I believe it is demonstrable that social science as a field has been a victim of intense ideological capture, considering that publishing anything that goes against that distinction is a good way to lose your job. When arguments against it aren’t allowed, you can’t rightly point to the lack of arguments against it.
If I were to link you examples of researchers being fired or harassed for publications that go against gender ideology, would you consider that it may truly be a problem?
As someone with a degree in one of the social sciences, I don’t say this as a complete outsider.
If I linked to you examples of researchers being fired or harassed for publications that go against racial equality, would you consider the fields they were in under civil rights ‘ideological capture’?
Or would you consider that researchers acting in bad faith are not entitled to be taken seriously by simple dint of their profession, and that allowing people to spew academically ridiculous invective under the guise of ‘just asking questions’ is harmful to the reputation and integrity of academic institutions and a violation of the duty they hold to improve society’s understanding, not worsen it with the implicit endorsement of weasel words and misleading obscurantism?
History major here. Not exactly distant from the scene.
If I linked to you examples of researchers being fired or harassed for publications that go against racial equality, would you consider the fields they were in under civil rights ‘ideological capture’?
Yes. Standing behind an idea doesn’t require that you censor all attempts at disagreement. Even the most mundane, universal, and virtually unquestionable ideas should come under attack, lest we forget why the attacks are wrong and lose the ability to explain why our convictions are right in the first place.
In other words, it’s easy to argue that racism is bad. If the only way society can convince people of this is by harassment of those who disagree, we evidently don’t remember exactly why racism is bad. We should be drawing those who advocate for abhorrent moral evils into the limelight and using the superiority of our convictions to demonstrate why they’re wrong, not censoring them and doing nothing to prevent more misguided people from going astray.
If indeed gender and sex are uncontrovertibly distinct, it should be trivial for academics to address arguments to the contrary. A refusal to engage suggests that one’s ideas are flimsy rather than strong. A good case-in-point is the user below who has decided to find an arbitrary reason to dismiss my arguments rather than addressing them. That reeks of loose conviction.
That you would frame anti-LGBT “research” as an “attempt at disagreement” reveals that ideology, rather than science, drives that perspective. If there were evidence to support those claims, it would stand up to peer review. But there isn’t, because the “research” you’re referencing is almost universally made of pre-conceived conclusions picking what ever evidence fits their narrative.
Arguments that go against the existence of people are very similar to eugenics in all possible ways. We can talk about semantics, but if your take on semantics is going to exclude people, then we have active proof that your semantics are wrong, even if it sounds so simple and right. That is what these sciences study on and what motivates to figure out how it all actually works.
I believe it is demonstrable that social science as a field has been a victim of intense ideological capture, considering that publishing anything that goes against that distinction is a good way to lose your job. When arguments against it aren’t allowed, you can’t rightly point to the lack of arguments against it.
Big yikes.
If I were to link you examples of researchers being fired or harassed for publications that go against gender ideology, would you consider that it may truly be a problem?
As someone with a degree in one of the social sciences, I don’t say this as a complete outsider.
If I linked to you examples of researchers being fired or harassed for publications that go against racial equality, would you consider the fields they were in under civil rights ‘ideological capture’?
Or would you consider that researchers acting in bad faith are not entitled to be taken seriously by simple dint of their profession, and that allowing people to spew academically ridiculous invective under the guise of ‘just asking questions’ is harmful to the reputation and integrity of academic institutions and a violation of the duty they hold to improve society’s understanding, not worsen it with the implicit endorsement of weasel words and misleading obscurantism?
History major here. Not exactly distant from the scene.
Yes. Standing behind an idea doesn’t require that you censor all attempts at disagreement. Even the most mundane, universal, and virtually unquestionable ideas should come under attack, lest we forget why the attacks are wrong and lose the ability to explain why our convictions are right in the first place.
In other words, it’s easy to argue that racism is bad. If the only way society can convince people of this is by harassment of those who disagree, we evidently don’t remember exactly why racism is bad. We should be drawing those who advocate for abhorrent moral evils into the limelight and using the superiority of our convictions to demonstrate why they’re wrong, not censoring them and doing nothing to prevent more misguided people from going astray.
If indeed gender and sex are uncontrovertibly distinct, it should be trivial for academics to address arguments to the contrary. A refusal to engage suggests that one’s ideas are flimsy rather than strong. A good case-in-point is the user below who has decided to find an arbitrary reason to dismiss my arguments rather than addressing them. That reeks of loose conviction.
That you would frame anti-LGBT “research” as an “attempt at disagreement” reveals that ideology, rather than science, drives that perspective. If there were evidence to support those claims, it would stand up to peer review. But there isn’t, because the “research” you’re referencing is almost universally made of pre-conceived conclusions picking what ever evidence fits their narrative.
If you disagree, please cite the research.
Yeah, no, this is the same kind of argument homeopathy and Young Earth Creationism 'JAQ’offs use.
Arguments that go against the existence of people are very similar to eugenics in all possible ways. We can talk about semantics, but if your take on semantics is going to exclude people, then we have active proof that your semantics are wrong, even if it sounds so simple and right. That is what these sciences study on and what motivates to figure out how it all actually works.
“I don’t like how facts hurt my feelings so I choose to ignore them”