scar the 1 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote><cite>scar the 1 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>And that's why radfems are idiots. Gender roles are gender stereotypes. For there to be roles and stereotypes of something, that something has to exist separate from them.</quote> They're idiots because you don't understand and/or agree with their vocabulary? Pleasing you sounds fickle.</quote> That's a dumb deflection. Their vocabulary is wrong because it's illogical, which I just explained. Abortion isn't child murder just because it is in a pro-lifer's "vocabulary". Covfefe isn't a word even if Trump's administration wants to pretend it's part of their "vocabulary".</quote> No, but the vocabulary of radfems comes from a pretty well explored feminist theory. You might not like or agree with it, but it's not the same as a lobby or a typo. It's a reference frame used by many different actual scholars to refer to the same phenomenon. Surely you can see the distinction from political sensationalism (abortion example) and that.</quote> The vocabulary of radfems are neither well explored nor up to date. It's why they're called radfems. It is barely any different than the pro-life lobby and political sensationalism. The reference frames were made before the neurological and cognitive differences were common knowledge and is merely a theory with the absence of that knowledge. There are scholars who used to say homosexuality was a mental illness too. --- </topic></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1