Because the modern discussion is that gender and gender identity is only a construct of the society and that is wrong. Spreading this misinformation only servers to make a complex topic even more confusing. When this wrong idea gets built into society as fact then it causes people to lose their connection with reality and how their mind works. Its one thing if people are ignorant about a topic, but its another issue when people believe wrong ideas and build more ideas atop. Its a key reason we have so many depressed people in society. But society's standards people can have everything and still be deeply depressed. It comes as a shock when these people lash out because too often people have lost touch with reality and what influences them.
Plus, it was a super dumb thing to say. He is a learned person that by almost all metrics is smarter than I will ever be, and so it annoys me to see that be wasted.
*Also thank you for responding. I felt it was more or less putting you in the middle as a tool for my argument, but, I do respect your opinion on this as well as believing that you are far more educated about this topic.
you posted articles that again point to biological basis for sex, not gender. Traits that can, CAN, typically define some as biologically male or female. Gender is different. It's more about personality than it is a physical phenotype.
That, and you aren't ever going to find a conclusion that "nurture" doesn't have the same, if not more of an effect on these constructs than simple biology. Such is our current understanding of human systems.
Yet you have decided, for no apparent reason, that the "correct" answer is that this is only a construct of Biology. You pound your fist about this, yet you have no reason to insist that this is true.
Why do you think this way? You haven't presented any kind of evidence to support this roundly-rejected notion of yours.
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...that’s-a-conspiracy-theorist’s-dream.2537185/Anti-intellectualism is a punishment by itself. Look at anti-intellectual countries or US Republican states. They have to compete for the crappiest jobs purely on cheap labor and skimping protection for their workers and the environment, or fleecing their constituents to bribe employers into moving. And they still lose. It's a whole lot better to be welcoming to the best and brightest, and have companies knocking on your door.
California hasn't green lighted this initiative, misleading title. They green lighted collecting signatures to bring it to a vote, which is a right of the people here.
Indeed, the country is full of retards, even in the best states. Hell in my very own town here in MA something like 10% of residents voted for Dump. I had no idea there were that many suckers here, but they're out there somewhere. Those same types of people could push for an idiotic ballot initiative like this and get noticed, though it would of course fail.
Luckily, a good company choosing to move into a new location doesn't actually expect the place to be completely free of these types of people, they just need a welcoming environment and solid talent pool to draw from. Then as more good jobs move in, more good people move in and the anti-intellectuals get pushed out. It's a simple positive feedback loop.
California hasn't green lighted this initiative, misleading title. They green lighted collecting signatures to bring it to a vote, which is a right of the people here.
Something seems to be breaking that loop. Normally we debate ideas and the bad ones get beaten down, but that does not seem to happen as often now.
They are allowing the initiative to continue is what its saying. They could have tried to stop it, but are letting it go.
A word to the wise:Except they were also about personality traits. I mean, the very first one was literally this.
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/36/15268.full.pdf
"Gender differences in financial risk aversion and career choices are affected by testosterone"
This one shows other traits and how they are affected by testosterone.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28771393
"Our findings suggest a mechanism underlying testosterone's diverse effects on humans' judgments and decision making and provide novel, clear, and testable predictions."
If you did not want to read it fine, but don't pretend that you did and that it said something else. Biology and the underlying functions have an influence on personality and gender identity.
Stopped it under what authority? Their job is simply to verify that election rules are being followed, not decide on the merits of the initiative. We have rule of law in our state.They are allowing the initiative to continue is what its saying. They could have tried to stop it, but are letting it go.
A word to the wise:
If you get a job at Google you might not want to post this kind of stuff on any form of internal company owned messaging means. Since the first firing google has only doubled down on their opinion of its appropriateness.
A word to the wise:
If you get a job at Google you might not want to post this kind of stuff on any form of internal company owned messaging means. Since the first firing google has only doubled down on their opinion of its appropriateness.
On a national level, that certainly seems to be true. I feel a bit insulated from it because things couldn't operate much more effectively and efficiently on a local level here.
On a national level, that certainly seems to be true. I feel a bit insulated from it because things couldn't operate much more effectively and efficiently on a local level here.
They are allowing the initiative to continue is what its saying. They could have tried to stop it, but are letting it go.
Bullshit, I never said it was biology only. I clearly said this...
" All of the research agrees that biology is a massive contributor to gender identity."
and
"This is not something that is questioned in science. Its well known that biology drives gender identity. Its not the only thing, but your statement is factually wrong."
and
"Gender is not only a social construct and biology has a heavy influence on people and their gender identity."
How can you honestly say that I think its only about biology? Literally everything I have said to you said its a mix, and yet you somehow have it in your mind I said something else. How did that misinformation get into your mind when I have never said anything even close to ambiguous that could lead you to that idea? It appears you have built something in your mind that is not based in reality.
That's not fair. You force me to admit to having the cognitive abilities to get to their level since not only did those heightened cognitive abilities produce the decision to fire that they came to but I can also follow and see the correctness of their reasoning. You see the point is not the correctness or error of the peer reviewed science, but the motivation behind its use on a company owned platform. Imagine a general has sounded a retreat and in the middle of all of this you start spouting scientifically based claims that the battlefront is in the opposite direction. The issue isn't where the front is, but to get the fuck out of there. This is what I mean by getting stuck in the weeds. There are occasions where that can get you shot.Yes well, I do not think Google is on my horizon sadly. I do not have the cognitive abilities to get to that level. Sadly, its also true that peer reviewed research is frowned upon at Google. They company may have good intent, but, they are wrong about this topic.
Except they were also about personality traits. I mean, the very first one was literally this.
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/36/15268.full.pdf
"Gender differences in financial risk aversion and career choices are affected by testosterone"
This one shows other traits and how they are affected by testosterone.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28771393
"Our findings suggest a mechanism underlying testosterone's diverse effects on humans' judgments and decision making and provide novel, clear, and testable predictions."
If you did not want to read it fine, but don't pretend that you did and that it said something else. Biology and the underlying functions have an influence on personality and gender identity.
That's not fair. You force me to admit to having the cognitive abilities to get to their level since not only did those heightened cognitive abilities produce the decision to fire that they came to but I can also follow and see the correctness of their reasoning. You see the point is not the correctness or error of the peer reviewed science, but the motivation behind its use on a company owned platform. Imagine a general has sounded a retreat and in the middle of all of this you start spouting scientifically based claims that the battlefront is in the opposite direction. The issue isn't where the front is, but to get the fuck out of there. This is what I mean by getting stuck in the weeds. There are occasions where that can get you shot.
You know we've "disrupted" the whole hormone system now, right? But on top of that, many of these effects we now know aren't really germline inheretence, but are in fact determined in utero, and often directly effected by diet and lifestyle habits of the mother...which do effect an epigentic biological influence on the fetus. I believe these epigenetic influences can also go germline in the fetus. It's always a mixed bag.
Also, I don't care if you once used the phrase "MASSIVELY INFLUECE"a some proxy for "gee, sure there could be something else..." because it doesn't really matter when you find yourself constantly rejecting the notion, from others, that "something else" is also quite important. It suddenly isn't a factor when you don't want it to be.
It's a weird position to claim to have: "I never claimed that I believe the argument that I constantly defend!" But there you are.
"Hmm, I don't know if I would take such an absolute stance. I think some of their identity stems from nurture and not just nature. I mean, look at children that are raised in a violent sexist home, and then see how that effects them on average. I think what the kid is raised around can have an influence on him. Personally I don't care about sexuality and gender identity beyond what makes them happy, but I also think that there are influences from both nature and nurture."
The lens you have chosen, and will forever be the bugaboo in this crusade of yours, is that you have chosen to be GoogleGuy's brave knight. GoogleGuy knows all, therefore he is the sage guiding me on this moral quest for righteousness and...science! sorta.... You seem to bring this into every fucking thread, and I don't think you are going to really convince any biologist or social scientist that GoogleGuy speaks for them. GoogleGuy needs to stick to coding and "hard science." Biology is a bit too chaotic for him. The math really is funny, and frankly--knowledge of these systems is incredibly dynamic. You make absolute assertions based on knowledge that, if only 2 or 3 years old...can sometimes be seen as horribly outdated in this world.