LogFAQs > #902797592

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It's claiming the authority to tell one person what they can or can't say to another person.

You're one of those people that thinks freedom of speech means freedom from consequence, aren't you.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Yes, it's their name. They have ownership of it. But it's the other person's speech. Someone else has ownership of addressing them.
Directing speech at a person doesn't transfer ownership of the speech.

And as the owner of the name, they have full rights to not answer to somebody who refuses to get their name right. In a school setting, however, that refusal has the potential to significantly hurt their grades. Ergo this guy was pressured to quit so he couldn't keep infringing on this student's rights to own their name. Maybe he shouldn't have been such a dink.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's surrendering a lot of personal responsibility to academics.

When the alternative is making decisions on academic matters without conducting research? I don't really see that being a bad thing. You are defending the practice of making up your own scientific conclusions because you don't trust the actual scientists because reasons. That's the kind of mentality that has bred anti-vaxxers, homeopathy, and Goop. You should not be defending that practice. Nobody should.

Should academic discourse be accepted without any sort of critical thinking? Of course not. But that attitude must be applied equally to all alternatives as well. If you decide ahead of time which side you want the science to be on, and hold competing views to higher standards than that one, you're never going to end up with the truth.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I define them in biological terms.

People exist in more than biological terms. That's what it means to be sentient.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Gender difference exist to facilitate procreation.

Not anymore they don't. There are ample ways in today's world to effect procreation without relying on one's own sexual dimorphism, and that's even without considering that a good many people have no interest in procreating in the first place. If everyone on the planet suddenly became trans and gave up their fertility to have a sex change? Yeah, the species would have a problem (at least for the 10-15 years it'd take to develop fully-functional artificial reproduction methods). But that's not particularly likely, so who cares about the impact it has on procreational ability?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

However current identity politics puts forth that there are no biological gender difference. Gender is social construct that can be defined any way that is convenient for the moment.

You seem to be having considerable difficulty understanding the difference between "sex" and "gender" as they are used in the modern vernacular. Sex refers to the biological aspects of sexual dimorphism, gender to the psychological and social aspects. Of course the social aspects can be redefined as needed, because that's how any sort of social construct works.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.