LogFAQs > #902801298

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

To address this the teacher had been calling students by their last name. A name that was not in dispute by anyone.

And then the administration chose not to accept that anymore, presumably because some kids didn't like it. Furthermore, nobody's name should ever even be in dispute in the first place, so the idea of there being a "name that was not in dispute" should be completely moot.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's clearly not what I was advocating and I think you're being willfully disingenuous here.

You certainly seem to think that your opinion is more valid than that of doctors and psychologists, without comparable credentials. Skepticism can be healthy, certainly, but not when you have more reason to trust science than not. Otherwise, you get anti-vaxxers.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

the reason for something to exist doesn't change.

Nothing biological exists for a reason. There is no purpose or goal involved in the natural world. It simply is. Traits can be associated with certain functions, but that does not mean they can never be co-opted into other functions (in fact, that happens all the time in evolution), nor does it mean that function must always be fulfilled as long as that trait exists (see: the entire concept of vestigial structures). To conflate function with "meaning" is to fundamentally misunderstanding the natural world.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Well I don't. I was responding to your comment about how genders are defined.

You define something you care about based on criteria you don't care about? That makes little sense.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's not the the modern vernacular.

It's how the langauge is evolving. With the growing acceptance that there's a distinction between the physical and mental aspects of sexual dimorphism, and the fading aversion to using the word "is increasingly being adopted to refer to the mental part. It works quite well; there's really no reason not to accept this shift.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You're referring to specialized terminology that has been used in an Orwellian manner. Controlling how people think by controlling the language they use.

Linguistic evolution is an example of Orwellian population-wide brainwashing. Right. That's totally not a ridiculous thing to say.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The average person wouldn't associate sex with anatomical distinctions.

It's the biological definition. Why insist on applying such a definition earlier but refuse to do so here?
---

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