π§π·
We've all heard the phrase "gender is a social construct and is different from s*x".
How the frick did this pile of garbage become so commonplace?
What the frick does it mean to be "agender"? and how is that different from "non-binary"? isn't it an oxymoron to call yourself non-binary?
How is the world so r-slurred?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Step 1: The Ts rise to prominence alongside the LGBs because they share the same weird fetish spaces.
Step 1.5 (of arguable importance): The LGBs get their big win with gay marriage. All the normal people leave the massive activist organizations built for this cause because they got there's and are done. Now these organizations with massive cache need an issue and are staffed by only the most radical remaining r-slurs (who are overwhelmingly Ts and the most neurotic of LGBs).
Step 2: Now politically empowered, the pet academics of the Ts can make their niche theories "settled science" in the social sciences and nobody can do anything because of cultural/political pressure and the very real threat of being job-mobbed. Once the dominant organizations change their stances or becoming politically subverted (ie. the DSM changes how they describe gender identity disorder, a medical regulator changes acceptable treatment protocols) professionals are breaking their legal obligation to provide care that uses best practices if they do anything else.
Step 3: R-slurs on the internet and mentally ill people at college either genuinely believe these niche theories or just play them for attention. The logical outgrowths of these theories if you accept their premises as true are weird non-binary bullshit and a potentially infinite spectrum of gender identities.
Normies don't care and just outsource their thinking to entertainment, "professionals", and talking heads, all of whom are typically downstream from academics. Academics are cowards who are slaves to political pressure so they can say some really r-slurred shit at the best of times, and with gender and mental health more broadly the current dominant approach is to put huge weight on the "lived experiences" and "personal truths" of the mentally ill people that are being studied, so the academics are coming to profoundly r-slurred conclusions.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Some people are able to display their intelligence by going on at length on a subject and never actually saying anything. This ability is most common in trades such as politics, public relations, and law. You have impressed me by being able to best them all, while still coming off as an absolute idiot.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Centering the perspectives of people who think differently is extremely educational, you just can't assume it'll be valuable to you specifically, at face value.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Mental health research is impossible to do well and nobody gets it right so nobody knows how to do it correctly. When they notice it isn't working they look at some part of what their predecessors did, decide that was the problem, and try to change it. Centring "lived experience" is a research fad born of modern researchers rejecting the cold detached clinical attitudes of prior researchers. Those cold detached researchers were themselves running from the squishy humanism and r-slurred subjectivity of their psychoanalytic and humanistic forbearers.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I actually agree at the college+ level but I wonder
if different perspectives will be welcomed now that this is the majority view in the humanities/soft sciences
@Corinthian love sucking peepee
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context