Political Correctness

[Julio3000]

We both know the answer and we both know you won't admit it

Per LA Times:

"The Boy Scouts boast of membership of 2.3 million "youth members" — no longer just boys — but figures from its annual reports indicate that it has shrunk by about 300,000 members since 2012. There have also been reports of Scout councils having to sell their campgrounds."

Grow or die.

As an aside, this has to be the whiniest thread ever created on these forums.

 

[Julio3000]

Tell me Julio, is UT treating masculinity as a mental illness as a pragmatic shift in the interest of self preservation?

Hmmm, that sounds like more predictable bull**** to shovel onto the pile of ginned-up outrage and victimization narratives in this thread.

[googles it]

Yep.

 

[sturg33]

Not sure what's whining about just posting news stories.

Funny you read it that way, though.

The left has built quite the culture.

Hopefully we can teach little ones that masculinity is a mental health issue and transgenderism is totally normal and encouraged

 

[Julio3000]

Not sure what's whining about just posting news stories.

Funny you read it that way, though.

The left has built quite the culture.

Hopefully we can teach little ones that masculinity is a mental health issue and transgenderism is totally normal and encouraged

It reads like whining to me. Particularly since you'll post some skewed take on a "news" article then ghost out instead of discussing the facts, rather than the spin. It's way more important to keep up the facade of victimization.

Do please show me where that UT program was teaching that masculinity was a mental health issue.

How about some concrete evidence of your Boy Scout hypothesis?

How about sticking up for your gay conversion therapy position?

 

[sturg33]

Do please show me where that UT program was teaching that masculinity was a mental health issue.

Looks like they are in damage control after the initial headline... good for them - but still totally ridiuclous to make a program like this... from their statement:

"The MasculinUT program does not treat masculinity as a 'mental health issue,' and any such statements are simply not accurate," program officials wrote in clarification. "It was established to bring more men to the table to address interpersonal violence, sexual assault and other issues."

Like other UT programs related to sexual assault and interpersonal violence, MasculinUT is housed administratively in the university's Counseling and Mental Health Center, officials continued in their letter. "Its goals include helping men explore ways to reduce sexual violence, helping students take responsibility for their actions, and fostering healthier relationships on campus and beyond."


But yoiu know what I love about the new intellectually dishonest Julio... you jump on things like this, and pound your chest as if you've "gotten me"... but interestingly, you were silent on a mouse from this, posted early in the thread:

Duke recruits men for program to fight 'toxic' masculinity
Duke University is recruiting male students for a nine-week program that pledges to “destabilize masculine privilege” and “interrogate masculinity.”

The program, known as the Duke University Men’s Project, seeks to help men examine how their masculinities exist “often in toxic ways” while beginning “the work of unlearning violence.”
........
Over the course of the nine-week program, men will participate in weekly discussion groups conducted through an “intersectional feminist lens,” with the hope of helping male students learn an “intersectional understanding of masculinity” and creating “spaces to destabilize masculine privilege.”

Organizers warn that the program isn’t for the faint of heart, explaining that the discussion groups will make men feel “vulnerable” and “will be challenging,” and should thus be “taken seriously.”

Notably, the application for the program, which closes Wednesday, asks students to describe how “privilege...operates to create inequality on Duke’s campus” and list their preferred gender.

Where were you then? Are you OK with all this? I assume yes, because being honest about it would admit to the fact that the SJW society has gotten too much traction in our education system

You never commented on this one

[TW]989302035970314240[/TW]

How about some concrete evidence of your Boy Scout hypothesis?

My hypothesis is that it's a joke that we can't acknowledge scientific anatomical differences between the sexes, because the SJW doesn't allow it. Because acknowledging that boys exist is just too much to handle for our kids... instead, we need this:

Let's get these kiddos questioning these things as early as possible

[TW]987403603953487872[/TW]

How about sticking up for your gay conversion therapy position?

...what?

 

[Julio3000]

Looks like they are in damage control after the initial headline... good for them - but still totally ridiuclous to make a program like this... from their statement:

"The MasculinUT program does not treat masculinity as a 'mental health issue,' and any such statements are simply not accurate," program officials wrote in clarification. "It was established to bring more men to the table to address interpersonal violence, sexual assault and other issues."

Like other UT programs related to sexual assault and interpersonal violence, MasculinUT is housed administratively in the university's Counseling and Mental Health Center, officials continued in their letter. "Its goals include helping men explore ways to reduce sexual violence, helping students take responsibility for their actions, and fostering healthier relationships on campus and beyond."


But yoiu know what I love about the new intellectually dishonest Julio... you jump on things like this, and pound your chest as if you've "gotten me"... but interestingly, you were silent on a mouse from this, posted early in the thread:





Where were you then? Are you OK with all this? I assume yes, because being honest about it would admit to the fact that the SJW society has gotten too much traction in our education system

You never commented on this one







My hypothesis is that it's a joke that we can't acknowledge scientific anatomical differences between the sexes, because the SJW doesn't allow it. Because acknowledging that boys exist is just too much to handle for our kids... instead, we need this:










...what?

I think you'd probably learn something if you audited that Duke seminar. I don't know why stuff like that is so threatening to you.

Ditto kids learning gender-related terminology. 4 of my 5 kids has a classmate with same-sex parents. Acknowledge reality. I've got no problem with that. You know how fast public opinion shifted on gay marriage? That should be instructive to you.

Acknowledge reality.And, like the Scouts, grow or die.

Speaking of scouting, on what factual basis do you believe your bluster about that decision, versus it being a pragmatic, market-based decision to shore up declining membership?

Yeah. Gay conversion therapy. California General Assembly bill. You posted about it.

 

[sturg33]

I think you'd probably learn something if you audited that Duke seminar. I don't know why stuff like that is so threatening to you.

Ditto kids learning gender-related terminology. 4 of my 5 kids has a classmate with same-sex parents. Acknowledge reality. I've got no problem with that. You know how fast public opinion shifted on gay marriage? That should be instructive to you.

Acknowledge reality.And, like the Scouts, grow or die.

Speaking of scouting, on what factual basis do you believe your bluster about that decision, versus it being a pragmatic, market-based decision to shore up declining membership?

Yeah. Gay conversion therapy. California General Assembly bill. You posted about it.

I think you'd probably learn something if you audited that Duke seminar. I don't know why stuff like that is so threatening to you.

It's preposterous... and it's threatening to me when my own female boss has already told me that my opinion on certain topics doesn't matter as much due to my "white male privilege." It's crap like this that you enable that tolerates that ****

Ditto kids learning gender-related terminology. 4 of my 5 kids has a classmate with same-sex parents. Acknowledge reality. I've got no problem with that. You know how fast public opinion shifted on gay marriage? That should be instructive to you.

Acknowledge reality.And, like the Scouts, grow or die.

Same sex couples/parents don't bother me, dude. I've been on the gay marriage bandwagon before Obama was.

It's promoting biological facts to our kids that encourages them to question those facts is what bothers me... baffles me that it doesn't you.

Speaking of scouting, on what factual basis do you believe your bluster about that decision, versus it being a pragmatic, market-based decision to shore up declining membership?

You very well could be right... timing is interesting though in our current environment. I'll look forward to the girl scouts making the same move

Yeah. Gay conversion therapy. California General Assembly bill. You posted about it.

That was not the point of my post

 

[Julio3000]

It's preposterous... and it's threatening to me when my own female boss has already told me that my opinion on certain topics doesn't matter as much due to my "white male privilege." It's crap like this that you enable that tolerates that ****

Maybe you should entertain the possibility that it's not preposterous. Maybe you should absorb some expertise that's outside your comfort zone. If you had a response with more depth than "it's preposterous" or "crap," you might get further in discussions.

Same sex couples/parents don't bother me, dude. I've been on the gay marriage bandwagon before Obama was.

It's promoting biological facts to our kids that encourages them to question those facts is what bothers me... baffles me that it doesn't you.

Well, I mention it because I found that 2nd grade info to be utterly harmless and quite probably helpful. I mentioned it in the context of gay marriage because:

1) Some kids (mine, for example) will get a frank explanation at home for why some of their classmates may have families that are composed differently. Some kids won't.

2) Public opinion on gender identity is changing and will continue to change rapidly, just as public opinion of gay marriage did. Good for you for being ahead of the curve on that, really. But battening down the hatches on an outmoded set of beliefs is going to set you behind the curve on this one.

You very well could be right... timing is interesting though in our current environment. I'll look forward to the girl scouts making the same move

I'm not personally against the existence of single-sex environments in certain contexts in childhood (though let's do call them what they are, which is the much-derided "safe space," right?). I'm responding to the conservative media trying to spin this particular decision as a capitulation to pressure from SJW-types, when it's pretty obviously just a survival move.

That was not the point of my post

The point of your post was co-signing David French's piece about the bill being an attack on religious speech, and essentially a book-burning. I offered some context and a glance at the constitutionality of state bans on gay conversion therapy. If you want to discuss the bill in context, I'm here for that, but I'm not going to let you just lazily play the speech card.

Now, big picture...you've mentioned these troubling interactions with your female boss a few times. I'm wondering if you've ever really done an honest inventory of white male privilege, or class privilege, how it works in the world, and how it applies to you. It might be of some use.

 

[sturg33]

LOL will just leave this here

https://www.chronicle.com/article/he-makes-a-joke-she-isn-t/243350

"I certainly had no desire to insult women or to make you feel uncomfortable." He suggested that Sharoni, who was born in Romania and raised in Israel, might have misinterpreted his remark. When he was young, in the 1950s, he said, it was a "standard gag line" to ask the elevator operator for the hardware or lingerie floor as though one were in a department store.

"Like you, I am strongly opposed to the exploitation, coercion, or humiliation of women," Lebow wrote. "As such evils continue, it seems to me to make sense to direct our attention to real offenses, not those that are imagined or marginal. By making a complaint to ISA that I consider frivolous — and I expect, will be judged this way by the ethics committee — you may be directing time and effort away from the real offenses that trouble us both."

And will look forward to julio accusing me of whining, rather than this crazy feminist

 

[sturg33]

Maybe you should entertain the possibility that it's not preposterous. Maybe you should absorb some expertise that's outside your comfort zone. If you had a response with more depth than "it's preposterous" or "crap," you might get further in discussions.

OK. It's clear you're fine with it. At what point would you support allowing boys and girls to compete in the same sports league all the way through the college ranks?

Well, I mention it because I found that 2nd grade info to be utterly harmless and quite probably helpful. I mentioned it in the context of gay marriage because:

As mentioned earlier in the thread, child psychologists are saying that children would not even question their identity if not for being told to at such a young age. Do you think questioning biological facts is healthy? I thought the left was the party of science?

2) Public opinion on gender identity is changing and will continue to change rapidly, just as public opinion of gay marriage did. Good for you for being ahead of the curve on that, really. But battening down the hatches on an outmoded set of beliefs is going to set you behind the curve on this one.

Public opinion is changing because the left shuts down dissenting opinion. If you question the logic of gender identity, you're a "transaphobe" (hey - better than a nazi, right?)

The point of your post was co-signing David French's piece about the bill being an attack on religious speech, and essentially a book-burning. I offered some context and a glance at the constitutionality of state bans on gay conversion therapy. If you want to discuss the bill in context, I'm here for that, but I'm not going to let you just lazily play the speech card.

Directly from the bill: This bill would include, as an unlawful practice prohibited under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.

Spin it however you want.

Now, big picture...you've mentioned these troubling interactions with your female boss a few times. I'm wondering if you've ever really done an honest inventory of white male privilege, or class privilege, how it works in the world, and how it applies to you. It might be of some use.

Oh give me a ****ing break. I grew up poor. My parents have never gone a single vacation. I worked extremely hard so I can have a better life.

My boss is rich. The reality is, as she was bitching about the gender pay gap, and I corrected her with FACTS, she decided to shut me down with the victim card of the day.

Imagine a scenario, where I said the my colleague's opinion on something didn't matter because she was a black female. Of course, i'd be (deservedly) fired before I got the sentence out.

But the line was effective. I keep my mouth shut in the work place. So they can celebrate their "diversity of opinions" in the echo chamber

 

[57Brave]

. The reality is, as she was bitching about the gender pay gap, and I corrected her with FACTS, she decided to shut me down with the victim card of the day.

r

Oh Grasshopper -- you didn't know that wouldn't end well ?
Aww

 

[sturg33]

Oh Grasshopper -- you didn't know that wouldn't end well ?
Aww

Trust me im aware rabid feminists cannot handle logic and facts.

But I can't help correcting ignorance

 

[57Brave]

you're like the Lone Ranger huh ?

straighten her out with facts and logic -- you're too much

 

[sturg33]

you're like the Lone Ranger huh ?

straighten her out with facts and logic -- you're too much

Just curious, do you support staying silent in the face of misinformation?

And you don't think liberals support shutting down dissenting viewpoints...

 

[Julio3000]

OK. It's clear you're fine with it. At what point would you support allowing boys and girls to compete in the same sports league all the way through the college ranks?

I'm having a hard time imagining what it's like to really care about stuff like that.

There are perfectly valid reasons for some sports to be divided by sex. I've got no problem with players of similar ability playing together, though. Heck, my son plays travel soccer and his team regularly scrimmages with girls teams who are a couple of years older.
The girls are bigger, faster, and more skilled. It's some of the best work that they get.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, child psychologists are saying that children would not even question their identity if not for being told to at such a young age. Do you think questioning biological facts is healthy? I thought the left was the party of science?

I don't really have much of an informed opinion here, but I'm not really sure how confidently you can throw "biological facts" around here.

Public opinion is changing because the left shuts down dissenting opinion. If you question the logic of gender identity, you're a "transaphobe" (hey - better than a nazi, right?)

Well, the first assertion is just nonsense. As for the second, I don't know. Maybe one is "transphobic," maybe not. But one is certainly willfully ignorant.

Directly from the bill: This bill would include, as an unlawful practice prohibited under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.

Spin it however you want.

Yeah. Exactly. It extends the ban on gay conversion therapy from minors to adults, basically using consumer protection law, because it's essentially a deceptive trade practice based on junk science. You can make a 1A argument if you like, but these laws exist in several states and have been upheld in court. Which I noted in my response to the OP.

Oh give me a ****ing break. I grew up poor. My parents have never gone a single vacation. I worked extremely hard so I can have a better life.

My boss is rich. The reality is, as she was bitching about the gender pay gap, and I corrected her with FACTS, she decided to shut me down with the victim card of the day.

White privilege/male privilege=/= income or socioeconomic status. This is precisely why I think you would (as would we all) benefit from listening and learning a bit more.

But FACTS, huh. I'd be curious to hear that conversation.

 

[sturg33]

I'm having a hard time imagining what it's like to really care about stuff like that.

There are perfectly valid reasons for some sports to be divided by sex. I've got no problem with players of similar ability playing together, though. Heck, my son plays travel soccer and his team regularly scrimmages with girls teams who are a couple of years older.
The girls are bigger, faster, and more skilled. It's some of the best work that they get.

OK... we're just going in circles... apparently you no longer believe in biology, as you show below. So moving on

I don't really have much of an informed opinion here, but I'm not really sure how confidently you can throw "biological facts" around here.

Right... we now only concede a person's truth... like that story earlier in the thread about the college saying that if a person lies about a crime, it's still the person's truth.

Quite a world y'all are building here

Yeah. Exactly. It extends the ban on gay conversion therapy from minors to adults, basically using consumer protection law, because it's essentially a deceptive trade practice based on junk science. You can make a 1A argument if you like, but these laws exist in several states and have been upheld in court. Which I noted in my response to the OP.

Methinks this is selective enforcement... and if you don't see how it infringes on speech, we might as well move on here too

White privilege/male privilege=/= income or socioeconomic status. This is precisely why I think you would (as would we all) benefit from listening and learning a bit more.

But FACTS, huh. I'd be curious to hear that conversation.

Convo went something like this:

"Women get paid less than men for being just as productive, because companies are sexist. In fact, our company has 70/30 male/female ratio in technology, which is ridiculous! It should be 50/50"

to which I said,

"actually, the applicant pool for our technology division is nearly 85/15 male to female... so it would see the company may be over hiring based on the applicant data. We need to find ways to get more women interested in technology fields rather than force feed diversity"

to which the reply was "you'll never understand due to your white male privilege"

So please, keep lecturing me on how I'm the ignorant one from this conversation

 

[Julio3000]

So free speech protections preclude states from outlawing deceptive trade practices?

 

[sturg33]

So free speech protections preclude states from outlawing deceptive trade practices?

If you extend your logic, anyone could argue that a book on religion can't be sold, or fad diet books can't be sold, or...

If your measure of banning books is simply "deceptive trade based on junk science" then there is a lot of banning to do

And yea, free speech is a constitutional right

 

[57Brave]

 

[Julio3000]

If you extend your logic, anyone could argue that a book on religion can't be sold, or fad diet books can't be sold, or...

If your measure of banning books is simply "deceptive trade based on junk science" then there is a lot of banning to do

And yea, free speech is a constitutional right

I'm not talking about banning books. That's a talking point from opponents of the bill, which, based on the text of the bill, is not a valid one...and one that wouldn't pass constitutional muster anyway.

And it could be that the bill is overly broad, or unwise ... but that's not the discussion we're having. You said it banned books and was unconstitutional. I said that it doesn't and probably isn't.

The specious free speech argument that you seem to be making would allow all manner of fraud to be legal in 1A grounds...but consider that free expression=/=commercial enterprise. It may be perfectly legal to SAY something, but fraudulent to profit from saying it.