Utah teacher no longer employed after TikTok about 'queer' students receives backlash

1. Biology is a soft science because...
2. Biology says DNA is not what a person is exclusively because of the whole nature v nurture argument. People have characteristics that are the results of one's environment. A person might have genes for higher muscle density but without access to nutritional food will most likely never be defined by higher muscle density.
3. Speaking of which, no they can't because they can only tell what skin color someone had, not their race because race is nurtured, not a part of nature.

 

Define politics because anything a teacher says is a political statement, and will always be a political statement.

You want me to explain one of the reasons why we have public education in the first place? I'll say yes to that just because it'll be easier for you I think.

 

A quote from your article. I included more to leave biases out.

as per the highlighted this is not conclusive evidence. They haven’t even studied the brain developments during puberty. But… and this is a big but… if they do determine that there is physical developments in the brain that are distinct to transgenders, I will gladly admit that I have been wrong all this time. However, this study does not produce that evidence as the Dr clearly admits.

Until then this just leaves more questions than answers

 

I mean if you’re asking for more proof, I will first ask you what is your standard of proof here? I’m willing to meet that standard if it’s reasonable.

 

ANY indication that one politic is favoured or of greater import. ANY discussion of politics in any context other than 'comparative'. IE the study of politics in general. More than that and it becomes indoctrination. I'll ask you again .. would you be happy for your kids to receive political indoctrination?

 

Comparative politics is only one part of political science. And even then, “time to do the work” is a political statement any teacher would and should know.

 

Biology is a "soft" science..... LOL.
That's actual real science.

An example of a soft pseudoscience.... Would be anything that says your gender is determined by what you feel in your brain.

I suggest you go and get more familiar with basic biology.

 

A peer reviewed study that shows that all transgenders have distinct brain qualities that differ from cis. As in all… and that no cis individual has been observed to have the same traits.

 

I am. Trans people have to be in order to argue against people who don't know what the difference between mitosis and meiosis is. I mean, talk about Theseus' ship when it comes to cancer. Understanding the difference between phenotype and genotype leads me to a bioethical viewpoint where I dismiss the idea that we need CRISPR to edit genes. Rather we need to stop the expression of the gene in the first place. I think it's a difficult position to defend, but I will stand by it as a kind of defense against those who preach we need to edit genes, because such eugenical thinking is dangerous. And I ask this question sincerely, did you understand what I said? Like do you know what CRISPR is, what it can do, and how it revolutionized genetic engineering?

Why is that your standard? Before I criticize what you're asking for, I want to know why that is your standard in the first place.

 

Kids don't need 'political science'. They need to know what politics is and how our democracies work, and more importantly - encouraged to seek their own path in terms of how they'll vote.

Perhaps introducing them to the far more liberal attitudes of the late 20thC, would be useful in demonstrating the importance of tolerance and open-mindedness in politics. Because that ultimately matters more than the flavour du jour. Just keep the conversation as far away as possible from the details of the flavours. This part is not your concern - and cannot be taught in any case, because it's ever in flux.

 

Which is political science.

Yeah sure... Fukuyama's argument on the end of nationalism. That's a great argument right there. But if you're asking for kids to know about the 1990's? I hate to say it but when I was in High School, we covered the 1990's. Clinton really did end up screwing things over pretty bad for us in the long term. Bush just ended up ignoring the issues at home and cementing the problems we face today.

 

Stop being an apologist for groomers!

 

There's enough red flags in your posts that I wouldn't want you around my children, and certainly not unsupervised.

 

So leave it there. Go not a step further in any direction away from the hard science, and towards ideology.

I said introduce modern kids to the much more liberal and open-minded attitude to politics of the late 20thC. How you managed to get to the actual politics of the day from that, is known only to you. It seems you can't discuss politics without discussing it from an ideological perspective.

 

What does it "mean" to be a girl in your mind? I'm having difficulty imagining an answer that's not laden with sexism, but I'm curious what you might have to offer.

 

Hey he asked a question and I answered with your own words. Any double standards here are your own. Sorry.

 

I suppose you think throwing several $5 words around make your argument sound more valid?

A zebra does not change its stripes and an oak tree does not turn into a pine tree and that's basic biology.

There is no amount of even $6 words you can throw around that will change that.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with b******* right?

 

What red flags? My definition of politics, which is informed by the fact I have spent almost my entire life dedicated to studying politics? My ideas around biology? Which are informed by me studying biology? Me wearing a trans bracelet? Listen to yourself. It's this kind of irrational thinking that makes me wear the bracelet and say I am a proud trans woman.

Unless of course it's liberalism. Which is just common sense and not an ideology.

Yeah you can, you just discuss it from a discursive level. Like Habermas or Fraser. Who are two political theorists from the late 20th century.

 

How anyone can claim that they can determine if a family enjoys sex by looking at a family photo....

Jesus wept...

 

Don't have to like it, but cishet people here have double standards when it comes to showing kids sex.

 

The game isn't "assuming" that. The game producer has shitloads of marketing research telling him that his audience is overwhelmingly male and younger, and young men generally like to look at scantily-clad women. There are other industries that cater to the needs / wants of the elderly, or women, or children or various racial subgroups.

 

You're moving the goalposts to another planet. All he asked is if having a picture brings up sexual curiosity. You stated yes. I quoted you saying so. Stop complaining. They're your own words.

 

These are not $5 words. They are basic biological concepts. That cells divide into new cells, which is a kind of asexual reproduction. Or that cells create DNA, which when done incorrectly can lead to cancer. CRISPR invalidates anyone's argument that "genes make gender", because now we can edit one's DNA. What one was conceived with, can be edited. Had you known these basic concepts, you would not say something like "A zebra does not change its stripes". Because you can block the gene that makes stripes, you can edit something to grow something incredibly different. I have seen glowing rabbits because there genes were coded to glow. Heck, we know we can graf branches of different trees onto other trees and they will grow.

You have now brought up anthropology and biology. Which I have refuted, I think to a confident level. I've shown you don't know those fields, and I'm not a biologist or anthropologist. So when you go ahead and say "science disproves trans people" the only conclusion I can come to is, you really don't know anything about these fields. And that saddens me, because it shows how desperate people are to justify their bigotry. I wish it was different. I really do. But the thing is, I don't think you know as much about these sciences as you profess.

 

If someone dresses up as a woman, take a straight guy to bed, and gives him a pickle surprise, they'll probably end up getting the **** beat out of them more often than not. And if they tell him about their pickle surprise before the date, that's going to be a non-starter for the vast majority of straight men.

 

Right. Exactly. So they have to create the idea of who is going to buy their game, and what will attract them. This in turn helps to legititmize what it means to be whatever group they're targetting. AKA, the concept of gender in this case is being created, produced, and in turn reproduced.

My post doesn't say anything about sexual curiosity. All I have done is say, if it's biologically the teachers, then it means the teacher had sex. And is showcasing that. Which is a true statement.