/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15754189
>Proponents
You mean sexual predators of children? These people deserve to be shot and thrown into the sea anon, nothing more.

>>15754189
why don't we ever "It / That" as pronouns? serious question.

Reminder that ACPeds are a disinfo organization

>>15754336
I can get behind this proposition

If you're still treating this as a theoretical debate and trying to convince the other side by arguing pros and cons, then you are too far away from realizing the pure destructive evil behind their ideology. You already lost.

https://youtu.be/RIjvD6Jq7ag?t=491 [Embed]

>>15754189
What is being taught here.

>>15754189
>but the other ones are fucked for life?
Is this convincing? What is the evidence for and against this?
>>15754683
Indeed, the science is out, it is known by know that gender reductionism and biological essentialism are harmful, and its adherents are wilfully ignorant and actively malicious.

>>15754189
"Proponents of teaching gender identity to kids" are fully aware that suicidality is contagious. The way they speak of "saving" the children they target is no different from a mafioso "saving" an extorted shopkeeper from organized criminal harassment.

>>15754819
>Is this convincing? What is the evidence for and against this?
i don't have to prove my claim until you prove yours

>>15755083
You've already conceded that teaching children about gender might reduce suicidality, you just don't consider it relevant in light of unintended consequences you just pulled out of your arse. So yes, it is your turn to prove your claim.

>>15755188
That wasn't a concession, it was a question: *if* exposure to gender ideology saves some lives, is it worth it if it negatively affects others?

The initial claim "teaching gender identity reduces suicidality" rests in your camp. The burden of proof is on you. I'll add some honesty and good faith here. I'm willing to acknowledge that it does if there's some good evidence. So I'll ask again for the third time: is there evidence that teaching gender identity in schools reduces suicides and self harm?

>>15754336
>You mean sexual predators of children?
that's just baseless right wing moral panic. all we're trying to do is convince society that children are sexual beings and capable of consent, bigot

>>15755817
Anyone who defends leftism or complains about iamginary "right wing" boogeymen needs to be killed extrajudicially.

Gender is a linguistic concept.
But some crazy people think that it is related to sex but also is sex but is also different.
Also even if gender is a thing that applies to humans in the way they think it does why are we castrating our children because of it?
I get that sex may not be 100% binary but that doesn’t excuse performing barbaric experiments on children who don’t like their appearance. Especially when these experiments have at least a 41% chance of catastrophic failure.

>>15755795
>*if* exposure to gender ideology saves some lives, is it worth it if it negatively affects others?
Why ask that question if there is no reason to suppose it negatively affects others?
>So I'll ask again for the third time: is there evidence that teaching gender identity in schools reduces suicides and self harm?
Well, considering there is ample evidence that transitioning does*, and that children have to be aware of the possibility in order to make use of it, and that I can't even think of a reason why being aware of it should be harmful to anyone who does not suffer from gender dysphoria, I'd say it's rather self-evident

*source: every study on the topic

>>15756010
>Gender is a linguistic concept.
As a linguist I can confidently tell you that gender is more than a purely linguistic concept and also that it is no coincidence that natural gender and grammatical gender use the same terms.

>>15754683
This. You cannot reason with this type of person. If they were receptive for logic, pragmatism, and coherence, they would never have developed a strong stance about this gender ideology.

You don't engage the cysts. You strengthen the non-infected clusters by using the arguments you would have wasted on the ideologue, on them.

>>15754695
obedience

>>15754189
Not science, nor maths. kys

>>15756818
Why would any strong stance be inherently incompatible with logic, pragmatism, or coherence? Of course the absolutely deranged conspiracy theorists screeching about imaginary child disfigurement have abandoned all reality and reason, but that has to do with the substance of their stance, not the strength of their conviction.

>>15754695
what i notice is that every boy in the video looks like a single mom's son
you know what i mean, what they wear how they walk and so on

>>15758277
You're statistically wrong about that which means you're also probably wrong when you think you're able to meaningfully make this distinction

>>15754189
The push for more gender identity tags comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a certain gender. For reasons unknown some individuals are incapable of seeing gender as a gray and think if they don't enjoy pumping iron or applying makeup that makes them some unique third gender. The take away is only retards think this way.

>>15758377
"More gender identity tags" is largely a strawman. What people actually want is actually what you're proposing here. For it to be acknowledged that gender is a complex and nuanced spectrum rather than a rigid binary. And sure, some people find it easier to assign labels to certain positions on that spectrum to help define who they are for themselves and others. But that's not the same as a "unique third gender".

It's like this: the Kinsey scale ranges from 0 (heterosexual) to 6 (homosexual). But that doesn't mean 1-5 are all unique sexualities that aren't attracted to either men or women. Rather they are labelled as "various bisexual responses".