LogFAQs > #956688121

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	People on GameFAQs understand that Critical Race Theory is ANTI-racist, right?
SKARDAVNELNATE 08/01/21 11:14:09 PM #157:	Gaawa_chan posted... Perhaps I am not phrasing this well... I think you're making your point just fine. I see whether a person is a man or a woman an entirely functional issue. If you're not performing that function with them it doesn't matter. I think what you're trying to address is that methods for determining if a person is compatible in that function is often best guess. No one is really thinking about chromosomal composition when making that determination. Further people can confuse cultural practices meant to facilitate that function with something that is innate to the sexes as opposed to being learned. Gaawa_chan posted... If you're even just mildly into the history of taxonomy I'm not, but I expect there was some new discovery or a better tool for analysis that lead to rethinking previous conclusions. That's of interest to me. Gaawa_chan posted... seeing old examples of people rigorously trying to defense Linnaeus' work is, um... pretty pathetic, tbh. Now I'm curious what their arguments were. Did they not trust the new methods? I assume it was DNA research which may not have been accessible to many. To wikipedia... Wait, did he think minerals were living things? Looks like the micro-organisms really muddled things up too. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:956688121] in People on ... [t:79589532]...</cite> <quote>Gaawa_chan posted... </cite> <quote>Perhaps I am not phrasing this well...</quote>I think you're making your point just fine. I see whether a person is a man or a woman an entirely functional issue. If you're not performing that function with them it doesn't matter. I think what you're trying to address is that methods for determining if a person is compatible in that function is often best guess. No one is really thinking about chromosomal composition when making that determination. Further people can confuse cultural practices meant to facilitate that function with something that is innate to the sexes as opposed to being learned. Gaawa_chan posted... </cite> <quote>If you're even just mildly into the history of taxonomy</quote>I'm not, but I expect there was some new discovery or a better tool for analysis that lead to rethinking previous conclusions. That's of interest to me. Gaawa_chan posted... </cite> <quote>seeing old examples of people rigorously trying to defense Linnaeus' work is, um... pretty pathetic, tbh.</quote>Now I'm curious what their arguments were. Did they not trust the new methods? I assume it was DNA research which may not have been accessible to many. To wikipedia... Wait, did he think minerals were living things? Looks like the micro-organisms really muddled things up too. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1