• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No 'him' or 'her'; preschool fights gender bias

ecofarm said:
Women can breastfeed. This means it was best they stay near the shelter with the baby. This developed into the woman being responsible for the kitchen, garden and other household responsibilities.
Click to expand...

LOL, I doubt there was any fully formed concept of "kitchen" or "garden" when gender roles first appeared.

We have no records of this. We can guess at this, but it is pointless to pretend we know anything for certain, which was the point. We know what influences gender roles NOW and only a freaking moron claims that culture has no influence.
 
Well, there were gender roles before the agricultural revolution, but afterwards these were developed clearly. We should note that gender roles developed as a result of geographical necessity (the woman being near the shelter with the baby) and also out of strategic necessity. As it was a struggle to survive, each member of the team needed to be an expert in their particular responsibilities; thus, switching jobs or changing responsibilities was detrimenal to the survival of the team. What began as simple homestead geography developed into distinct areas of expertise and even gender-exclusive networks of knowledge and practices.
 
OscarB63 said:
wrongo, boyo. they argue that gender is immaterial. if a person with a penis can claim to be a woman and a person with a vagina can be considered a man, gender is meaningless and therefore does not exist.
Click to expand...

You are the one arguing that gender is immaterial. If gender is determined solely by equipment then whether you act the part, wear the uniform or go by the name has no bearing. Gender roles, being manly or effeminate, are immaterial, not gender.
 
RStringfield said:
No it means they do not have their head firmly planted in their anus like you do. There is not one person that believes that evolution can explain all of culture and gender roles. There are just now, SOME that argue that evolutionary processes provide insight into culture and psychology. That alone is still rather controversial.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Do not do this. Next time personal insults get tossed out in this thread, there will be infractions and thread bans.
 
RStringfield said:
You are the one arguing that gender is immaterial. If gender is determined solely by equipment then whether you act the part, wear the uniform or go by the name has no bearing. Gender roles, being manly or effeminate, are immaterial, not gender.
Click to expand...

so, how do you define gender then? is it actions or is it "equipment" because there are those that agrue against both of those considerations.

what is gender?

and for the record, I am not argueing that gender is immaterial. I am saying that there are people, if you accept their philosophy, who will render gender immaterial and meaningless
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
so, how do you define gender then? is it actions or is it "equipment" because there are those that agrue against both of those considerations.

what is gender?

and for the record, I am not argueing that gender is immaterial. I am saying that there are people, if you accept their philosophy, who will render gender immaterial and meaningless
Click to expand...

There is not any sane person arguing what gender is. Gender is equipment. Everything else is gender role. Now, I would certainly argue that SOME of our gender roles and preferences are explained based on different equipment and due to evolutionary factors. But it is just absurd to argue that all of them are based on this. There are mountains of evidence against that. Gender roles change over place and time. We know that for a fact and so obviously culture has a huge influence.
 
Gender is not equipment. Sex is equipment. Gender is the designation by society of one's place and role. It can be male, female, child, elder, gay, etc and is neither bound nor defined by equipment, though equipment plays perhaps the most prominent role.
 
RStringfield said:
Gender is equipment.
Click to expand...

then why are there people with male equipment claiming to be female and people with female equipment claiming to be male? I agree gender is primarily equipment, but there are many who disagree and would have us believe that gender is all about how a person "feels" about themself.

I point you again to the "pregnant man" fiasco. "he" had all the female equipment (minus the breasts which had been surgically removed) but yet the liberal media hail it as some kind of freakin miracle. "PREGNANT MAN" "MAN GIVES BIRTH"

every other month there is some story in the news about some "gender conflicted" kid at some high school complaining because the school admin refuses to call "him" suzy and let him wear a dress and use the girls restroom.


this downplaying of gender roles is just another layer of the madness.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
There is not any sane person arguing what gender is. Gender is equipment. Everything else is gender role. Now, I would certainly argue that SOME of our gender roles and preferences are explained based on different equipment and due to evolutionary factors. But it is just absurd to argue that all of them are based on this. There are mountains of evidence against that. Gender roles change over place and time. We know that for a fact and so obviously culture has a huge influence.
Click to expand...

The fact that the roles change over place and time, however, doesn't mean they are meaningless and should be (or can be) stricken from culture.

Cultures develop as a function of a variety of factors, including geography, interaction with other cultures, and human biology. Regardless of the culture or the place and time, however, the biological differences between man and woman have always led to cultural distinctions between the roles of men and women. These roles can be violated and there are cultural "rules" in place to address this phenomenon, but the mere fact that they change or can be violated doesn't mean they are meaningless -- the fact that they are universal and integral to every language and culture points to the fact that they do indeed serve a function, even if it is as simple as a cultural exaggeration of the biological difference between male and female.

Unless we become biologically unisex (can't see that happening), our culture will continue to reflect the biological reality and exhibit different roles for males and females, regardless of the social engineering experiments we throw at our children.
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
then why are there people with male equipment claiming to be female and people with female equipment claiming to be male? I agree gender is primarily equipment, but there are many who disagree and would have us believe that gender is all about how a person "feels" about themself.

I point you again to the "pregnant man" fiasco. "he" had all the female equipment (minus the breasts which had been surgically removed) but yet the liberal media hail it as some kind of freakin miracle. "PREGNANT MAN" "MAN GIVES BIRTH"
Click to expand...

You don't seem to get it. Whether I call you Oscar or Harriett has no more bearing on gender than your clothes. Those people are changing their gender role, not their gender.

every other month there is some story in the news about some "gender conflicted" kid at some high school complaining because the school admin refuses to call "him" suzy and let him wear a dress and use the girls restroom.
Click to expand...

Sure there is :eyeroll: Please provide a link to one of these many stories.

this downplaying of gender roles is just another layer of the madness.
Click to expand...

I thought you were conc erned about downplaying gender?
Click to expand...
 
One does not choose one's gender. It is assigned by society. When a man says he feels like a woman, he does not claim to know what a woman feels like but what society treats a woman like. Transgender is an attempt by someone to appear as they feel they are treated or belong. Transgender is not so much changing gender as adopting the physical appearance of one's perceived gender.
 
Last edited:
other said:
The fact that the roles change over place and time, however, doesn't mean they are meaningless and should be (or can be) stricken from culture.
Click to expand...
I have not indicated that gender roles are meaningless. I said they were immaterial to gender.

Cultures develop as a function of a variety of factors, including geography, interaction with other cultures, and human biology. Regardless of the culture or the place and time, however, the biological differences between man and woman have always led to cultural distinctions between the roles of men and women. These roles can be violated and there are cultural "rules" in place to address this phenomenon, but the mere fact that they change or can be violated doesn't mean they are meaningless -- the fact that they are universal and integral to every language and culture points to the fact that they do indeed serve a function, even if it is as simple as a cultural exaggeration of the biological difference between male and female.
Click to expand...

THEY ARE NOT UNIVERSAL. Gender roles exist in all cultures, yes, but they vary from culture to culture.

Unless we become biologically unisex (can't see that happening), our culture will continue to reflect the biological reality and exhibit different roles for males and females, regardless of the social engineering experiments we throw at our children.
Click to expand...

Culture is the accepted and promoted behavior of a specific group. Teach gender roles, don't teach them, you are by definition engaging in social engineering when you promote culture.
 
Last edited:
RString, gender no longer refers to sex. Your terminology is outdated and it is causing confusion for you and others. Please update to gender 2.011
 
RStringfield said:
I have not indicated that gender roles are meaningless. I said they were immaterial to gender.
Click to expand...

really? what's this:
RStringfield said:
I did not ask what were the good reasons for gender roles. I asked what are the good reasons for gender roles. Big difference. Our means of survival is not what it was thousands of years ago and there is no reason for us to maintain roles that no longer serve any purpose.
Click to expand...

RStringfield said:
I fail to see their purpose and neither you nor anyone else has stated what they might be in modern society.
Click to expand...




THEY ARE NOT UNIVERSAL. Gender roles exist in all cultures, yes, but they vary from culture to culture.
Click to expand...

The fact that they exist in every culture makes them a universal feature of every culture. I wasn't even talking about specific qualitative differences.


Culture is the accepted and promoted behavior of a specific group. Teach gender roles, don't teach them, you are by definition engaging in social engineering when you promote culture.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point. You don't have to actively teach language or culture for children to pick up language and culture -- it is automatic. They only need to interact with it. It's not engineering or meddling.

You do have to actively teach a child the tenets of "gender neutrality"... You have to actively try not to expose them to gendered pronouns -- that's social engineering.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, God. Now that we got that out of the way, I am certain liberating linguistics frees the person from those God damned conservative linguists. :roll:
 
Last edited:
other said:
really? what's this:
Click to expand...

It's an example of dropping context. Again, I did not say they were meaningles and had no impact. I questioned their value and purpose. Further, I have indicated that some gender roles still have value, i.e., a woman's role as mother.


That's the whole point. You don't have to actively teach language or culture for children for them to pick it up -- it is automatic. They only need to interact withi it. It's not engineering or meddling.
Click to expand...

Uhh, nooooo, it is not automatic. What are you talking about? You most certainly have to teach language to kids. It is not automatic. It just seems that way because you are not very bright and due to the depth of our submersion into culture and language.

You do have to actively teach a child the tenets of "gender neutrality"... You have to actively try not to expose them to gendered pronouns -- that's social engineering.
Click to expand...

Bull! You just don't teach them gendered pronouns. How is that more active?
 
OscarB63 said:
:roll: you just earned your spot on my "hack" list. goodbye
Click to expand...

You said they would want to use different bathrooms. Nothing about being a prom queen or king has anything to do with equipment differences. They are just stupid contest meant to reinforce gender roles.
 
RStringfield said:
It's an example of dropping context. Again, I did not say they were meaningles and had no impact. I questioned their value and purpose. Further, I have indicated that some gender roles still have value, i.e., a woman's role as mother.
Click to expand...

So now you only advocate for the abolition of some gender roles. Are you going to make an exhaustive list of "good" and "bad" words/roles now? And you accuse me of back-pedalling :lol:

Uhh, nooooo, it is not automatic. What are you talking about? You most certainly have to teach language to kids. It is not automatic. It just seems that way because you are not very bright and due to the depth of our submersion into culture and language.
Click to expand...

maybe we can discuss this when you educate yourself on the topic... you're holding a view of language that was abandoned by most prior to the 1930s.


Bull! You just don't teach them gendered pronouns. How is that more active?
Click to expand...

See above. The use of gendered pronouns isn't specifically taught by anybody, it is picked up automatically as children interact with the language. The only parts of language that are specifically taught are rules exceptions and anomolies in language, such as irregular plural forms, which are often comlpetely counter-intuitive to the rest of the rules of grammar.
 
Last edited:
other said:
So now you only advocate for the abolition of some gender roles. Are you going to make an exhaustive list of "good" and "bad" words/roles now? And you accuse me of back-pedalling :lol:
Click to expand...

That is nothing but a strawman. I have not called for the "abolition" of any gender role.

maybe we can discuss this when you educate yourself on the topic... you're holding a view of language that was abandoned by most prior to the 1930s.
Click to expand...

If you want kids to speak the language you speak and not some feral tongue they invent, you have to teach them language. They may take to it easily, they still need instruction and it is not automatic that they speak a specific language.

See above. The use of gendered pronouns isn't specifically taught by anybody, it is picked up automatically as children interact with the language. The only parts of language that are specifically taught are rules exceptions and anomolies in language, such as irregular plural forms, which are often comlpetely counter-intuitive to the rest of the rules of grammar.
Click to expand...

That's just nonsense. I have seen people instruct kids on the proper use of gender pronouns. Take any foreign language course and they will make sure you know the difference of gender pronouns. Where are you getting that no on teaches this?
 
The great thing about this is that for now, I can still reinforce gender with my kids at home no matter what happens with school cirriculum. And I will. That's not saying I will enforce antiquated roles of homemaking as female or hunting as male. Only that I will enforce the idea of there being males and females, whom are properly referred to as sir, ma'am, his, her, guy, girl, boy lady, woman, man etc.....
 
RStringfield said:
That is nothing but a strawman. I have not called for the "abolition" of any gender role.
Click to expand...

You could have fooled me.

What are you getting at, then, with all your talk about how gender roles "serve no purpose" and "have no value," along with your support of the actions to neutralize gender roles in the preschool in the OP?

If you want kids to speak the language you speak and not some feral tongue they invent, you have to teach them language. They may take to it easily, they still need instruction and it is not automatic that they speak a specific language.

That's just nonsense. I have seen people instruct kids on the proper use of gender pronouns. Take any foreign language course and they will make sure you know the difference of gender pronouns. Where are you getting that no on teaches this?
Click to expand...

Concerning the learning of foreign languages: Why do you think many parents try to raise their children bi-lingully when they are very young? Past a certain age threshold people generally take to language much less easily, and so have to be taught systematically. Immersion is still better. Young children, however, pick up on languages automatically, through interaction... It is a form of learning, but most of the language is not specifically taught to them. In short, young children and adults learn languages very differently... Young children are much better at it and don't specifically need to be taught all the rules.

I've never seen a parent have to specifically teach their child to say "him" when referring to a male and "her" when referring to a female. I've never seen any child even corrected for improper use of gendered pronouns, except in the case that the subject's gender is ambiguous in the first place. No one needs a Ph.D in English, or even a high school degree, to raise children that speak fluent English.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom