Utopia Talk / Politics / John McEnroe > seb

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Aug 12 06:02:45 In his understanding of the world. You know why? Because John McEnroe has a PhD in not being stupid and a masters in no fucks to give. 'Member a month ago when we had this google thing play out over Mens and Women tennis? I 'member. Even the realities of our physical bodies, the most obvious and apparent things that can be verified by watching 1 Olympiad or the current WC in athletics are now suffering the post-truth post modern post-structuralist approach. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDPK8ds1D-o
Seb Member	Sat Aug 12 18:44:54 What are you on about now you delusional cook?
Sam Adams Member	Sat Aug 12 23:32:43 Is seb still denying genetics are real?
werewolf dictator Member	Sun Aug 13 00:02:28 "women have less muscle and smaller brains" ~science
Seb Member	Sun Aug 13 13:53:23 Sam: You sound like a 13 year old "X-Men is plausible, because genetics! Are you denying genetics??" You are the idiot that on one hand dismisses psychology and sociology as "fuzzy studies" because their subjects are too messy to support rigorous conclusions, then does even more poorly thought out analysis on the same subject matter and declares is robust.
Wrath of Orion Member	Sun Aug 13 14:02:51 He was making a point, but exaggerating (as he normally does). She'd be higher than 700.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Aug 13 16:11:32 Seb you think that genes dont contribute to race or gender. You are a retard.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Aug 13 16:13:36 Im not sure he is exaggerating by much. They got smoked pretty bad by the ~200th ranked guy once, if i recall. Placing them at 700 could be accurate.
Wrath of Orion Member	Sun Aug 13 17:11:15 Well, let's start with the fact that there is a huge (ridiculously huge) difference between 203rd (Braasch in 1998 Aussie Open) and 700th. And he did beat both Williams sisters badly, but only in a single set each. A single set is a very bad measure of anything in tennis. In addition, the Williams sisters were very young then...16 or 17. In addition, Braasch was a notable doubles player at the time (top 40) and had pretty much left any serious attempts at his singles career behind. So the idea that he was "just" a 203rd ranked men's player at the time is a bit distorted.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Aug 13 18:18:14 Fair points.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 14 02:10:30 Sam: "Don't contribute to race and gender" -what do you even mean by that Sam? Do you even know anymore?
Seb Member	Mon Aug 14 02:12:21 "Behaviour is race, race is genes. Behaviour is genes". -Sam, drooling slightly, one eye twitching.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Aug 14 10:12:31 So seb, are there biological differences between races and genders?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 14 11:11:54 McEnroe has since revised it to 1000th place.
TJ Member	Mon Aug 14 12:55:27 You can not be serious! Even if he had rated her 100 against the male tour I believe it is safe to say that Williams would be an unknown in the field of tennis unless you were an ardent fan of the sport. Surely everyone understands why there is a tour for both. What he suggests should be done in this upside down world. Have just one tour.
Wrath of Orion Member	Mon Aug 14 16:48:15 "You can not be serious!" Nicely done.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Aug 16 13:13:56 Seb?
Seb Member	Wed Aug 16 14:22:23 Sam: So, are you saying that ALL differences between men and women are due to genetics? That's the only way your question can mean anything in context given how clear I've been in the past.
Aeros Member	Wed Aug 16 14:31:16 As someone who listens to NPR pretty regularily, I actually overheard the question that got him in trouble. (roughly paraphrasing) The reporter (female) asked him what he thought of Serena Williams He responded "I think she is the greatest female tennis player ever". Reporter responded: Why put that qualification in there? Response: What you mean...like, female tennis player? Reporter: Yes, don't you think that's unnecessary? Response: What, you mean, like, she's the greatest tennis player in the world? No...no, that's not true. If she played in the mens circuit she would be ranked like...700th or something.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Aug 16 15:39:25 "So, are you saying that ALL differences between men and women are due to genetics? " No. Now will you likewise admit that some are genetic.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Aug 17 10:52:33 Seb? Where are you seb?
Forwyn Member	Thu Aug 17 11:23:11 "Reporter responded: Why put that qualification in there?" So...reporter is a vapid cunt
werewolf dictator Member	Thu Aug 17 19:51:11 entire fake news mass media are vapid cunts who can't be trusted on sex or gender or other things http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSwJrQ3-1tQ
hood Member	Thu Aug 17 20:06:17 Seb has still actually weighed in on the topic.
hood Member	Thu Aug 17 21:56:36 hasn't*
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 18 04:13:03 Because seb has painted himself in a corner. On the one hand he has for years defended feminism (without knowing what it is - political/critical theory) and questioned everyone elses understanding of it (nazi conspiracy theories). He is so sure that he has repeatedly asked me "what do you think feminism means? Because people who have something against it usually have definied it as things it is not". So now that the theoretical underpinnings are slowly revealed to him (biology does not matter or is irrelevant) he is slowly realizing he is a vegetable in a pickle jar. What to do? Deny evolutionary biology or become a sexist alt right nazi? Seb. What is feminism and gender theory, have you found out?
jergul large member	Fri Aug 18 10:47:47 Feminism is the trend towards robots replacing all labour not revolving around social skills.
Nekran Member	Fri Aug 18 12:29:30 "So now that the theoretical underpinnings are slowly revealed to him (biology does not matter or is irrelevant)" Wtf are you on? Feminism doesn't say biology is irrelevant. It says biology shouldn't be the defining factor for determining what people can or can't aspire to be or how they should be treated by society. Thinking someone should be excluded from a profession (for example) because they have a vagina is just as retarded as thinking someone should get preferential treatment because they have a vagina. Which are stupid extremist positions on both sides.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 18 14:41:23 "It says biology shouldn't be the defining factor for determining what people can or can't aspire to be or how they should be treated by society." Citation needed. This is not what Judith Butler, Simone de Beauvoir, Yvonne Hirdman or any of the prominent gender theorist and feminist say or believe. At best they have divorces the cultural aspects of the sexes and call that "gender" and attempt to study (theorize) about it from subjective lived experiences. Yes the theory disregards biology, there is no room for biology in social science study, very few studies that factor it in.
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 18 15:15:59 "Thinking someone should be excluded from a profession" Serena Williams isn't. She dominates her field...of women. But apparently it's sexist to use that qualifier.
jergul large member	Fri Aug 18 15:35:37 Nimi Citations needed for that rather broad statement of yours. Original source only since you named them.
jergul large member	Fri Aug 18 16:04:31 http://ube...de-beauvoir-the-second-sex.pdf page 23-25 "Everyone agrees there are females in the human species; today, as in the past, they make up about half of humanity; and yet we are told that “femininity is in jeopardy”; we are urged, “Be women, stay women, become women.” So not every female human being is necessarily a woman; she must take part in this mysterious and endangered reality known as femininity. Is femininity secreted by the ovaries? Is it enshrined in a Platonic heaven? Is a frilly petticoat enough to bring it down to earth? Although some women zealously strive to embody it, the model has never been patented. It is typically described in vague and shimmering terms borrowed from a clairvoyant’s vocabulary. In Saint Thomas’s time it was an essence defined with as much certainty as the sedative quality of a poppy. But conceptualism has lost ground: biological and social sciences no longer believe there are immutably determined entities that define given characteristics like those of the woman, the Jew, or the black; science considers characteristics as secondary reactions to a situation. If there is no such thing today as femininity, it is because there never was. Does the word “woman,” then, have no content? It is what advocates of Enlightenment philosophy, rationalism, or nominalism vigorously assert: women are, among human beings, merely those who are arbitrarily designated by the word “woman”; American women in particular are inclined to think that woman as such no longer exists. If some backward individual still takes herself for a woman, her friends advise her to undergo psychoanalysis to get rid of this obsession. Referring to a book—a very irritating one at that—Modern Woman: The Lost Sex, Dorothy Parker wrote: “I cannot be fair about books that treat women as women. My idea is that all of us, men as well as women, whoever we are, should be considered as human beings.” But nominalism is a doctrine that falls a bit short; and it is easy for antifeminists to show that women are not men. Certainly woman like man is a human being; but such an assertion is abstract; the fact is that every concrete human being is always uniquely situated. To reject the notions of the eternal feminine, the black soul, or the Jewish character is not to deny that there are today Jews, blacks, or women: this denial is not a liberation for those concerned but an inauthentic flight. Clearly, no woman can claim without bad faith to be situated beyond her sex. A few years ago, a well-known woman writer refused to have her portrait appear in a series of photographs devoted specifically to women writers. She wanted to be included in the men’s category; but to get this privilege, she used her husband’s influence. Women who assert they are men still claim masculine consideration and respect. I also remember a young Trotskyite standing on a platform during a stormy meeting,about to come to blows in spite of her obvious fragility. She was denying her feminine frailty; but it was for the love of a militant man she wanted to be equal to. The defiant position that American women occupy proves they are haunted by the feeling of their own femininity. And the truth is that anyone can clearly see that humanity is split into two categories of individuals with manifestly different clothes, faces, bodies, smiles, movements, interests, and occupations; these differences are perhaps superficial; perhaps they are destined to disappear. What is certain is that for the moment they exist in astrikingly obvious way. If the female function is not enough to define woman, and if we also reject the explanation of the “eternal feminine,” but if we accept, even temporarily, that there are women on the earth, we then have toask: What is a woman?
Aeros Member	Fri Aug 18 16:34:23 "Serena Williams isn't. She dominates her field...of women. But apparently it's sexist to use that qualifier." Well, there is an easy solution to this problem. If they don't like the qualifier, make professional Tennis open to men and women. In the spirit of sportsmanship, standards for qualification in tournaments, and winning them, will remain the same. I am sure this will solve the problem nicely.
jergul large member	Fri Aug 18 17:13:15 Garcia-Navarro: We're talking about male players but there is of course wonderful female players. Let's talk about Serena Williams. You say she is the best female player in the world in the book. McEnroe: Best female player ever — no question. Garcia-Navarro: Some wouldn't qualify it, some would say she's the best player in the world. Why qualify it? McEnroe: Oh! Uh, she's not, you mean, the best player in the world, period? Garcia-Navarro: Yeah, the best tennis player in the world. You know, why say female player? McEnroe: Well because if she was in, if she played the men's circuit she'd be like 700 in the world. Garcia-Navarro: You think so? McEnroe: Yeah. That doesn't mean I don't think Serena is an incredible player. I do, but the reality of what would happen would be I think something that perhaps it'd be a little higher, perhaps it'd be a little lower. And on a given day, Serena could beat some players. I believe because she's so incredibly strong mentally that she could overcome some situations where players would choke 'cause she's been in it so many times, so many situations at Wimbledon, The U.S. Open, etc. But if she had to just play the circuit — the men's circuit — that would be an entirely different story. Garcia-Navarro: Many people over the years, including, we should mention Donald Trump, the President, wanted you to play her, and you seemed to have at least thought about it. McEnroe: Well I've thought about it. I didn't really want to do it, personally. I don't know, people always seemed — I would say why don't they go ask Roger Federer? Or someone, you know they added the old fart that's you know 25 years over the hill. And I think I can still play and I think I could still — I mean my kids don't think I can beat her anymore. Maybe I should get her now because she's pregnant, but the truth is that I think that sometimes —I don't know why in tennis, I get it's that one battle of the sexes when Bobby Riggs played Billie Jean. Garcia-Navarro: Billie Jean one of the most famous, iconic and most watched, I think tennis matches at the time. McEnroe: Yeah, it was no question. I think there was the most, the biggest attendance at the Houston Astrodome, and it was great that Billie Jean did that but...OK, but that doesn't mean, talk about other sports. If you go look at the times, for example, of the world's fastest females — and you know maybe it will change! You know my daughter, one the things she says is 'You're a feminist, Dad.' OK. I started with two boys, I got four girls now and I'm all for it and I'm trying to just get with it and figure it out. Garcia-Navarro: So, you're a feminist. McEnroe: Maybe at some point a women's tennis player can be better than anybody. I just haven't seen it in any other sport, and I haven't seen it in tennis. I suppose anything's possible at some stage. Garcia-Navarro: You really think at 60, you could possibly beat Serena Williams? Maybe pregnant. McEnroe: The way you put that makes me think that you have your doubts. Garcia-Navarro: Far be it from me to question you Mr. McEnroe. McEnroe: Well, you know, my kids do, so feel free to. But there's people that because of course as you get older — I'm not sure how athletic you are and how often you get out in whatever sport it is, but I have kept at it regularly. I've done it sort of doing this playing some other guys close to my age even though they keep getting younger and younger. Obviously, if I was going to do something like that, I would train very seriously for that to make sure my body was at, like, the peak it could be. Absolutely — to try and be as ready as I possibly could, but I bring things to the table, certainly until recently. I may be way past it, but I can still bring a few things to the table and so that's why I guess people still find it interesting to even talk about.
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 18 17:30:16 Hard to say she's the best tennis player in the world if there are several hundred at any given time who can beat her, even at her peak, not pregnant. Rather sexist to say so, just because she dominated half of the players.
Nekran Member	Sat Aug 19 02:49:14 For clarity, I'm on McEnroe's side on this one. Serena is an exceptional athlete, but as McEnroe says, she wouldn't be relevant at all in the men's circuit. That's just a statement of fact and has nothing to do with feminism in my opinion.
jergul large member	Sat Aug 19 02:51:36 I think the trascript shows the journalist was merely asking McEnroe to justify his use of a qualifier. Which he did and the journalist moved on.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Aug 19 05:33:51 Grats Jergul you have cited patient zero. The one who divorced gender (culture) from sex (biology).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Aug 19 05:41:10 The very same text that Judith Butler cites to expand on the idea that gender is "performative". Please keep citing, you are doing a wonderful job.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Aug 19 05:58:31 Butler goes even further, she says both sex and gender are socially constructed. Interestingly but not relevant to this topic, Butler views groups like Hamas and and Hezbollah as part of the global leftwing movement, that she is part of. She is clear that this should not stop one from criticizing them for other things. What do you make of that? Well first, what to not make of it. She is not inviting Islamism and Sharia, but the fact that she thinks she is part of the same movement as Islamists is similiar to what Foucault had to say about the revolution in Iran. It is summed up in sebs (and your) understanding of Islamic culture, nill. It manifests among other things in the inability to tell friend from foe.
jergul large member	Sat Aug 19 06:48:01 Nimi The distinction between nature and nuture predates Simone and is core to understanding evolutionary processes. I was struck by how much smarter Simone is than you are. The things I forget, though "The Mandarins" was more my favourite of her writings. You should read it for fuel in you seb jihad.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Aug 19 07:46:35 It is not a distinction in the case of gender theory, it is elimination. No nature no evolution, no environment no slection, no nothing. Purists on either side do not understand evolution, but find me the biologist who are purists and you have found the exceptions. The reverse is true for gender studies and the field of sociology in general.
jergul large member	Sat Aug 19 08:16:47 Not according to Simone. The quote I chose to provide fully discredits those not drawing the distinction (she seems to link them to Freudian theories of human understanding). Frankly, I think you are engaging in a strawman debate: "But nominalism is a doctrine that falls a bit short; and it is easy for antifeminists to show that women are not men." Perhaps because it is easy for you to show that women are not men.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Aug 19 08:41:37 Her distinguishing was to suppose that the cultural aspects of being male and female are arbitrary and have no basis in the biology of sex. One is not born a woman but made. This is what Butler then quotes yada yada yada. So your personal understanding of what she is saying is not relevant to me, but the consesus in the field and more importantly the fruits of the field, the actual studies.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Aug 19 08:53:44 Neither are any "pop-culture" definitions of feminism. The only relevant defition to me is the one made in academia and more importantly the one the Swedish government makes, they happen to cite academia and the people I have named. "Människor föds inte som kvinnor eller män; de blir det" Is depending on the specifics, a gross simplification of reality and pseudoscience or just demonstrably false.
jergul large member	Sat Aug 19 09:03:02 Or we could use the text I provided: "And the truth is that anyone can clearly see that humanity is split into two categories of individuals with manifestly different clothes, faces, bodies, smiles, movements, interests, and occupations; these differences are perhaps superficial; perhaps they are destined to disappear. What is certain is that for the moment they exist in astrikingly obvious way." "The Second Sex" whole point is that the cultural aspects are far from arbitrary. One is born with a sex and gender as a cultural construct is superimposed. The sum of both give the abstract we call "woman". Nature+nurture buddy. Your anti-feminist stance is a strawman argument in the case of Simone. These tradesmen educations :).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Aug 19 09:46:48 Which is still false so good luck with that.
jergul large member	Sat Aug 19 10:14:32 Nimi Not how it works bro. I presented a reasoned argument using a primary source. You presented words. Trademen degrees. ROFL.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Aug 20 19:30:53 Seb? Your answer? Is genetics at least partly responsible for stuff?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Aug 29 14:13:38 Wife went into to labor, all is good now. The sections you cite are sorta like me adding "with all due respect" before calling your sister a whore, completely meaningless. Yes all these things are obvious and relevant, now let's never look at them again! Of the three names she is the least extreme, she was a second wave and somewhere in that wave feminism went batshit. That your reading differs from those of contemporary and influential feminists is interesting, but not something I am going to debate you on and ultimately unimportant to what I am saying.
Seb Member	Tue Aug 29 14:20:11 Oh, we're still doing this one are we? Genetics is reponsible for some things. But it does not follow that these things are heritable (has a different technical meaning than what you think it is), nor does that mean that a trait can be isolated to a racial group. For example, the reason why you have to cite twin studies to isolate the genetic component of intelligence is precisely because there is little relationship between parent and child (which is the basis of race). Intelligence being controlled by over 500 known genes so far with each having a small degree of influence, and their interactions and expression (the later being at least partly environmental) being a key issue too. Simple genetic shuffling by sexual reproduction means you end up with more variation in those genes overall expression than between groups, rendering attempts to argue that anything trait a genetic influence must therefore imply a racial correlation too not only wrong, but naively so. You have to basically have no understanding of genetics at all to even suggest it. Happy now?
Sam Adams Member	Tue Aug 29 14:40:32 "nor does that mean that a trait can be isolated to a racial group." Rofl idiot. Why do black people have kids with black skin? Magic?
jergul large member	Tue Aug 29 15:19:50 Nimi More words I see. Yawn, how uninteresting. Sammy What trait in particular where you looking for in the skin example? Lighter skin is almost certainly a mutation made popular (in an evolutionary sense) for improving vitamin-D creation. The mutation came with a cost of course. Most mutations do.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Aug 29 15:31:25 "What trait in particular where you looking for in the skin example?" Skin color itself. Duh. Is skin color a genetic trait specific to certain groups of people?
Seb Member	Tue Aug 29 15:40:06 Sam: I think you may be confused about what "does not follow" means. But as you've shorn the clause from the parent, to preserve the meaning, insert "always" after "can". The fact a trait is genetically controlled does not mean it can be isolated to a racial group. Other things must also be true. E.g. I'm pretty sure pentadactyl limb pattern is genetically controlled. Pretty sure that's not correlated to racial groups. In so far as races are defined genetically (which by and large they aren't). Simply saying genes are involved in a trait doesn't automatically imply that it's racially distinct. Yet that is the sum total of your argument: "if genes are involved, must be racially differentiated, common sense init".
Sam Adams Member	Tue Aug 29 15:47:35 Some traits can be racially differentiated. This is fact. You screaming otherwise does not change this fact. Sebs all like "there can be no genetic ratial traits at all because that would offend me!!!"
Seb Member	Tue Aug 29 16:20:52 Some traits are. That doesn't mean you get to asset whichever ones you like without evidence Sam. I pointed out why intelligence doesn't correlate with race from a genetic perspective, and you got butt hurt at being shown up for the ignoramus you are, and started arguing that this was tantamount to disbelieving in genetics period. Who do you think your kidding? All that shows is you don't really know how genetics works, and have a very thin skin. No participation trophy for you snowflake.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Aug 29 18:26:29 "Some traits are." Glad you admit that i am right, although that is a change from what you said a few posts ago. "I pointed out why intelligence doesn't correlate with race from a genetic perspective" You mostly babbled idiocy about not understanding averages and statistics, while ignoring any evidence that might offend you. Now there is indeed some evidence for intelligence based on race. IQ, achieventment and ability gaps are correlated with race even when controlled for external factors. A bit loose, but with some merit. Much more damning for seb is brain mass and encephalization differences, which have been noted in studies. These kinds of studies are frowned upon for offending people, so they are not done enough to be completely certain but there are very likely genetic intelligence keys more prevelent in some human subgroups than others.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Aug 30 12:03:41 Many things have changed with sebs position. In the other thread he is now telling us that the central claim he has made about gender and sex being distinct, he has now realized it is wrong to view it as software/hardware. Glad you are making progress seb. There is a Stephen Pinker article on this oversimplification of behavior that you are just now realizing is wrong, maybe you can google it :) Like I told you 2 years ago. Better late than never.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Aug 30 12:15:02 The tricky thing with biological factors in behavior is that they are not very obvious, they are regularly confounded with other factors in studies. And who explains their own behavior or understands it with biology, save a few biologists trying to be funny? Many of you here have children. How many of you decided to have children because your biology told you so? None of you is my guess. Like me and the majority you probably contextualize it culturally and may not even be able to explain coherently why. I want to raise a person, I love children, god, my parents want grand kids, I don’t want to die alone etc. etc. Many different seemingly ”unique” reasons for why people make certain choices that we know are fundamentally driven by biology. Having access to books have long been associated with better school performance, the idea is that an intellectually stimulating environment will produce smarter children. Does it? Or is IQ's strong heritability confused with the natural inclination of educated and smart people to have more books in their house? There are many topics and recent studies like this in epidemiology and criminology that are interesting intellectually, but also important as they provide answer we are often missing, because we rarely look for biological explanations. People are so blinded by horror citing eugenics and turn of the century ideas of racial purity. Which btw genetically speaking, racial purity is absolutely horrible. While there is a genetic basis for ”race” the borders are very fuzzy. Race is best understood as an extended family with lots of inbreeding, and you should have as little inbreeding as possible. So as far as biology is concerned "racial purity" is a shit idea and you should have as many mongrel babies as possible.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 30 14:22:19 Sam: No, your not right Sam, because you only ever raised the question as a response to me refuting your claims that there was a racial basis for intelligence, suggesting that to refute this suggested there tantamount to denying genes affect traits. That would only be correct if hereditary traits, racial traits and genetic traits are all the same thing, which they aren't.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 30 14:26:35 ", achieventment and ability gaps are correlated with race even when controlled for external factors." Untrue. For a start there's no consensus that we can actually measure intelligence between culturally different groups. As for controlling for external factors, again, there's nothing out there that's generally considered to have done so unambiguously. "is brain mass" Which is an incredibly poor proxy for intelligence - see you are already having to rely on dodgy proxies because the evidence just doesn't stack up. You'll be getting the calipers out and measuring caranial shapes. Complaining that the evidence is easily dismissed can't be explained away by merely labelling all criticism as due to people taking offense Sam.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 30 14:29:07 Nim: Nothings changed except your growing understanding of my position. I never likened the distinction between gender and sex as hardware and software. Rejecting that analogy does not however make gender the same thing as sex, which is what you appear to be arguing when you say "gender theory is unscientific".
Seb Member	Wed Aug 30 14:38:59 When you say biology, you've always consistently used that in a way to imply innate. The point about brain structure reconfiguring itself in response to environmental factors - including how one learns to behave - is that brain structure *is* biology. So this is an example of social behaviour determining biology, not the other way around. The only way you can truly think that social effects are entirely separate from biology is to become a dualist. Assuming you are not a complete idiot abs believe be in dualism, what this point actually demonstrates is that simply saying biology causes behaviour is pretty meaningless. What could it be other than biology? But the implication in the way you use these statements in context of the line you are arguing is that you think biology is innate. So, showing for example, brain scans that women and men's brain structures differ doesn't actually prove men and women are innately different. It could equally be explained by men and women's brains developing differently due to different environmental factors such as the tasks they perform within society. Something you overlook because you assume incorrectly that brain structure must be hard coded.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Aug 30 15:01:53 You don't need to make it, by definition of the words gender (culture) things you learn is software and sex (biology) that which you are born with is hardware. I rejected this 2 years ago when you first mentioned it. The term "gender" is completely meaningless to me and only serves to misrepresent how things actually are. Complicated, beyond simply genes and environment. That is why good behavioral research is hard. Gender theory is wrong for many reasons, one of them precisely that. The extraction (a fitting word) of gender from sex. It gave rise to the type of social theorists who think they can study one of them separately and provide us with meaningful insights into human behavior. Any student of biology can tell you this is not even wrong. But funny you would blame computer geeks for this, who while living in a one zero world are not as autistic as you and WTB think they are, (Damore is a biology student btw). The gender studies separation of gender and sex is an ideological necessity so that biologically illiterate left-wingers can get ”PhDs” produce nonsense in the humanities departments. Nonsense that trickles into companies and government institutions via "diversity consultants" and mandatory course in gender theory or "sensitivity training". All great concepts, but complete bullshit once you scratch the surface. Once people like you get over your fear of biology, maybe we can do better. And my understanding of your "position" is growing because your understanding is actually growing. Good for you.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Aug 30 15:08:07 "For a start there's no consensus that we can actually measure intelligence between culturally different groups. " After a brief moment of clarity, seb is back to full retardation. "You cant measure intelligence". Rofl. The old crutch of arts majors, unemployed people, and social justice warriors everywhere. " Which is an incredibly poor proxy for intelligence" Actually its decent. encephalization ratio is better though. Now you might be able to argue against any one of these data points by themselves, but in combination the data is pretty meaningful.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Aug 30 15:12:23 Yet again, you are fighting your strawmen. "You have ALWAYS (classic seb) said this" rant of what seb >thinks< I have said, instead of "what do you mean by this... quote". Call me when you are an adult.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Aug 30 15:17:10 "For a start there's no consensus that we can actually measure intelligence between culturally different groups." This is easy to find out. What is the average IQ of African-Americans and what is the average IQ of subsaharan Africans. The answer is, seb is wrong.
Paramount Member	Wed Aug 30 15:26:26 "The answer is, seb is wrong." Soon Nimatzo is going to leave links to a couple of independent scientific researches which proves that he is right and not pulling things from ass.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 30 16:59:32 Nim: Thats the point though - biology doesn't mean "what you are born with". Your brain structure is definitely biology, but it's strongly influenced by environmental factors after birth (which is kind of the point). So when you say "sex is biology", it's kind of meaninglessly vague as ultimately everything (including social norms) can be said to be biology. Further, you have in the past cited directly and indirectly studies based on MRI studies of brain function to show that men and women's brains respond differently. The implicit assumption is that this different response must be something men and women are born with - i.e. direct consequence of sex. But the fact that we can show this to be in part a consequence of different experiences indicates it could well be a consequence of, not a cause of, societal roles. You really need to stop using the term biology because you seem to be erroneously treating biology as "something you are born with" rather than just what people are - which can be heritable and adaptive to the environment. No student of biology could honestly say biology disproves gender. Damore was briefly a systems biology student - I posted a thorough academic debunking of it by a PhD student in a more relevant field which you should read.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 30 17:07:41 Nim: There's loads of evidence that language can shape cognitive processes. How do you control for that between those groups? Sub Saharan African isn't a meaningful genetic clustering either. Just because they all have black skin pigment doesn't mean everything else is correlated. Sam: No it's not. And encephalisation ratio is measured for species, comparing species, not within species. Got a study done on humans showing correlation?
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: