Hard pass. I‘ll read Butler / de Beauvoir and all that claptrap to understand how people became so misguided, but I will not stand for the easy way out, by just going along with Blaire White, Kellie-Jay or Steven Crowder either. We need more JK Rowlings. Stay fair, read, stay fact-based and debate politely, and we‘ll win.
Never but now even stem professionals with no interaction with people add humanitarian non-optional courses to their program. It was usually a single course and most of the students saw it as a filler course for which we didn't have to study for.
I took a gender studies course in 2006, there were mostly women and some men in it; it was ok, I feel like it was the last time anyone could normally talk about all gender and sex and culture related stuff while accepting other ppl's opinions and at least act like they are really there to learn something or have their minds opened.
Socialization shapes the extent to which our gender is expressed or suppressed, but it doesn’t dictate whether someone will be masculine or feminine, or whether she or he will be gender-conforming or gender-atypical. Whether a trait is deemed “masculine” or “feminine” is culturally defined, but whether a person gravitates toward traits that are considered masculine or feminine is driven by biology. For someone who is gender-nonconforming this is similarly influenced by biology, but the extent to which they will feel comfortable expressing their gender nonconformity (through, say, the way they dress or carry themselves) will be influenced by social factors, like parental upbringing and cultural messaging. Societal influence cannot, however, override biology. No matter how much parents or teachers or peers frown upon gender nonconformity (or gender conformity, for that matter), a person will gravitate toward the same interests and behaviors, but he or she may feel more inclined to hide that part of themselves. Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our interests and behavior. These differences are not due to the postnatal environment or societal messaging. .gendered interests are predicted by testosterone exposure in utero. Higher levels are associated with male-typical interests and behaviours, regardless of whether the baby is male or female. These include a preference for mechanically interesting objects and systemizing occupations in adulthood. ;Lower levels are associated with a preference for people orientated activities and occupations. stemming from evolutionary roots. Women. who are tasked with the role of bearing children, evolved to be more sociable, empathic, and people focused, while men, as hunter-gatherers, were rewarded for strong visuopatial skills and ability to build and use tools. That's why science, technology, engerneering and mathematics fields tend to be dominated by men. Biology, not society, dictates whether we are gender-typical or atypical, the extent to which we identify as the sex we were born as, and the partners we are sexually attracted to. When sperm fertilizes an egg at conception, the baby will be either female or male. This biology will influence hormonal exposure in the womb, as well as the child’s resulting gender identity. At about seven weeks, if the embryo is male, the testes will begin to secrete testosterone, masculinizing the brain. If the embryo is female, this process does not occur. This exposure to testosteron has a powerful effect on the ways in which male and female brains grow before the brain has finished developing in the utero. Testosterone exposure alters the programming of neural stem cells responsible for brain growth, leading to differences between the sexes. Gay men have similarities in the brain to heterosexual women(because of lower exposure to testosterone in the utero) that make them on average more female typical than the average heterosexual man. It the same with homosexual women they have similarities in the brain to heterosexual men and are more male typical than you average heterosexual woman. the organizational effects of hormones on the fetal brain prior to birth have permanent effects. Gender has transformed into a cultlike concept, and public knowledge has been overturned to reflect pleasantries that affirm the feelings and beliefs of particular groups. Scientific research is no longer about exploring new ground, but promoting ideas that make people happy and I think it does more damage in society than anything. Watching the pace of this science denialism spread-including claims that there is no such thing as being biologically male or female, or that “biological sex” isn’t a coherent concept has been astounding to me. In todays climate, gender has been branded as an ephemeral, intangible thing, something that can’t quite be described or explained beyond one’s personal experience and self-identification. Biological sex is now, worrisomely, following suit. denying biology will not help us live more productive, meaningful lives. Instead, hiding biological facts only sends us back to the Dark Ages, to stumble around, rediscovering what we already know. Activists wish to reinvent sex from an objective basis in reality. Adopting this position allows for science and logic, which currently serve as barriers to their unsupported theories, to be taken off the table when discussing gender. activists have decided what they want the outcome to be and are reverse-engineering facts to facilitate that purpose. many of those denying biology lack basic science literacy. My sense is that individuals supporting purely social constructionist explanations do so because they’ve had a bad experience with science. Perhaps they find it uninteresting or they can’t understand it, so they turn to other schools of thought. It also doesn’t help that most research publications are concealed from the public behind a pay wall. Even if they are accessible, they are filled with jargon that is difficult to comprehend. When science is seen as intimidating, it will be avoided. If it is simultaneously hidden, this compounds the problem because it becomes easier to ignore. You cannot know whether your perspective is correct without considering arguments against it. It’s become commonplace nowadays for progressives to refuse to engage with those with whom they disagree because it’s seen as legitimizing the enemy or a waste of time because they’ve already decided who’s right. Pejoratives like “biological essentialism” and “scientism” continue to be thrown around, paired with unwavering unwavering conviction in proclamations like “I don’t need to read that study because I already know what it’s going to say.” As a result, debates about controversial scientific findings backing biological explanations almost always consist of scientists who know what the research literature says, and activists who haven’t read a single study, denying them. There are two ways to live in the world: seeing it as it is, or seeing it as you want it to be. It’s one thing to be ignorant about an issue, and another to be confident in one’s ignorance. It’s the difference between taking a piece of information at face value, and taking the time to look up the primary source to see whether it’s true. Some prefer to live in ignorance because it’s comforting. And some of us prefer to live in reality, despite its greater cost. The truth can be suppressed, but it will always come out.
I took a bunch of women’s studies courses in the 90s, at the epicenter of these discussions - the sf Bay Area. The blank slate theory was definitely at play. The denial of all things biologically based was real. And men and society were definitely being blamed for all women’s oppression, including menstruation and women having to carry the burden of getting pregnant. But these things were all presented as theories. Theories that you needed to memorize and repeat back. But still theories all the same. Imagine my shock when these theories, some of which were clearly completely unfounded and very wild, were suddenly being talked about as fact 30 years later. I was saddened to find that these theories had escaped the university and had been widely disseminated by mainstream media. I wish I had not dismissed it all as easily disproved wacky college silliness.
I have two trans-women at my work. Neither of them is obviously trans, as in if I had to guess, I'd say they'd both probably identify as 'non-binary', but both are transwomen. However NEITHER of them has ever introduced themselves with their pronouns, drawn attention to their trans identity or made any kind of fuss. They are just there and do their job, and for that reason, everyone, even the conservative older people, has no problem referring to them as 'she/they', because it's a very easy and small thing to do to respect them. The queer activists are just making everything harder for the average trans person who just wants to get on with living their life.
Oh My Sweet Lanta, Paul and Jack. Both of my favorite podcasters (Jack the most) coming together, who would have thought this would happen? Not me but I'm happy it did.
This is exactly the core of what I want to do with my channel. Challenge the extreme far right and left. They are both counter productive. I guess that's the commonality on a lot of our channels I suppose. I am still often on the fence with some views. That's part of my goal is to openly discuss views and watch in real time as I become stable in my own beliefs and ethics. With comedy. Always some laughter with me. And love
Because? You have never read Foucault, but you have been told what to think about him, and you are obedient, and you will be a good little soldier. lmao
Queer theory's take on FGM is WILD! I studied anthropology back in the late 2000s and we were warned about the dangers of cultural relativity and excusing practices because they are cultural or traditional - sometimes you CAN definitively say that someone's cultural practice is wrong and should be stopped. You may understand why it's done in its context but that doesn't mean you condone it. I wonder if they still bring this up nowadays or if anthropology has become woke too...
I feel that's what people will say about medical transition in the future (at least for minors). Also, it applies to circumcision - just removing part of a baby's body for no reason!
I agree about infornmed consent for adults. However, there is a big caveat: what really is informed consent especially regarding mentally unstable adults, and the issue of medical ethics.
The sad part is, this COULD be an incredible interesting kind of studies. But you need to base it on reality, not just pre-defined ideology. A field that combines biology, evolutionary psychology and sociology to understand the differences and relations between the sexes sounds actually awesome.
The weirdest thing about this time, us it feels like people fell down a rabbit hole lots of us always knew was bollocks, but it caught hold, and now people are slowly exiting it because theyre suddenly coming to status quo logical conclusions that are 25 years old for the rest of us older peeps.
great video, so refreshing to see a calme mature discussion on this subjects. as a NB (transitioning for non sexsual reason btw), i do take issue with the "how can you not know how to explain your own identity" argument - can u explain what it means to be a man, or how can you be attracted to men?. can u do so in a few sentences if someone suddenly asks? i bet u can't. even though the language for describing your identity already exists for many years. and about the children, paul may have took gender studies, but he clearly doesn't know much about child development and their understanding of their own identity. i suggest you see what the medical literature has to say in the matter. over all it seems to me you're projecting your experience as gay on the Trans experience, witch is wrong.
Definition of the most simpliest Boundary "Fuck you I am not arguing this". Nodbody is also a pronoun. So if you call me Nobody in a sentance when you try to insult me you compliment everyone else.
I like how Paul simplifies and explains things. As someone who took a gender studies course (just once) and CRT, I agree that it was an incoherent system of logic. They always found a way to bring the "women = oppressed and men = opressors" narrative even to explain everything, including why men tend to fight in war (and hence die). It sends a very misogynistic message rhat women cant come out of that oppression no matter what they do. Aren't we passed that point now? Of course there are some problems ans inequalities but overall in the west, women have a lot of opportunity, accommodation, power, representation and much more. I don't even want to get to queer theory.
Dude, women in the US are losing rights pretty much daily thanks to the overturning of Roe. That is a completely stupid statement in the face of those facts. I also wouldn’t assume because you took one gender studies course that you understood it, and that they are all the same. CRT is a graduate-level concept that originated in law schools. I doubt you took a course in it.
@@manderly33first of all, aren't y'all about personal experience and perspective and everything? I don't completely agree with Roe v Wade overturning but it's not like people pushing you over and forcing you to just cook, give birth and be a property of your father, husband and later son. You can go out to the world, find work, opportunities and much more equality to your make counterparts compared to women from the 70s. You could argue that "well is it alright if government forces men to get vasectomy"- the government is not forcing y'all to get tubectomy or place an IUD- unfortunately the cost of pregnancy is pretty high for women so it's better to have safer and more planned sex. And since you took the liberty to make assumptions, you seem like the person who wants the government to babysit y'all and bully others with opposing views- guess what? The conservatives are fed up and now theyre paying back. Just like how you see fit to reply to me! Anyways, I hope you have great day! Toodles!
shocked that this person arrived at this conclusion. I definitely don't believe they went into it with any preconceived political ideology they wanted to defend. All I need to know is the motivations of those attacking gender studies courses, and it has nothing to do with compassion or any interest in knowledge of the human condition.
Is there any scenario for you in which they are criticising gender studies assertions because they are nonsense, or is it solely because the person criticising lacks empathy?
Would you take a gender studies course?
I would DESTROY a gender studies course, because I know what the actual course being taught is - Materialist Dialectics.
Hard pass. I‘ll read Butler / de Beauvoir and all that claptrap to understand how people became so misguided, but I will not stand for the easy way out, by just going along with Blaire White, Kellie-Jay or Steven Crowder either. We need more JK Rowlings. Stay fair, read, stay fact-based and debate politely, and we‘ll win.
Only if I wanted to be constantly pissed off.
I feel quite certain that I would not
Never but now even stem professionals with no interaction with people add humanitarian non-optional courses to their program. It was usually a single course and most of the students saw it as a filler course for which we didn't have to study for.
I took a gender studies course in 2006, there were mostly women and some men in it; it was ok, I feel like it was the last time anyone could normally talk about all gender and sex and culture related stuff while accepting other ppl's opinions and at least act like they are really there to learn something or have their minds opened.
Socialization shapes the extent to which our gender is expressed or suppressed, but it doesn’t dictate whether someone will be masculine or feminine, or whether she or he will be gender-conforming or gender-atypical. Whether a trait is deemed “masculine” or “feminine” is culturally defined, but whether a person gravitates toward traits that are considered masculine or feminine is driven by biology. For someone who is gender-nonconforming this is similarly influenced by biology, but the extent to which they will feel comfortable expressing their gender nonconformity (through, say, the way they dress or carry themselves) will be influenced by social factors, like parental upbringing and cultural messaging. Societal influence cannot, however, override biology. No matter how much parents or teachers or peers frown upon gender nonconformity (or gender conformity, for that matter), a person will gravitate toward the same interests and behaviors, but he or she may feel more inclined to hide that part of themselves.
Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our interests and behavior. These differences are not due to the postnatal environment or societal messaging. .gendered interests are predicted by testosterone exposure in utero. Higher levels are associated with male-typical interests and behaviours, regardless of whether the baby is male or female. These include a preference for mechanically interesting objects and systemizing occupations in adulthood. ;Lower levels are associated with a preference for people orientated activities and occupations. stemming from evolutionary roots. Women. who are tasked with the role of bearing children, evolved to be more sociable, empathic, and people focused, while men, as hunter-gatherers, were rewarded for strong visuopatial skills and ability to build and use tools. That's why science, technology, engerneering and mathematics fields tend to be dominated by men.
Biology, not society, dictates whether we are gender-typical or atypical, the extent to which we identify as the sex we were born as, and the partners we are sexually attracted to. When sperm fertilizes an egg at conception, the baby will be either female or male. This biology will influence hormonal exposure in the womb, as well as the child’s resulting gender identity. At about seven weeks, if the embryo is male, the testes will begin to secrete testosterone, masculinizing the brain. If the embryo is female, this process does not occur. This exposure to testosteron has a powerful effect on the ways in which male and female brains grow before the brain has finished developing in the utero. Testosterone exposure alters the programming of neural stem cells responsible for brain growth, leading to differences between the sexes. Gay men have similarities in the brain to heterosexual women(because of lower exposure to testosterone in the utero) that make them on average more female typical than the average heterosexual man. It the same with homosexual women they have similarities in the brain to heterosexual men and are more male typical than you average heterosexual woman. the organizational effects of hormones on the fetal brain prior to birth have permanent effects.
Gender has transformed into a cultlike concept, and public knowledge has been overturned to reflect pleasantries that affirm the feelings and beliefs of particular groups. Scientific research is no longer about exploring new ground, but promoting ideas that make people happy and I think it does more damage in society than anything. Watching the pace of this science denialism spread-including claims that there is no such thing as being biologically male or female, or that “biological sex” isn’t a coherent concept has been astounding to me. In todays climate, gender has been branded as an ephemeral, intangible thing, something that can’t quite be described or explained beyond one’s personal experience and self-identification. Biological sex is now, worrisomely, following suit. denying biology will not help us live more productive, meaningful lives. Instead, hiding biological facts only sends us back to the Dark Ages, to stumble around, rediscovering what we already know.
Activists wish to reinvent sex from an objective basis in reality. Adopting this position allows for science and logic, which currently serve as barriers to their unsupported theories, to be taken off the table when discussing gender. activists have decided what they want the outcome to be and are reverse-engineering facts to facilitate that purpose. many of those denying biology lack basic science literacy. My sense is that individuals supporting purely social constructionist explanations do so because they’ve had a bad experience with science. Perhaps they find it uninteresting or they can’t understand it, so they turn to other schools of thought. It also doesn’t help that most research publications are concealed from the public behind a pay wall. Even if they are accessible, they are filled with jargon that is difficult to comprehend. When science is seen as intimidating, it will be avoided. If it is simultaneously hidden, this compounds the problem because it becomes easier to ignore. You cannot know whether your perspective is correct without considering arguments against it.
It’s become commonplace nowadays for progressives to refuse to engage with those with whom they disagree because it’s seen as legitimizing the enemy or a waste of time because they’ve already decided who’s right. Pejoratives like “biological essentialism” and “scientism” continue to be thrown around, paired with unwavering unwavering conviction in proclamations like “I don’t need to read that study because I already know what it’s going to say.” As a result, debates about controversial scientific findings backing biological explanations almost always consist of scientists who know what the research literature says, and activists who haven’t read a single study, denying them. There are two ways to live in the world: seeing it as it is, or seeing it as you want it to be. It’s one thing to be ignorant about an issue, and another to be confident in one’s ignorance. It’s the difference between taking a piece of information at face value, and taking the time to look up the primary source to see whether it’s true. Some prefer to live in ignorance because it’s comforting. And some of us prefer to live in reality, despite its greater cost. The truth can be suppressed, but it will always come out.
I took a bunch of women’s studies courses in the 90s, at the epicenter of these discussions - the sf Bay Area. The blank slate theory was definitely at play. The denial of all things biologically based was real. And men and society were definitely being blamed for all women’s oppression, including menstruation and women having to carry the burden of getting pregnant. But these things were all presented as theories. Theories that you needed to memorize and repeat back. But still theories all the same. Imagine my shock when these theories, some of which were clearly completely unfounded and very wild, were suddenly being talked about as fact 30 years later. I was saddened to find that these theories had escaped the university and had been widely disseminated by mainstream media. I wish I had not dismissed it all as easily disproved wacky college silliness.
I have two trans-women at my work. Neither of them is obviously trans, as in if I had to guess, I'd say they'd both probably identify as 'non-binary', but both are transwomen. However NEITHER of them has ever introduced themselves with their pronouns, drawn attention to their trans identity or made any kind of fuss. They are just there and do their job, and for that reason, everyone, even the conservative older people, has no problem referring to them as 'she/they', because it's a very easy and small thing to do to respect them. The queer activists are just making everything harder for the average trans person who just wants to get on with living their life.
Pronouns are the thin edge of a dangerous wedge.
I've not seen a vid of yours before, this was genuinely interesting and you're rocking the Freddie Mercury vibe.
Very interesting! Paul is really charming, going to check what he does!
Oh My Sweet Lanta, Paul and Jack. Both of my favorite podcasters (Jack the most) coming together, who would have thought this would happen? Not me but I'm happy it did.
This is exactly the core of what I want to do with my channel. Challenge the extreme far right and left. They are both counter productive. I guess that's the commonality on a lot of our channels I suppose. I am still often on the fence with some views. That's part of my goal is to openly discuss views and watch in real time as I become stable in my own beliefs and ethics. With comedy. Always some laughter with me. And love
Michele Foucault… yep… that’s always a red flag for me when I hear someone who is very aligned philosophically with him.
American higher education screwed the pooch as soon as they translated his works into English.
@@Attmay He had some interesting insights into power relationships. Or did I miss the reference to bestiality (screwing the pooch)
Because? You have never read Foucault, but you have been told what to think about him, and you are obedient, and you will be a good little soldier. lmao
Queer theory's take on FGM is WILD! I studied anthropology back in the late 2000s and we were warned about the dangers of cultural relativity and excusing practices because they are cultural or traditional - sometimes you CAN definitively say that someone's cultural practice is wrong and should be stopped. You may understand why it's done in its context but that doesn't mean you condone it. I wonder if they still bring this up nowadays or if anthropology has become woke too...
I feel that's what people will say about medical transition in the future (at least for minors). Also, it applies to circumcision - just removing part of a baby's body for no reason!
@@JackxJewell definitely! We already ban FGM in most western countries so why not circumcision?
I agree about infornmed consent for adults. However, there is a big caveat: what really is informed consent especially regarding mentally unstable adults, and the issue of medical ethics.
The sad part is, this COULD be an incredible interesting kind of studies. But you need to base it on reality, not just pre-defined ideology.
A field that combines biology, evolutionary psychology and sociology to understand the differences and relations between the sexes sounds actually awesome.
The weirdest thing about this time, us it feels like people fell down a rabbit hole lots of us always knew was bollocks, but it caught hold, and now people are slowly exiting it because theyre suddenly coming to status quo logical conclusions that are 25 years old for the rest of us older peeps.
great video, so refreshing to see a calme mature discussion on this subjects. as a NB (transitioning for non sexsual reason btw), i do take issue with the "how can you not know how to explain your own identity" argument - can u explain what it means to be a man, or how can you be attracted to men?. can u do so in a few sentences if someone suddenly asks? i bet u can't. even though the language for describing your identity already exists for many years.
and about the children, paul may have took gender studies, but he clearly doesn't know much about child development and their understanding of their own identity. i suggest you see what the medical literature has to say in the matter.
over all it seems to me you're projecting your experience as gay on the Trans experience, witch is wrong.
So as a NB person, how can I tell you're NB based on the way you look?
Being an adult human male is what it means to be a man. That was easy.
1:09:09 Such great insights into the gay and trans experience thankyou 💗
Definition of the most simpliest Boundary "Fuck you I am not arguing this". Nodbody is also a pronoun. So if you call me Nobody in a sentance when you try to insult me you compliment everyone else.
38:45 It’s like watching ‘queer’ kids protesting for Palestine…
I like how Paul simplifies and explains things. As someone who took a gender studies course (just once) and CRT, I agree that it was an incoherent system of logic. They always found a way to bring the "women = oppressed and men = opressors" narrative even to explain everything, including why men tend to fight in war (and hence die). It sends a very misogynistic message rhat women cant come out of that oppression no matter what they do. Aren't we passed that point now? Of course there are some problems ans inequalities but overall in the west, women have a lot of opportunity, accommodation, power, representation and much more. I don't even want to get to queer theory.
Dude, women in the US are losing rights pretty much daily thanks to the overturning of Roe. That is a completely stupid statement in the face of those facts.
I also wouldn’t assume because you took one gender studies course that you understood it, and that they are all the same.
CRT is a graduate-level concept that originated in law schools. I doubt you took a course in it.
@@manderly33Where do rights come from, and why does it entail the right to abortion for women?
@@manderly33first of all, aren't y'all about personal experience and perspective and everything? I don't completely agree with Roe v Wade overturning but it's not like people pushing you over and forcing you to just cook, give birth and be a property of your father, husband and later son. You can go out to the world, find work, opportunities and much more equality to your make counterparts compared to women from the 70s.
You could argue that "well is it alright if government forces men to get vasectomy"- the government is not forcing y'all to get tubectomy or place an IUD- unfortunately the cost of pregnancy is pretty high for women so it's better to have safer and more planned sex.
And since you took the liberty to make assumptions, you seem like the person who wants the government to babysit y'all and bully others with opposing views- guess what? The conservatives are fed up and now theyre paying back. Just like how you see fit to reply to me!
Anyways, I hope you have great day! Toodles!
@@manderly33Would you have this same skepticism of their history of gender studies and CRT if they had a positive experience and limited criticism?
Hey Jack, great video! You look handsome as always, i hope you have a great day!
Buck Angel owes gay men an apology.
shocked that this person arrived at this conclusion. I definitely don't believe they went into it with any preconceived political ideology they wanted to defend. All I need to know is the motivations of those attacking gender studies courses, and it has nothing to do with compassion or any interest in knowledge of the human condition.
Is there any scenario for you in which they are criticising gender studies assertions because they are nonsense, or is it solely because the person criticising lacks empathy?