Thought I'd be calling in to my robot maid/cook on my jetpack ride home from work in 2021, not having to argue human sexual dimorphism, or that the earth is round...
These sorts of embarrassingly frequent pseudoscientific pronouncements are the foundation for much of the skepticism of “science” among the general public.
The entire notion, drawn out of thin air, that sex/gender (those terms have been synonymous for centuries) is “assigned” is patently ridiculous to everyone over seven years of age except those overeducated dolts who demand we deny our own eyeballs in favor of their latest “discovery.”
“The "male-or-female sex" sense is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being," in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. ”
I will never be compelled by anyone to deny basic human biology. The ludicrous notions of “preferred pronouns” and “sex (aka gender) is a spectrum” are Orwellian attempts to force humans to deny basic, universal facts wielding threats of financial and legal harm should one refuse. At this point all I can say is bring it on.
I am one of the “normal” people about whom Jesse writes. I used to think that live-and-let-live was a reasonable approach to people with sexual disorders (disorder as a technical term.)
I was wrong.
My daughter and son in law are taking my three very young grandchildren out of the US for the duration of the kids’ K-12 educations. The sexual and racial lunacy running rampant among US “educational” and legal authorities are several steps too far for my daughter and her husband. My grandkids will gain their educations in an Asian country and I’ll have to fly 21 hours to see them.
My daughter isn’t wrong.
I’m partly to blame as a result of my decision to ignore the sexually disordered. Turns out the “slippery slope” many warned of in the 90s wasn’t a fallacy. It was a logical progression of the arguments made by the sexually disordered’s proponents. (Again, disordered in the technical sense. I don’t play the alphabet soup game.)
The sexually disordered, like the racially radical, aren’t content to live and let live, in which case sides must be taken. Has anyone given a moment’s consideration to the ramifications of that fact?
I don’t think anyone has. The ramifications are disturbing at best.
So it looks like there's been a total split among the editors. This should just spell the end, with everyone agreeing to go their own way, one group sticking to their principles, the other not realizing that they lashed out with all the same emotional and nonsense logic they spent 20 years mocking.
Thought I'd be calling in to my robot maid/cook on my jetpack ride home from work in 2021, not having to argue human sexual dimorphism, or that the earth is round...
Mic drop.
These sorts of embarrassingly frequent pseudoscientific pronouncements are the foundation for much of the skepticism of “science” among the general public.
The entire notion, drawn out of thin air, that sex/gender (those terms have been synonymous for centuries) is “assigned” is patently ridiculous to everyone over seven years of age except those overeducated dolts who demand we deny our own eyeballs in favor of their latest “discovery.”
“The "male-or-female sex" sense is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being," in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. ”
https:// www.etymonline.com/word/ gender
I will never be compelled by anyone to deny basic human biology. The ludicrous notions of “preferred pronouns” and “sex (aka gender) is a spectrum” are Orwellian attempts to force humans to deny basic, universal facts wielding threats of financial and legal harm should one refuse. At this point all I can say is bring it on.
I am one of the “normal” people about whom Jesse writes. I used to think that live-and-let-live was a reasonable approach to people with sexual disorders (disorder as a technical term.)
I was wrong.
My daughter and son in law are taking my three very young grandchildren out of the US for the duration of the kids’ K-12 educations. The sexual and racial lunacy running rampant among US “educational” and legal authorities are several steps too far for my daughter and her husband. My grandkids will gain their educations in an Asian country and I’ll have to fly 21 hours to see them.
My daughter isn’t wrong.
I’m partly to blame as a result of my decision to ignore the sexually disordered. Turns out the “slippery slope” many warned of in the 90s wasn’t a fallacy. It was a logical progression of the arguments made by the sexually disordered’s proponents. (Again, disordered in the technical sense. I don’t play the alphabet soup game.)
The sexually disordered, like the racially radical, aren’t content to live and let live, in which case sides must be taken. Has anyone given a moment’s consideration to the ramifications of that fact?
I don’t think anyone has. The ramifications are disturbing at best.
*slow clap....
Man, what a transphobe
So it looks like there's been a total split among the editors. This should just spell the end, with everyone agreeing to go their own way, one group sticking to their principles, the other not realizing that they lashed out with all the same emotional and nonsense logic they spent 20 years mocking.
It must suck to be Steven Novella these days.
Totally off topic, but what’s going on with the Dangerous Ideas book review? I’ve been really curious to hear your take on it!
im curious what was chaged for the first version to this one?