[FRIAM] academic freedom

[glen]

The jargon being used by the biologist came in the form of "male", "female", "gametes", and such. "Male" and "female", when used by the biologists means something very different from what it means to the laity. And the biologists should know that. If they don't, they're stupid. If they do, but they don't dial down their jargonal use, then they're evil. And the use of "gamete" in an ordinary conversation is just Scientismist confabulation.

On 3/3/22 13:10, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> The distinction I'd make is between talking about identity in principle and talking about the details of my identity.    That's not a question of jargon, but of detachment.   Jargon is a tool for detachment.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 1:04 PM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] academic freedom
> 
> Maybe. But I don't think it's generosity that's required. I think it's humility that's required. Anyone who both engages a group of strangers about identity *and* identifies in a non-standard way is already demonstrating that they're not too damaged. Or, I'd turn the tables and say that the snowflakes in this conversation (the Scientismists) are too damaged for the conversation ... damaged by their entrenched, enculturation into, Scientism. The one guy's exclamation "Gametes are real" was obviously an indicator that the other participants would either have to play by *his* nutty rules or wait for him to dial down his jargon-laced gobbledygook and have a real conversation with ordinary people.
> 
> 
> On 3/3/22 12:56, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> Glen writes:
>>
>> < I think they're just defense mechanisms they've learned over years of abuse. >
>>
>> The defense mechanisms could be more like acquired allergies and do harm.    Once one is dealing with reflexive mechanisms, I start to worry that a conversation is not possible.   Because they would 1) need to learn to control those mechanisms (and who wants to take the time for them to do that) or 2) claim "You [the man] made me this may, now live with it."  (and then adapt to their nutty rules).
>>
>> There seems to be a need for some generosity to help people cope, but it seems plausible to me some people are just too damaged.    Does the absence of generosity make one a snowflake?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
>> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 12:47 PM
>> To: friam at redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] academic freedom
>>
>> Yeah, that's a good take. It also helps in distinguishing between reflexive defense mechanisms and cryptic character traits. Where me and the biologist who felt shut down disagree is in the interpretation of the non-cis participants word and body language choices. He thinks they're reflections of character traits. I think they're just defense mechanisms they've learned over years of abuse. In the non-binary person's case, they have an entire non-estranged, continually engaged, family that rejects their identity. So their body and word language is probably an example of them saying to the white cis biologists "pull yourselves together and we'll try again later." But I'm willing to be shown wrong if that's the case.
>>
>> On 3/3/22 12:36, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>> Hmm.  Another experience I have had while deconstructing someone with "charged feelings" is coming to the ought-to-be-obvious recognition that neither of us care about the other, but nonetheless the counterparty who feels compelled to share their boring feelings believes it is my job to patiently listen to them work through their issues (even though they would never do the same for me).   Canceling could just mean "Pull yourself together and we'll try again next week."
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 12:28 PM
>>> To: friam at redfish.com
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] academic freedom
>>>
>>> Ha! No, I was making a point about freedom of speech, in particularly "academic" speech, and canceling or shutting down others. Sorry if my anecdote got in the way. I pared it down for you below.
>>>
>>> On 3/3/22 12:16, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I guess you were making some point about people getting riled up at a pub, and that it being informative somehow.   (Or at least entertaining?)
>>>
>>>> On 3/3/22 11:02, glen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody was actively trying to shut anyone down. But the more conservative biologist actively claims the non-binary and queer participants *were* trying to shut down the biologists and had clearly shut down their reasoning. I disagree completely.
>>>
>>
> 

-- 
glen
When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.