Censorship

[NM11046]

28 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Did someone actually “laugh” at a link to The Scientific American. 
 

How stupid have we become…

Only one stupid person laughed ... don't group us all in with that ignorance.

[Dr. Strangelove]

10 hours ago, funhusker said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

I tried to address this in my post, that outside of genetic mutation or rare instances, there are two sexes.

 

The vast majority of people are going to either have XX or XY chromosomes. I get that some individuals fall outside of this boundary, but it's 1% of the population, probably less.

 

Liberals tripping over themselves to make this issue a defining characteristic of their party are fighting the wrong battle and costing themselves elections. Trying to equate Gender with Sex is one of the biggest mistakes they've made electorally speaking.

[Lorewarn]

On 10/6/2022 at 10:27 AM, nic said:

Would you like to shift gears to examples from universities that have canceled various speakers that some students were upset about? That sort of takes the money issue out of it.

 

Are you suggesting that you don't believe people get paid to speak at colleges...?

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Liberals tripping over themselves to make this issue a defining characteristic of their party are fighting the wrong battle and costing themselves elections. Trying to equate Gender with Sex is one of the biggest mistakes they've made electorally speaking.

 

Who's doing these two things? 

[funhusker]

5 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I tried to address this in my post, that outside of genetic mutation or rare instances, there are two sexes.

 

The vast majority of people are going to either have XX or XY chromosomes. I get that some individuals fall outside of this boundary, but it's 1% of the population, probably less.

 

Liberals tripping over themselves to make this issue a defining characteristic of their party are fighting the wrong battle and costing themselves elections. Trying to equate Gender with Sex is one of the biggest mistakes they've made electorally speaking.

Approximately 1% of Americans are Jewish.

 

What would your opinion be if the class “tripped over” themselves because a professor said Jews didn’t matter?

 

https://www.prri.org/research/2020-census-of-american-religion/

 

I see 600 students throughout the year.  Good chance I’m going to run into this and probably something I should be trained in.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

6 hours ago, funhusker said:

Approximately 1% of Americans are Jewish.

 

What would your opinion be if the class “tripped over” themselves because a professor said Jews didn’t matter?

 

https://www.prri.org/research/2020-census-of-american-religion/

 

I see 600 students throughout the year.  Good chance I’m going to run into this and probably something I should be trained in.

 

Firstly, the primary difference is that nobody says they don't matter.

 

Secondly, the physical difference between me and somebody who's Jewish is absolutely nothing. The physical difference between biological sexes, however, is quite a bit, particularly when it comes to sports or other physical aspects of life.

 

Thirdly, an individual with a genetic issue that truly makes their biological sex hard to determine should absolutely be protected under the law regarding employment, sports participation, or what have you. 

 

Fourth, the current debate liberals are having with themselves is not about actual genetic or biological issues that blur the boundary between biological sex. They seem to be arguing - stupidly - that gender dismorphia, a psychological phenomenon, is the same thing as biological or genetic differences. It is not. Gender choice does not equal biological sex choice.

 

10 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

Who's doing these two things? 

Seemingly the graduate students in the post previously who wanted their Professor fired over her comments about two biological sexes. This is often a topic of discussion on edgy message boards or far left circles - individuals who truly believe that it would be transphobic for a man to refuse to date a woman (with male biology), or vice-versa.

 

These moronic discussions, and there are a lot of them, are costing Democrats winnable elections during a time in which they risk not holding the Senate for DECADES after 2024. We're going to eventually face an 8-2 SCOTUS deficit because Democrats fought with themselves over who can raise the most money in California by trying to be as "inclusive" as possible bringing us to where we are today.

[funhusker]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Firstly, the primary difference is that nobody says they don't matter.

 

Secondly, the physical difference between me and somebody who's Jewish is absolutely nothing. The physical difference between biological sexes, however, is quite a bit, particularly when it comes to sports or other physical aspects of life.

 

Thirdly, an individual with a genetic issue that truly makes their biological sex hard to determine should absolutely be protected under the law regarding employment, sports participation, or what have you. 

 

Fourth, the current debate liberals are having with themselves is not about actual genetic or biological issues that blur the boundary between biological sex. They seem to be arguing - stupidly - that gender dismorphia, a psychological phenomenon, is the same thing as biological or genetic differences. It is not. Gender choice does not equal biological sex choice.

 

Seemingly the graduate students in the post previously who wanted their Professor fired over her comments about two biological sexes. This is often a topic of discussion on edgy message boards or far left circles - individuals who truly believe that it would be transphobic for a man to refuse to date a woman (with male biology), or vice-versa.

 

These moronic discussions, and there are a lot of them, are costing Democrats winnable elections during a time in which they risk not holding the Senate for DECADES after 2024. We're going to eventually face an 8-2 SCOTUS deficit because Democrats fought with themselves over who can raise the most money in California by trying to be as "inclusive" as possible bringing us to where we are today.

It appears from the articles that “liberals” are having one discussion based on scientific literature and “conservatives” are over simplifying and ridiculing them for it.

[Dr. Strangelove]

14 minutes ago, funhusker said:

It appears from the articles that “liberals” are having one discussion based on scientific literature and “conservatives” are over simplifying and ridiculing them for it.

While I somewhat agree, Liberals are pushing for inclusion in areas where differences in biology are apparent - inclusion in female sports or biological men going to prisons with women. 

 

Now, both these issues are somewhat minor but liberals are increasingly refusing to acknowledge the differences between gender and Sex and its caused them to have to defend stupid policy positions on the campaign trail, in a time where their ability to win elections is diminishing by the year. 

[Lorewarn]

39 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

While I somewhat agree, Liberals are pushing for inclusion in areas where differences in biology are apparent - inclusion in female sports or biological men going to prisons with women. 

 

Now, both these issues are somewhat minor but liberals are increasingly refusing to acknowledge the differences between gender and Sex and its caused them to have to defend stupid policy positions on the campaign trail, in a time where their ability to win elections is diminishing by the year. 

 

 

While I think your criticisms are wildly overblown (essentially a tiny but loud minority of young people and college students caring about something too much), I'll take going too far in the direction of something like differences in gender/sex than too far in the direction of a fascist authoritarian nation state, gun flagellation and ruining our planet for money any day.

[funhusker]

58 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

While I somewhat agree, Liberals are pushing for inclusion in areas where differences in biology are apparent - inclusion in female sports or biological men going to prisons with women. 

 

Now, both these issues are somewhat minor but liberals are increasingly refusing to acknowledge the differences between gender and Sex and its caused them to have to defend stupid policy positions on the campaign trail, in a time where their ability to win elections is diminishing by the year. 

I missed in this story where students were confused on gender/sex.

 

In the local story, they reference the study on sex.  The right wingers seem to be confused about the topic.

[BigRedBuster]

2 hours ago, funhusker said:

I missed in this story where students were confused on gender/sex.

 

In the local story, they reference the study on sex.  The right wingers seem to be confused about the topic.

I'm not surprised that liberals are better at sex.

[nic]

On 10/9/2022 at 7:41 AM, NM11046 said:

They didn't replace or fire her.

 

Edit.  Should be noted that this was a graduate level course for educators.  And here is the actual article from the Bangor Daily News vs. The New York Post and other right leaning publications that have tried to run with this as a major story.  https://www.bangordailynews.com/2022/10/03/news/portland/usm-wont-replace-professor-2-sexes/

 

I had the Bangor link in the post as well. I believe the students wanted the teacher replaced for this specific class(not fired)  with someone who was not transphobic...in their opinion. The university's proposed solution was to offer an additional class with a new instructor and give students the opportunity to switch instructors. Sounds like only a handful of students would stay in the current class. I did not hear what the final  resolution was.

[nic]

On 10/9/2022 at 11:00 AM, funhusker said:

$10 says @nic won’t post his article in the “Media Bias” thread…

Point me to a post where I said conservative news outlets are NOT bias.  I have said all news outlets are bias. No one on this board needs to be convinced Fox or the NY Post is bias.... And I attached the link to the Bangor news in the original post 

[nic]

On 10/9/2022 at 11:24 AM, Ulty said:

 

Honest questions for you, @nic: Do you really see discussions about gender identity and transphobia as a censorship/cancel culture issue? Are you prepared and/or curious to have a nuanced dialogue about these issues? 

 

Because the issues raised in this article relate to the social and scientific dynamics of sex and gender, the role of these topics in an academic setting, the safety of students, and yes, academic freedom and censorship. There is a lot to unpack here, but to say "If you simply believe and state their are only two sexes watch out" and chalk it up to censorship is intellectually lazy and ignores what is really happening in this particular situation. It probably doesn't even belong in this thread. But if you really want to discuss, please say so.

What I think happened here was the professor was speaking about biological sex, perhaps in the context of a gender identity topic (two different things in my opinion) and students started debating biological sex as if it were genders. Because of the professors opinions, almost all of the students felt the professor was not qualified to teach the class and wanted her replaced with a new instructor. The student in question (who wasn't even there for the original discussion) brought it up again and then said she felt attacked or maybe unsafe. Why not just engage the professor and maybe you agree to disagree. I believe the university offered a new class for the students, but I have not followed up on it. Can the professor still state her views. I guess so. Are their repercussions for her future? Not yet other than losing 90% of her class. Is that censorship...probably not, but apparently the students will get to avoid her.

 

I wonder what the outcome would be if the roles were reversed and one student had disagreed with the majority of students and the professor. I wonder if the student would have felt attacked and been given the opportunity to switch classes. 

[nic]

20 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

Are you suggesting that you don't believe people get paid to speak at colleges...?

 

No. I was suggesting the University's doesn't make money off of the speaking engagements like a comedy club or Netflix would.....but maybe they do....

[Ulty]

15 minutes ago, nic said:

What I think happened here was the professor was speaking about biological sex,

Okay, here is where the problem begins. Is this a biology professor? No, this is an education professor, teaching a unit on "Creating a Positive Learning Environment." Classroom discussions can go in all sorts of different directions, but why is this professor talking about biology? It certainly is not part of her curriculum.

 

17 minutes ago, nic said:

perhaps in the context of a gender identity topic (two different things in my opinion)

Yes, sex and gender are two different things. Good.

 

18 minutes ago, nic said:

and students started debating biological sex as if it were genders.

Is that what they said? The article says: "The report states that a heated discussion began over gender identity, and only one student in the class agreed with the professor. Most others in the class stated that a spectrum exists for gender and biological sex." 

Where did they say biological sex was the same as gender? If they are arguing that a spectrum exists for gender, that is correct. If they are arguing that a spectrum exists for sex, that is also correct (even though it is certainly a very different spectrum). 

 

20 minutes ago, nic said:

Because of the professors opinions, almost all of the students felt the professor was not qualified to teach the class and wanted her replaced with a new instructor.

Well, we've got an education professor putting her foot in her mouth about biology. That's her own fault. If she didn't like where the conversation was going, she, as the leader of the classroom, and someone who actually is supposed to teach classroom management, had the responsibility to diffuse the conversation and move on with class. She f**ked up and lost control of the situation. "Creating a positive learning environment?" She failed miserably. 

 

23 minutes ago, nic said:

The student in question (who wasn't even there for the original discussion) brought it up again and then said she felt attacked or maybe unsafe.

Students do this sort of stuff all the time. Overreaction? Possibly. Didn't go in with all of the info since they weren't there? Probably.

 

24 minutes ago, nic said:

Why not just engage the professor and maybe you agree to disagree.

This is a fair question. Did the student engage in good faith, or immediately go on the attack? Either way, the professor has the responsibility to manage the situation and create a positive learning environment. It's literally her subject area.

 

25 minutes ago, nic said:

believe the university offered a new class for the students, but I have not followed up on it.

If that is the case, it is a reasonable attempt at a resolution by the university. Give the students options.

 

26 minutes ago, nic said:

Can the professor still state her views. I guess so. Are their repercussions for her future? Not yet other than losing 90% of her class. Is that censorship...probably not, but apparently the students will get to avoid her.

Of course the professor can state her views. But there are always consequences for our actions. Free speech and academic freedom do not mean that no one can challenge your views. The students have freedom of speech as well. The exchange of ideas, even if it did get heated, indicates that there is NOT censorship occurring in this case.

 

Should the professor be fired or disciplined? Well....probably not. Unless she veered so far outside of her lane by talking about biology in an education course and showed that she was not capable of effectively managing a classroom. But that would be for professional incompetence, not for protected speech. If it came to a head, the ensuing investigation or lawsuit or whatever would certainly try to split hairs on these topics. No one wants that. 

 

31 minutes ago, nic said:

I wonder what the outcome would be if the roles were reversed and one student had disagreed with the majority of students and the professor. I wonder if the student would have felt attacked and been given the opportunity to switch classes. 

I think this sort of thing happens all the time, actually. Students get in arguments, they overreact, they don't understand the nuances of free speech, they want things that cannot and should not happen (this person said something offensive, expel him!), and they end up disappointed when things don't go their way. But if a student is actually potentially subjected to harm of some kind, then the school would likely give them accommodations, which may include switching classes.