24 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

There are two biological sexes defined from birth. That is correct. X and Y chromosomes determine that. Your gender as defined by sex is what is referred to as cisgender.

Gender is the identity one chooses to lead their lives in line with. The third option I mostly encounter these days (while still not as ubiquitous as the traditional binary since I live in a pretty homogeneous society) is non-binary. Meaning they refer to themselves as they/them/theirs and choosing to not live according to the traditional male/female roles.
 

You’ll also find a lot of other organizations increasing options available on gender when collecting information. I work at a biological research institute and our upcoming international symposia have four options for gender when entering personal details (male/female/non-binary/other). Most will go with the usual suspects, but just because the numbers are fewer doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

The 4 options are fair but I think it's the other 50 or so (last count) genders that people wonder about. It seems people what to define themselves in very specific terms, to stand out from the crowd. Smacks of narcissium if you ask me.

And btw. I wholeheartly believe people should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit as long they aren't harming anyone else. I have no problem people defining themselves as whatever gender they like. I do have a problem with people trying to challenge well defined and understood biological sexes to fit an ideology. I draw the line there.

Just for the record, if you wanted to know how this thread got off the rails, please refer to the link below.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

3 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Just for the record, if you wanted to know how this thread got off the rails, please refer to the link below.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

You'd be as guilty of that as anyone else on this site mate.

 

9 minutes ago, faultydet said:

You'd be as guilty of that as anyone else on this site mate.

 

As you are of this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Its rich to hear you say that as you’ve been running a filibuster on this, and pretty much any thread involving anything you deem Bolshie, by trying to ask ‘questions’ that disingenuously cast doubt on the premises of basic concepts.
 

One might even say you have an agenda.

Edited June 9, 20214 yr by Colin B. Flaubert

2 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

As you are of this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

"I work at a biological research institute"

 

Hey Mr Biological Research Institute worker, does your boss know that you have Wikipedia saved on your favorites bar? 

40 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Just for the record, if you wanted to know how this thread got off the rails, please refer to the link below.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Haha, didn’t know there was a word for it. It’s gonna be useful as a way to describe all the amateur authorities on Covid too I reckon. But you’re never going to win this one CBF, as the many “I respect anyone’s right to ….but I DO have a problem with……” responses you’re provoking attest. That kind of inherent inability to see self-contradiction is sadly all too human, as is the fact that when progress happens, they won’t even see their own attitudes shifting positively with it. 

Honest question - to those complaining about this survey, why don't you just just not fill it out and move on with your day? How often do you take issue with other completely optional academic surveys? 

 

Edited June 9, 20214 yr by Smokey

This is a more appropriate Wiki entry describing this thread.
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam

1 hour ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

There are two biological sexes defined from birth. That is correct. X and Y chromosomes determine that. Your gender as defined by sex is what is referred to as cisgender.

Gender is the identity one chooses to lead their lives in line with. The third option I mostly encounter these days (while still not as ubiquitous as the traditional binary since I live in a pretty homogeneous society) is non-binary. Meaning they refer to themselves as they/them/theirs and choosing to not live according to the traditional male/female roles.
 

You’ll also find a lot of other organizations increasing options available on gender when collecting information. I work at a biological research institute and our upcoming international symposia have four options for gender when entering personal details (male/female/non-binary/other). Most will go with the usual suspects, but just because the numbers are fewer doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

My dictionary (Oxford) defines gender as - Grammatical classification of objects roughly corresponding to the two sexes and sexlessness.

 

5 minutes ago, red&blue1982 said:

My dictionary (Oxford) defines gender as - Grammatical classification of objects roughly corresponding to the two sexes and sexlessness.

 

Pretty well nails modern life

1 hour ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

So by extension, you are stating that they should be compelled to live according to a set of behaviors, roles and expectations that you don’t identify with in a modern liberal democracy? 
 

And if that’s the case, what other areas could this be applied to? If someone is born as what has been termed ‘ethnically Jewish’, must they live their lives according to the tenets of Judaism?

Not saying that, more around not losing your mind because someone mis-gendered you. Humans make mistakes all the time.

Anyway, I don't come to Demonland to get all political. 

10 hours ago, Macca said:

Do we need surveys about racism to tell us what we should already know?

It's like having a survey about the common cold in my view.  We already know what it is and what to do about it

In a previous post I highlighted the disgusting behavior aimed at Adam Goodes

And that happened 6 years ago

The AFL should have taken action such as playing the games in front of empty stadiums (as they do with soccer in Europe)

Send a strong & clear message

By the way, I was saying that at the time

So there's no paranoia ... just a realisation that action needs to happen.  Not more surveys

I have experienced and seen racist behavior on a constant basis for my entire life (and I'm no spring chicken) ... not as a victim but nonetheless,  the indelible inprint of racism has been about forever (in my view)

Yes the treatment of Adam Goodes was dreadful but in my view it started when the AFL security goons dragged the young girl away.  Her parents complained & the public blamed Goodes for the incident.  It had little to do with racism.

But of course the narrative sounds much "sexier" if you suggest racism is involved.

There are a number of factors associated with racism that also need to be noted (and again, no survey is needed)

That racism is mostly hidden (deliberately) ... a large majority aren't going to admit that they are racist.  It's subtle but in the Goodes example, not hidden because the mob was at work (strength in numbers)

Even the racism thrown at Goodes is denied by those who simply don't want to admit that it was a racist attack

Ultimately, the extreme racists put hoods on their heads to disguise themselves.  Why wear the hood otherwise?

If we don't know by now what the actualities are we'll never know.  Your own circle of friends, acquaintances & family will provide the answers for you

In other words, we already know what the answers are.  A survey isn't going to enlighten us. 

Besides which, do people answer the questions honestly?  And what about those who steer clear? 

And do the non racists have a want for another survey so as they can say ... "See, I told you so, it says it in the survey"

Say No To Racism

1 hour ago, faultydet said:

"I work at a biological research institute"

 

Hey Mr Biological Research Institute worker, does your boss know that you have Wikipedia saved on your favorites bar? 

*Deep breath*
 

Just a couple of clarifications and an explanation which I hope will illuminate what others have tried to get across to you. This will be longish but this requires a detailed reply.

Firstly when I posted that, I was at home on my phone. I’m now on the train to work.

Secondly, while I work at said institute, it’s not as a researcher or lab technician. It’s as a translator and interpreter. 
 

I’m pretty sure the next response I will get is ‘You’re not a scientist or academic so nyerr!!’ I do have a Master’s degree in my field of expertise, but no I am not. But that leads me into my explanation.

While academia is supposedly a hot house of Leftism according to you, you will find that people have a range of varying opinions. There are scientists I’ve met who are apolitical, some who are progressive and others who are conservative (and in other cases, quite reactionary). In our spare time, we talk about and debate current affairs issues, life, sports results, pop culture, video games and the state of the picket fence (the wooden obstruction to prevent unwanted parties from passing a certain point, not the Demonland poster).

However, despite me having studied basic biology up to a Year 10 level, I wouldn’t have the gall to waltz into their labs and criticize their research design, storage of specimens or use of lab equipment. Do you know why?

Because my level of knowledge is greatly inferior to theirs and I bow to that. I would find it preposterous to do so.
 

Furthermore, they don’t debate me about the differences between L1and L2 transfer, collocations, subject/verb agreement, dynamic vs formal equivalence, morphology and so forth as I have the requisite knowledge base. That would be preposterous.

As it’s also preposterous for someone with no academic credentials (by what I’m reading) to pot someone who has most likely taken extensive courses in research design and statistics as part of a 3 year undergrad and 5 year doctorate course. Courses which teach whether studies can be generalizable and what shortcomings can be raised in discussion segments of papers. If you’ve read academic papers, you’ll know this is indubitably included into all peer reviewed papers. 

That says to me one of two things: 1) You aren't conscious of you lack of authority on this and are therefore unable to express an opinion that is humble enough to be commensurate with your knowledge base. 2) You ARE aware of this, but want to pettifog this issue to the point of where the topic is 'unknowable' and therefore doesn't exist and isn't worth discussing (hence my agenda comment).

And for the record, Wikipedia can be used as a first stop in information gathering as I’ve done here (I’m not going to point you in the direction of ResearchMap or even Google Scholar in a debate on a football message-board). But once one has a general grasp on a principle or phenomena, yes, you need to go to source material. If you are a researcher, the next step would be to look up peer reviewed research to formulate your research question and hypothesis, then you would collect your own data.

And finally, I pulled that article up on Google. I don’t have Wikipedia on my favorites bar.

Edited June 10, 20214 yr by Colin B. Flaubert
Wanted to add one final paragraph about motives.

1 hour ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Just for the record, if you wanted to know how this thread got off the rails, please refer to the link below.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Jeez you certainly have a thick hide to raise this considering u hijacked the thread by bringing up snow flakes and cancel culture 

7 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Jeez you certainly have a thick hide to raise this considering u hijacked the thread by bringing up snow flakes and cancel culture 

Please explain how that is sealioning according to the definition in the article. 

According to that article, Sealioning is to pose doubts and queries upon topics and basic concepts through disingenuous framing and hidden motives. I was incredibly straight forward in what I said.

Edited June 10, 20214 yr by Colin B. Flaubert
Quick clarification added at the end

23 minutes ago, Macca said:

There are a number of factors associated with racism that also need to be noted (and again, no survey is needed)

That racism is mostly hidden (deliberately) ... a large majority aren't going to admit that they are racist.  It's subtle but in the Goodes example, not hidden because the mob was at work (strength in numbers)

Even the racism thrown at Goodes is denied by those who simply don't want to admit that it was a racist attack

Ultimately, the extreme racists put hoods on their heads to disguise themselves.  Why wear the hood otherwise?

If we don't know by now what the actualities are we'll never know.  Your own circle of friends, acquaintances & family will provide the answers for you

In other words, we already know what the answers are.  A survey isn't going to enlighten us. 

Besides which, do people answer the questions honestly?  And what about those who steer clear? 

And do the non racists have a want for another survey so as they can say ... "See, I told you so, it says it in the survey"

Say No To Racism

Macca your lecture contains a lot of platitudes and assertions but no evidence. 

31 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Yes the treatment of Adam Goodes was dreadful but in my view it started when the AFL security goons dragged the young girl away. 

Similar things have happened a stack of times in European soccer

Starts off with a banana being thrown or an online racist attack ... player reacts and next thing the racist chants start up (another time)

Which leads to those teams playing in front of empty stadiums.  And that type of action works.  Should have happened here ... sends a strong message

So if Goodes turns a blind eye none of what transpired afterwards happens.  But he was right to call out what was said

And the public should have had more sense than to blame Goodes himself ... unless there was a strong element of racism involved of course.  Gave the narrow-minded bigots an out in my opinion

You and I are never going to agree on this matter so lets leave it there

33 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Macca your lecture contains a lot of platitudes and assertions but no evidence. 

Just an opinion, not a lecture.  Life long experiences as a base

Like it or lump it

Say No To Racism

Edited June 10, 20214 yr by Macca

On 4/7/2021 at 12:33 PM, jnrmac said:

Are there any foregone conclusions you are trying to support?

 

maybe read it....

39 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Please explain how that is sealioning according to the definition in the article. 

According to that article, Sealioning is to pose doubts and queries upon topics and basic concepts through disingenuous framing and hidden motives. I was incredibly straight forward in what I said.

You made a comment about this thread going off the rails yet you were the first derailer.

29 minutes ago, Macca said:

Just an opinion, not a lecture.  Life long experiences as a base

Like it or lump it

Say No To Racism

Say No to Racism is obviously a great idea.

I think sapiens evolved to be wary of anyone who spoke, acted or looked different to our own small family group.  Even in the modern era in small remote places people are wary of anyone who is different or not a "local".

Eliminating racism is a long slow exercise.

6 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

You made a comment about this thread going off the rails yet you were the first derailer.

I replied to what I thought was a fairly obtuse set of assertions and a double standard that I believe exists in segments of reactionary discourse. Simple. Respond to that if you like, then move on.

I certainly didn't introduce gender identity, the motives of academics, and the definition of racism and other red herrings into the conversation (which is where we are now).

Edited June 10, 20214 yr by Colin B. Flaubert

Pretty clear what the real research here is.

Post a link to a survey with some simple, open questions relating to experiences of racism in Australian sport.

THEN observe and quantify people losing their collective [censored] in the comments.

 

1 minute ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Pretty clear what the real research here is.

Post a link to a survey with some simple, open questions relating to experiences of racism in Australian sport.

THEN observe and quantify people losing their collective [censored] in the comments.

 

I think you might be on to something.