The Fora: A Higher Education Community

Nikole Hannah-Jones not granted tenure by UNC trustees because of political objections:

http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2021/05/19/pw-special-report-after-conservative-criticism-unc-backs-down-from-offering-acclaimed-journalist-a-tenured-position/ (http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2021/05/19/pw-special-report-after-conservative-criticism-unc-backs-down-from-offering-acclaimed-journalist-a-tenured-position/).

She has retained legal counsel:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/28/business/media/Nikole-Hannah-Jones-UNC-tenure.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/28/business/media/Nikole-Hannah-Jones-UNC-tenure.html).

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say there are grounds for a First Amendment case if the trustees continue to behave stupidly.

Meanwhile, in Idaho . . .

https://pen.org/press-release/idaho-bill-attacking-critical-race-theory-is-affront-to-academic-freedom/ (https://pen.org/press-release/idaho-bill-attacking-critical-race-theory-is-affront-to-academic-freedom/).

Conservative cancel culture at work

Professors who won't pass students who refuse or fail to even pretend to adopt the liberal ideology of their professors is a well documented problem. Or at the least penalize them grade wise for that very reason. This is evident if one goes by ratemyprofessors and such. And I see no reason to not at least give serious consideration to some of it, especially in the presence of so many similar reports about a single individual, when they sound well enough grounded.

If it's well documented, let's see it.

I don't have time to hunt for them now. Go here and you'll see them.

https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/campusRatings.jsp?sid=3067

http://www.ratemyracistprofessor.com

ETA: We have one such visionary at my school who shall be nameless here. He was part of a panel that gave a presentation in which he proclaimed: 'the white ruling class has brainwashed the working class white American to believe he is superior to the black American.' The other three on the panel looked liked they wished they could disappear into the wallpaper.

Quote from: mahagonny on May 29, 2021, 04:07:18 PM
Professors who won't pass students who refuse or fail to even pretend to adopt the liberal ideology of their professors is a well documented problem. Or at the least penalize them grade wise for that very reason. This is evident if one goes by ratemyprofessors and such. And I see no reason to not at least give serious consideration to some of it, especially in the presence of so many similar reports about a single individual, when they sound well enough grounded.

I truly hope you do not have a graduate degree in a natural science, social science, or in any form of mathematics.

mahagonny: the 2nd link is to a site that doesn't exist. The first shows nothing at all  of the kind of evidence you suggest. Geez.

A fully enrolled Oklahoma community college class on race in America had to be cancelled because The Law says it's ILLEGAL now. (https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-teacher-says-summer-class-canceled-due-to-bill-banning-critical-race-theory/36550300)

That sure is some free speech!

Well documented, eh?

Quote from: mahagonny on May 29, 2021, 04:52:33 PM
I don't have time to hunt for them now. Go here and you'll see them.

https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/campusRatings.jsp?sid=3067

http://www.ratemyracistprofessor.com

ETA: We have one such visionary at my school who shall be nameless here. He was part of a panel that gave a presentation in which he proclaimed: 'the white ruling class has brainwashed the working class white American to believe he is superior to the black American.' The other three on the panel looked liked they wished they could disappear into the wallpaper.

Quote from: spork on May 29, 2021, 05:03:02 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on May 29, 2021, 04:07:18 PM
Professors who won't pass students who refuse or fail to even pretend to adopt the liberal ideology of their professors is a well documented problem. Or at the least penalize them grade wise for that very reason. This is evident if one goes by ratemyprofessors and such. And I see no reason to not at least give serious consideration to some of it, especially in the presence of so many similar reports about a single individual, when they sound well enough grounded.

I truly hope you do not have a graduate degree in a natural science, social science, or in any form of mathematics.

I teach business. I had a student tell me for my class that he didn't want to deal with employment law and he would find people he could just pay "under the table."

So, how was I supposed to grade the section of his business plan on "Key employment laws with which your business will need to comply"?

Pass him because... big government nanny state bureaucracy?

Quote from: Mobius on May 29, 2021, 05:55:17 PM
Well documented, eh?

Quote from: mahagonny on May 29, 2021, 04:52:33 PM
I don't have time to hunt for them now. Go here and you'll see them.

https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/campusRatings.jsp?sid=3067

http://www.ratemyracistprofessor.com

ETA: We have one such visionary at my school who shall be nameless here. He was part of a panel that gave a presentation in which he proclaimed: 'the white ruling class has brainwashed the working class white American to believe he is superior to the black American.' The other three on the panel looked liked they wished they could disappear into the wallpaper.

What, you're telling me you doubt he veracity of anonymous unfiltered comments by students on such a valuable and reputable site as "ratemyprofessor"?

Quote from: eigen on May 29, 2021, 10:16:09 PM

Quote from: Mobius on May 29, 2021, 05:55:17 PM
Well documented, eh?

Quote from: mahagonny on May 29, 2021, 04:52:33 PM
I don't have time to hunt for them now. Go here and you'll see them.

https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/campusRatings.jsp?sid=3067

http://www.ratemyracistprofessor.com

ETA: We have one such visionary at my school who shall be nameless here. He was part of a panel that gave a presentation in which he proclaimed: 'the white ruling class has brainwashed the working class white American to believe he is superior to the black American.' The other three on the panel looked liked they wished they could disappear into the wallpaper.

What, you're telling me you doubt he veracity of anonymous unfiltered comments by students on such a valuable and reputable site as "ratemyprofessor"?

So says someone calling themselves 'Eigen' today,  on his own forum. But at least you don't pretend to wonder that these accounts exist. Which is constructive.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on May 29, 2021, 01:30:08 PM
Conservative cancel culture at work

If that's cancellation, where can I get me some?

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 29, 2021, 08:12:34 PM

Quote from: spork on May 29, 2021, 05:03:02 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on May 29, 2021, 04:07:18 PM
Professors who won't pass students who refuse or fail to even pretend to adopt the liberal ideology of their professors is a well documented problem. Or at the least penalize them grade wise for that very reason. This is evident if one goes by ratemyprofessors and such. And I see no reason to not at least give serious consideration to some of it, especially in the presence of so many similar reports about a single individual, when they sound well enough grounded.

I truly hope you do not have a graduate degree in a natural science, social science, or in any form of mathematics.

I teach business. I had a student tell me for my class that he didn't want to deal with employment law and he would find people he could just pay "under the table."

So, how was I supposed to grade the section of his business plan on "Key employment laws with which your business will need to comply"?

Pass him because... big government nanny state bureaucracy?

So did he say in his business plan that he wouldn't follow the law? Or did he say that informally, while correctly explaining all of the relevant regulations in the business plan?

He should be graded on his assigned work, not on his attitudes. So in the first case above, he could fail. But in the second, he shouldn't. (Although in the second case he probably shouldn't ask you for a reference if he has any sense.)

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 30, 2021, 06:28:31 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 29, 2021, 08:12:34 PM

Quote from: spork on May 29, 2021, 05:03:02 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on May 29, 2021, 04:07:18 PM
Professors who won't pass students who refuse or fail to even pretend to adopt the liberal ideology of their professors is a well documented problem. Or at the least penalize them grade wise for that very reason. This is evident if one goes by ratemyprofessors and such. And I see no reason to not at least give serious consideration to some of it, especially in the presence of so many similar reports about a single individual, when they sound well enough grounded.

I truly hope you do not have a graduate degree in a natural science, social science, or in any form of mathematics.

I teach business. I had a student tell me for my class that he didn't want to deal with employment law and he would find people he could just pay "under the table."

So, how was I supposed to grade the section of his business plan on "Key employment laws with which your business will need to comply"?

Pass him because... big government nanny state bureaucracy?

So did he say in his business plan that he wouldn't follow the law? Or did he say that informally, while correctly explaining all of the relevant regulations in the business plan?

He should be graded on his assigned work, not on his attitudes. So in the first case above, he could fail. But in the second, he shouldn't. (Although in the second case he probably shouldn't ask you for a reference if he has any sense.)

Sometimes it doesn't even matter what course you're taking.

Comment about Professor Charles Davis, SUNY Buffalo Architecture Department
"The class he was teaching was an architecture history class, but instead, he made us watch Ibram X. Kendi's "how to be anti-racist". I repeated all of his woke desires in order to get a good grade. He did not talk about historical architecture, but only offered a continual critique of how history was taught in the past (It was Eurocentric)."

I'd be curious to see your RMP page.

Quote from: mahagonny on May 30, 2021, 08:33:22 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on May 30, 2021, 06:28:31 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on May 29, 2021, 08:12:34 PM

Quote from: spork on May 29, 2021, 05:03:02 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on May 29, 2021, 04:07:18 PM
Professors who won't pass students who refuse or fail to even pretend to adopt the liberal ideology of their professors is a well documented problem. Or at the least penalize them grade wise for that very reason. This is evident if one goes by ratemyprofessors and such. And I see no reason to not at least give serious consideration to some of it, especially in the presence of so many similar reports about a single individual, when they sound well enough grounded.

I truly hope you do not have a graduate degree in a natural science, social science, or in any form of mathematics.

I teach business. I had a student tell me for my class that he didn't want to deal with employment law and he would find people he could just pay "under the table."

So, how was I supposed to grade the section of his business plan on "Key employment laws with which your business will need to comply"?

Pass him because... big government nanny state bureaucracy?

So did he say in his business plan that he wouldn't follow the law? Or did he say that informally, while correctly explaining all of the relevant regulations in the business plan?

He should be graded on his assigned work, not on his attitudes. So in the first case above, he could fail. But in the second, he shouldn't. (Although in the second case he probably shouldn't ask you for a reference if he has any sense.)

Sometimes it doesn't even matter what course you're taking.

Comment about Professor Charles Davis, SUNY Buffalo Architecture Department
"The class he was teaching was an architecture history class, but instead, he made us watch Ibram X. Kendi's "how to be anti-racist". I repeated all of his woke desires in order to get a good grade. He did not talk about historical architecture, but only offered a continual critique of how history was taught in the past (It was Eurocentric)."

I can't even tell what argument you think you are making here. That we have a useful window into someone's classes via one out of context comment on RMP? Fairly ridiculous. That there's no useful race-inclusive lens through which to view architecture? Patently ridiculous. It's perfectly easy to come up with a different (imaginary) context for this comment.

The course in question seems to be "architectural history I" and the syllabus snippet I can see on coursehero says one of the goals of the class is to view all types of building as "architecture", moving away from Nikolaus Pevsner's "suggestion that the professional architect should only emulate the monumental buildings of the past [which] continues to haunt our conception of what constitutes architecture and who is responsible for its creation"

So it seems just as likely to me that this comment is from some right wing snowflake who was triggered by the idea that building done by other races and cultures might be just as important as a cathedral. It's impossible to know whether this one comment is a reasonable reflection of what actually happened in the class. And the other two comments on the site are positive.

Students are people and people are good at taking one aspect of an experience and inflating its importance. I once got a negative comment from a student saying I had "politicized" a lecture on using mice to model human disorders because I mentioned in passing that 'gender' is not a "polite" word for 'sex' and that we should refer to mice as having sexes not genders.

Zimbabwean towers, anyone?

Ajunta caves?

Ankor Wat?

In fact, those were in my undergrad Art and Architecture History texts (B.A., OSU, '76), but classes often "ran out of time" to cover them because they were left 'til last.

When I started adjuncting in 2001, I made sure to start with them.

M.

QuoteI can't even tell what argument you think you are making here.

Kendi is a butthead.

con't

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 30, 2021, 09:33:42 AM
I'd be curious to see your RMP page.

You would probably never believe it. Something you may not know about me: although I have a few seriously unpleasant impressions of where higher education has been heading recently which I suspect the pseudonymous forum seduces me to reveal, I consider the students blameless. They think I like them and they are correct. They are just curiosity and some amount of drive, and I like a good dose of these.

Now, back to the discussion of the Hannah-Jones odyssey.

Maybe mahagonny was one the one reporting bias at Boise State, which was found to be baseless.

Is this it? https://www.idahoednews.org/top-news/investigators-find-no-wrongdoing-in-boise-state-diversity-course/

My goodness, the complainant didn't prepare his case well. But they did install a hotline for students to report any problems.

'Course, if Hussman et al decide to stop giving millions of dollars to UNC journalism school, they don't have to prepare a legal case. They don't have to talk to people who expect to be convincing with things like 'right-wing snowflake student.'

More on UNC and Nikole Hannah-Jones: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/06/01/unc-donor-lobbied-against-hannah-jones-and-her-lawyers-set-deadline (https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/06/01/unc-donor-lobbied-against-hannah-jones-and-her-lawyers-set-deadline).

Donor objects to chancellor and trustee(s), board does not grant tenure.

Edited to add: Oklahoma City community college course cancelled due to censorship law:

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/06/01/course-race-%E2%80%98paused%E2%80%99-community-college (https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/06/01/course-race-%E2%80%98paused%E2%80%99-community-college).

Possibility of "distress" when learning is now illegal in Oklahoma.

Quote from: spork on June 01, 2021, 03:22:31 AM
More on UNC and Nikole Hannah-Jones: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/06/01/unc-donor-lobbied-against-hannah-jones-and-her-lawyers-set-deadline (https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/06/01/unc-donor-lobbied-against-hannah-jones-and-her-lawyers-set-deadline).

Donor objects to chancellor and trustee(s), board does not grant tenure.

Edited to add: Oklahoma City community college course cancelled due to censorship law:

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/06/01/course-race-%E2%80%98paused%E2%80%99-community-college (https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/06/01/course-race-%E2%80%98paused%E2%80%99-community-college).

Possibility of "distress" when learning is now illegal in Oklahoma.

Well, the CRT advocates are promoting difficult conversations, some kind of thing where people experience the pain of white fragility, endure it, have it confirmed that they are having this experience in public, and then something positive results. So instead of complaining about a law that would spare students from distress over their whiteness (and all that that entails, according to the theory) and connecting it, somehow, to academic freedom protections, they are now prompted to argue, 'yes to intentional distress in the classroom for children of certain races. And here's why.' Why soft-pedal their main argument?
And if distress over uncomfortable truths is a goal, can a
*conservative* teacher ask the class: of you black people in the room, how many do not have your father living at home with you?

Quote from: mahagonny on May 30, 2021, 02:47:21 PM

QuoteI can't even tell what argument you think you are making here.

Kendi is a butthead.

Fuller explanation: The student reports, on RMP believing he needed to feign alignment with the professor's left political views in order to have the possibility of getting a good grade. Though he doesn't prove it yet, this should be something to be concerned about. As should the comment upthread  'if it's just some right wing snowflake student.' Showing bias.

I tried to fan your flame here, Spork. It may be that the fora does not want to discuss these things dominating the news at this time. I suspect a lot of educators just hoped the whole CRT thing would just sail through without any real challenge. (Of course there is that thing called 'the public.')

What a student writes on RMP is not concerning at all.

Quote from: Mobius on June 04, 2021, 01:05:21 PM
What a student writes on RMP is not concerning at all.

Complaints of that sort are awfully thin evidence to cite in support of a thesis that this is a widespread problem.

Quote from: apl68 on June 04, 2021, 01:07:26 PM

Complaints of that sort are awfully thin evidence to cite in support of a thesis that this is a widespread problem.

A comment like 'it's just some right wing snowflake student' suggests that if it were a problem, it is a problem only to someone the professor doesn't like, because of his political leaning. I wonder how common that is, because it's a recurring theme that I've heard, though no one else has to.

I'd think the same thing if it was an SJW safe spacer.

I've had students claim I gave them a poor grade because they were liberal or conservative. Slate and The Daily Caller must call out my discriminatory behavior.

Quote from: spork on June 01, 2021, 03:22:31 AM
More on UNC and Nikole Hannah-Jones: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/06/01/unc-donor-lobbied-against-hannah-jones-and-her-lawyers-set-deadline (https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/06/01/unc-donor-lobbied-against-hannah-jones-and-her-lawyers-set-deadline).

Donor objects to chancellor and trustee(s), board does not grant tenure.

Edited to add: Oklahoma City community college course cancelled due to censorship law:

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/06/01/course-race-%E2%80%98paused%E2%80%99-community-college (https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/06/01/course-race-%E2%80%98paused%E2%80%99-community-college).

Possibility of "distress" when learning is now illegal in Oklahoma.

Pro tenure or non-tenure arguments aside, one should come to grips with the fact that people disagree. And in the US it seems that people have sorted themselves by State. To channel that peaceably is possible through strong federalism. If a State wants to preserve freedom for donors or force a point of view on people, let it. So long as the points of view are different, there is no problem. [I think Tennessee even has a Butler Act like statute on the books. Charlie Darwin will adjudicate! :-)]

Quote from: mahagonny on June 04, 2021, 02:00:43 PM

Quote from: apl68 on June 04, 2021, 01:07:26 PM

Complaints of that sort are awfully thin evidence to cite in support of a thesis that this is a widespread problem.

A comment like 'it's just some right wing snowflake student' suggests that if it were a problem, it is a problem only to someone the professor doesn't like, because of his political leaning. I wonder how common that is, because it's a recurring theme that I've heard, though no one else has to.

As a note I deliberately chose to phrase it that way because calling the student a "right wing snowflake" on the basis of precisely zero real evidence seemed like the obvious equivalent of you assuming the student's RMP comment reflected reality on the basis of precisely zero real evidence.

Quote from: Mobius on June 04, 2021, 01:05:21 PM
What a student writes on RMP is not concerning at all.

Now I'm curious:

You concluded that the Boise College controversy was settled by the law firm by talking with 30 students and multiple faculty (more than one faculty member, neither of whom reported being guilty of indoctrinating anyone) and President Tromp. Would you prefer someone from the law firm actually attended the class to see what was being done?
They haven't got the bill for their services yet. Hmm...

Quote from: dismalist on June 04, 2021, 04:23:36 PM

Quote from: spork on June 01, 2021, 03:22:31 AM
More on UNC and Nikole Hannah-Jones: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/06/01/unc-donor-lobbied-against-hannah-jones-and-her-lawyers-set-deadline (https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/06/01/unc-donor-lobbied-against-hannah-jones-and-her-lawyers-set-deadline).

Donor objects to chancellor and trustee(s), board does not grant tenure.

Edited to add: Oklahoma City community college course cancelled due to censorship law:

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/06/01/course-race-%E2%80%98paused%E2%80%99-community-college (https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/06/01/course-race-%E2%80%98paused%E2%80%99-community-college).

Possibility of "distress" when learning is now illegal in Oklahoma.

Pro tenure or non-tenure arguments aside, one should come to grips with the fact that people disagree. And in the US it seems that people have sorted themselves by State. To channel that peaceably is possible through strong federalism. If a State wants to preserve freedom for donors or force a point of view on people, let it. So long as the points of view are different, there is no problem. [I think Tennessee even has a Butler Act like statute on the books. Charlie Darwin will adjudicate! :-)]

+1
So who won this round? The CRT gang are howling they've been blindsided. All because of instead  of tenure she has a five year appointment.

Nikole Hannah-Jones will go to Howard instead of UNC:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/07/06/howard-nikole-hannah-jones-tanehisi-coates/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/07/06/howard-nikole-hannah-jones-tanehisi-coates/).

Quote from: spork on July 06, 2021, 08:10:51 AM
Nikole Hannah-Jones will go to Howard instead of UNC:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/07/06/howard-nikole-hannah-jones-tanehisi-coates/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/07/06/howard-nikole-hannah-jones-tanehisi-coates/).

Man.  Can you imagine having so much prestige that you can thumb your nose at one awesome school and hop to another awesome school just because, you know, 'talk-to-the-hand-ye-bastards'?

All power to Hannah-Jones.   

Absolutely. Cancelling is about power, and Ms. Hannah-Jones has more than her would-be cancellers. Good for her.

Imagine having the power to get adjunct faculty to join the chair and the other tenure trackers  to sign on to a statement claiming that you were treated racistly, in 2021, of all times, when claims of white against black racism are met with such skepticism. Now that impressed me. A true leader.

The irony gets my attention when tenured faculty don't want to let adjuncts have a vote in governance because they might be pressured by administration, but then is happy to pressure them to take their side in a controversy.

Quote from: mahagonny on July 06, 2021, 11:59:46 AM
Imagine having the power to get adjunct faculty to join the chair and the other tenure trackers  to sign on to a statement claiming that you were treated racistly, in 2021, of all times, when claims of white against black racism are met with such skepticism. Now that impressed me. A true leader.

The irony gets my attention when tenured faculty don't want to let adjuncts have a vote in governance because they might be pressured by administration, but then is happy to pressure them to take their side in a controversy.

Take a lesson from Hannah-Jones. Get the power first. Then once you have it, force others to make the changes you want to see in higher ed., or at the very least have the real power to effectively spite people with whom you have a disagreement.

So you should get on the TT, get tenured, get the power & protection of tenure, then make the changes that you want to see (like a takedown of what you think is the BLM-supporting hypocritical liberal conspiracy in higher-ed, the takedown of TT faculty who you think wronged you when you were an adjunct, the takedown of administrators & their professional development programs who you think shove anti-racism down your throat, and everything else that you crusade against, in the fora).

I was a part-time NTT faculty at one time, at the beginning of my career, and some things really frustrated me. When I became one of the tenured, I used my little new power that I had, to try to make changes that I felt were important to higher ed. For one example, for the last ten years, we have not used a single adjunct in my unit. I always got in administrators' faces about not relying on adjunct labor and to instead hire only full-time faculty. They know now, if they try to rely on adjunct labor, they will get an earful from me (and others who are aligned with me).

You can do the same.

Seriously. Do it. Complaining here in the fora will get you nothing.

QuoteFor one example, for the last ten years, we have not used a single adjunct in my unit.

Such a policy may well be beneficial to the institution, but by reducing the demand for adjuncts one reduces the remaining adjuncts' wages.  :-(

It helps if one has the Pulitzer and a polemical project with New York Times Magazine that garners national attention. 

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 06, 2021, 02:06:34 PM
It helps if one has the Pulitzer and a polemical project with New York Times Magazine that garners national attention. 

Sure, my point is partly that, while one may think she has power because the is doing nothing but speaking the clear truth, these confrontations always involve pawns.
And...  If you are liberal and you are making a lot of noise you'll get a Pulitzer Prize. That is one reason why Hussman and others among the Trustees suspected, rightly, that Hannah-Jones has a below average appreciation of honest research and inquiry, and an above average interest (among academics who are more disciplined in research anyway) in persuasion through biased reporting.

Of course not all the faculty signed on the the statement alleging improper conduct by the board (and also throwing in the ridiculous charge of racism for good measure, because...you can always get away with that when someone's skin is white; some won't believe you but there is no penalty for slinging this type of mud). The controversy is partly about the question of weakening the power of the tenure and promotion committee, which will galvanize academics working on the tenure track, whether or not they like her writing and activism or not. I'm sure some of them at UNC have read the NYT's 'clarification' (really a retraction of an important piece of  her 1619 Project.) It's a painful read, one is almost embarrassed for them.

Quote from: dismalist on July 06, 2021, 02:01:38 PM

QuoteFor one example, for the last ten years, we have not used a single adjunct in my unit.

Such a policy may well be beneficial to the institution, but by reducing the demand for adjuncts one reduces the remaining adjuncts' wages.  :-(

Right, and some are not qualified or competitive for the tenure track. Or too old, like me. They are still invited to teach, but under crappy conditions. And then the hypocrisy.

Quote from: mahagonny on July 06, 2021, 04:16:01 PM
And...  If you are liberal and you are making a lot of noise you'll get a Pulitzer Prize.

REALLY!?  Is that all it takes!!!??? All this time I thought it was a prize that honored literary, musical, and journalistic excellence.

Shoot!!!  I had no idea it was that easy!  I can do that!

Pulitzer here I come!

Just when I thought my career had stalled...who knew!?

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 06, 2021, 04:50:50 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on July 06, 2021, 04:16:01 PM
And...  If you are liberal and you are making a lot of noise you'll get a Pulitzer Prize.

REALLY!?  Is that all it takes!!!??? All this time I thought it was a prize that honored literary, musical, and journalistic excellence.

Shoot!!!  I had no idea it was that easy!  I can do that!

Pulitzer here I come!

Just when I thought my career had stalled...who knew!?

After you win, I'll refrain from outing you, because...in spite of following the herd with some of its loopier ideas, you're a good guy.

By making noise, I meant getting lots of attention, and getting invited to all the right parties. It's not that easy.

Of course, you mean you can't do it, because Hannah Jones is actually a person of rare talent perspicacity and depth. Which, you've probably already figured out, I'm not buying.

Quote from: mahagonny on July 06, 2021, 04:16:01 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 06, 2021, 02:06:34 PM
It helps if one has the Pulitzer and a polemical project with New York Times Magazine that garners national attention. 

Sure, my point is partly that, while one may think she has power because the is doing nothing but speaking the clear truth, these confrontations always involve pawns.
And...  If you are liberal and you are making a lot of noise you'll get a Pulitzer Prize. That is one reason why Hussman and others among the Trustees suspected, rightly, that Hannah-Jones has a below average appreciation of honest research and inquiry, and an above average interest (among academics who are more disciplined in research anyway) in persuasion through biased reporting.

Of course not all the faculty signed on the the statement alleging improper conduct by the board (and also throwing in the ridiculous charge of racism for good measure, because...you can always get away with that when someone's skin is white; some won't believe you but there is no penalty for slinging this type of mud). The controversy is partly about the question of weakening the power of the tenure and promotion committee, which will galvanize academics working on the tenure track, whether or not they like her writing and activism or not. I'm sure some of them at UNC have read the NYT's 'clarification' (really a retraction of an important piece of  her 1619 Project.) It's a painful read, one is almost embarrassed for them.

Quote from: dismalist on July 06, 2021, 02:01:38 PM

QuoteFor one example, for the last ten years, we have not used a single adjunct in my unit.

Such a policy may well be beneficial to the institution, but by reducing the demand for adjuncts one reduces the remaining adjuncts' wages.  :-(

Right, and some are not qualified or competitive for the tenure track. Or too old, like me. They are still invited to teach, but under crappy conditions. And then the hypocrisy.

In my unit, no adjuncts lost their jobs or got their $ reduced because there were never any adjuncts to begin with in the last decade. There are only full-time positions, and it will stay that way, while I am still around. Of course, when I retire, if no one takes up the cause, who knows what will happen. And BTW, the number of full-time positions in my unit has increased (OK, not by much-- + 1 is nothing to brag about, I admit).

Nobody is stopping you, Mahagonny, from bettering yourself and becoming qualified and competitive on the TT. You don't need a big prize like Hannah-Jones. I think you are in the fine arts or something close to it? You don't even need a terminal degree in the fine arts, in a lot of places, and I know about several "mature" artists who have gotten TT jobs. Nobody is stopping you from trying now. Nobody stopped you in the past. Nobody will stop you in the future. Nobody. Only you can close the door on yourself. Stop complaining. Stop making excuses. Get the power. Bring down those "hypocrites." When you get tenured, you can speak your truth against power, and those "liberals" can do nothing to you and will fear you. Nothing you say here, as a response to this post in this thread, or in past or future fora posts, will change your ability to affect the change that you want. Get some power, and the liberal elites who you decry in secret, will be forced to listen to you when you confront them face-to-face. They will dread talking to you, when you ask to speak to them, because they know they have to respect you and your views. Isn't that what you really want for yourself?

Quit complaining??

At least I'm not pissing all over the country I live in. And peddling venom to kids in school.

As for changing the system because you've got tenure: tenure, like many things, doesn't change the world unless you've got the majority. Glenn Loury can't do it, and he's smarter than me.

Dr. Loury, if you're reading, Happy Fourth of July!

/

QuoteNobody is stopping you, Mahagonny, from bettering yourself and becoming qualified and competitive on the TT. You don't need a big prize like Hannah-Jones. I think you are in the fine arts or something close to it? You don't even need a terminal degree in the fine arts, in a lot of places, and I know about several "mature" artists who have gotten TT jobs. Nobody is stopping you from trying now. Nobody stopped you in the past. Nobody will stop you in the future. Nobody. Only you can close the door on yourself. Stop complaining. Stop making excuses. Get the power. Bring down those "hypocrites." When you get tenured, you can speak your truth against power, and those "liberals" can do nothing to you and will fear you. Nothing you say here, as a response to this post in this thread, or in past or future fora posts, will change your ability to affect the change that you want. Get some power, and the liberal elites who you decry in secret, will be forced to listen to you when you confront them face-to-face. They will dread talking to you, when you ask to speak to them, because they know they have to respect you and your views. Isn't that what you really want for yourself?

Tenure doesn't have the allure it once did, now that charlatans are getting it.

I'm responding to you only to hammer you again with my points about you needing to up your game, get a TT job, & get tenure, so you can have the power in academe to command the attention and respect that you so desperately crave for yourself and your viewpoints, as well as make the changes in higher ed (at least at your institution), that you so desperately want to see. Read my post again, because it obviously didn't sink in the first time. Your only response was that tenure is no longer desirable, so I will speak to that point.

You might be surprised at this, but last spring, I had to endure the periodic diversity training that I loathe. Yes, you read that right. I loathe those things, too, although for vastly different reasons from your reasons. Strangely, we are both in agreement on that point.

The difference between us is, I could speak up at that meeting and express my reservations about the contents of the training session and the effectiveness of that session to meet the university's diversity/inclusion goals, and that we should not be bringing in overpaid consultants to waste our time with what amounts to virtue signaling. (I said it in a much nicer way, but I won't repeat that here because that takes longer.) The reason I could do that is because I have tenure. You don't, so that's why you have to whine express your feelings here and sit in those diversity training sessions in silence and cowardice. Get tenure, get the power & protection, and you, too, can perform the takedown of diversity training that I did. I know you so desperately want to tell them off, like I did. So, again (and I'm sure this won't be the last time), read my post, up your game, go get a TT job, get tenure, get the power/protection, then get the attention & respect you so desperately want. If not for yourself, do it for your conservative viewpoints and the others aligned with you. Anything short of this, well, you can always wait for Trump to get re-installed in August, and you can write him a letter and ask him to do your dirty work for you.

Malcontents don't want power to do anything. It is much easier to chime in from the side.

To return to our regularly scheduled programming, I came across the World Socialist Website, run by US Trotskyists, which has an article about the lady in question

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/07/02/hann-j02.html (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/07/02/hann-j02.html), and a lot of material on the 1619 project. They have a book out, called The New York Times' 1619 Project and the Racialist Falsification of History, introduced here https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/12/04/intr-d04.html
(https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/12/04/intr-d04.html)
Their point is that contemporary upheaval ignores the class based interests that cause history to unfold, and substitute for it racial conflict, to the benefit of a small slice of  upper middle class Blacks. Now, if one believes in class and class conflict, they are absolutely correct!

The website is riotous!

Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of any Communist Party. :-)

Fired Linfield professor files suit:

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/07/12/fired-linfield-university-professor-files-lawsuit-alleging-illegal-retaliation/ (https://www.opb.org/article/2021/07/12/fired-linfield-university-professor-files-lawsuit-alleging-illegal-retaliation/).

Quote from: lightning on July 13, 2021, 09:57:27 AM
I'm responding to you only to hammer you again with my points about you needing to up your game, get a TT job, & get tenure, so you can have the power in academe to command the attention and respect that you so desperately crave for yourself and your viewpoints, as well as make the changes in higher ed (at least at your institution), that you so desperately want to see. Read my post again, because it obviously didn't sink in the first time. Your only response was that tenure is no longer desirable, so I will speak to that point.

You might be surprised at this, but last spring, I had to endure the periodic diversity training that I loathe. Yes, you read that right. I loathe those things, too, although for vastly different reasons from your reasons. Strangely, we are both in agreement on that point.

The difference between us is, I could speak up at that meeting and express my reservations about the contents of the training session and the effectiveness of that session to meet the university's diversity/inclusion goals, and that we should not be bringing in overpaid consultants to waste our time with what amounts to virtue signaling. (I said it in a much nicer way, but I won't repeat that here because that takes longer.) The reason I could do that is because I have tenure. You don't, so that's why you have to whine express your feelings here and sit in those diversity training sessions in silence and cowardice. Get tenure, get the power & protection, and you, too, can perform the takedown of diversity training that I did. I know you so desperately want to tell them off, like I did. So, again (and I'm sure this won't be the last time), read my post, up your game, go get a TT job, get tenure, get the power/protection, then get the attention & respect you so desperately want. If not for yourself, do it for your conservative viewpoints and the others aligned with you. Anything short of this, well, you can always wait for Trump to get re-installed in August, and you can write him a letter and ask him to do your dirty work for you.

I won't be getting tenure for a couple of reasons. One of them is I don't believe in it. Never could bring myself to. I saw the lay of the land years ago. Tenure runs on adjunctsploitation. It breaks up faculty solidarity and encourages spite, then gives a select minority the opportunity to act on it. It contributes to department infighting by keeping faculty who've got too much invested in the job to move on, and no longer fit in with the department mission.

Quote from: dismalist on July 06, 2021, 02:01:38 PM

QuoteFor one example, for the last ten years, we have not used a single adjunct in my unit.

Such a policy may well be beneficial to the institution, but by reducing the demand for adjuncts one reduces the remaining adjuncts' wages.  :-(

Interesting that in academia, a world where the conservative is starkly underrepresented, it is a conservative who steps up to the plate with sympathy for the little guy who's on the receiving end of union busting or other anti-labor practices...:-)

Indicentally, The Nikole Hannah-Jones rhetorical flame throwing act has been dealt a minor setback. The 1619 project, along with the Kendi-man's basket of goodies for social justice warriors are not going to be a required part of the criteria for certain government grants.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/education-secretary-walks-back-critical-race-theory-preference-for-federal-grants/article_b4afa56a-e96e-11eb-aaef-db6cf2706daf.html

Quote from: mahagonny on July 23, 2021, 06:21:37 AM

Quote from: lightning on July 13, 2021, 09:57:27 AM
I'm responding to you only to hammer you again with my points about you needing to up your game, get a TT job, & get tenure, so you can have the power in academe to command the attention and respect that you so desperately crave for yourself and your viewpoints, as well as make the changes in higher ed (at least at your institution), that you so desperately want to see. Read my post again, because it obviously didn't sink in the first time. Your only response was that tenure is no longer desirable, so I will speak to that point.

You might be surprised at this, but last spring, I had to endure the periodic diversity training that I loathe. Yes, you read that right. I loathe those things, too, although for vastly different reasons from your reasons. Strangely, we are both in agreement on that point.

The difference between us is, I could speak up at that meeting and express my reservations about the contents of the training session and the effectiveness of that session to meet the university's diversity/inclusion goals, and that we should not be bringing in overpaid consultants to waste our time with what amounts to virtue signaling. (I said it in a much nicer way, but I won't repeat that here because that takes longer.) The reason I could do that is because I have tenure. You don't, so that's why you have to whine express your feelings here and sit in those diversity training sessions in silence and cowardice. Get tenure, get the power & protection, and you, too, can perform the takedown of diversity training that I did. I know you so desperately want to tell them off, like I did. So, again (and I'm sure this won't be the last time), read my post, up your game, go get a TT job, get tenure, get the power/protection, then get the attention & respect you so desperately want. If not for yourself, do it for your conservative viewpoints and the others aligned with you. Anything short of this, well, you can always wait for Trump to get re-installed in August, and you can write him a letter and ask him to do your dirty work for you.

I won't be getting tenure for a couple of reasons. One of them is I don't believe in it. Never could bring myself to. I saw the lay of the land years ago. Tenure runs on adjunctsploitation. It breaks up faculty solidarity and encourages spite, then gives a select minority the opportunity to act on it. It contributes to department infighting by keeping faculty who've got too much invested in the job to move on, and no longer fit in with the department mission.

Quote from: dismalist on July 06, 2021, 02:01:38 PM

QuoteFor one example, for the last ten years, we have not used a single adjunct in my unit.

Such a policy may well be beneficial to the institution, but by reducing the demand for adjuncts one reduces the remaining adjuncts' wages.  :-(

Interesting that in academia, a world where the conservative is starkly underrepresented, it is a conservative who steps up to the plate with sympathy for the little guy who's on the receiving end of union busting or other anti-labor practices...:-)

Indicentally, The Nikole Hannah-Jones rhetorical flame throwing act has been dealt a minor setback. The 1619 project, along with the Kendi-man's basket of goodies for social justice warriors are not going to be a required part of the criteria for certain government grants.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/education-secretary-walks-back-critical-race-theory-preference-for-federal-grants/article_b4afa56a-e96e-11eb-aaef-db6cf2706daf.html

That's it? What a lame excuse -- a bunch of BS. Read my posts again, and stop making excuses.

What was that conservative line that was always got used before conservatives got soft and pivoted to identity politics? "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" or something like that. Yeah, you need to stop making excuses, stop wasting your time spinning on the wheel that the right-wing rage manufacturing machine has cleverly fabricated for you to supply your energy, and and be an old-school conservative, again.

Once again, I'll repeat myself again, with the context. We have not employed a single adjunct in ten years, because I(we) insist on everyone being full-time in the unit. During our time of enrollment growth, we didn't let admincritters force us to exploit adjuncts. We got full-time lines, with a net increase of one full-time line.

OK, lightning, I hear you loud and clear, thanks for your candor.

In the interest of restoring this thread to its original subject, Nikole Hannah-Jones

BUMP

https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/education-secretary-walks-back-critical-race-theory-preference-for-federal-grants/article_b4afa56a-e96e-11eb-aaef-db6cf2706daf.html

I wonder if not using incorporating Hannah-Jones's and Kendo's work into the grant proposal as a key ingredient for awarding grants is going to be called racist?

ETA: re -- dismalist's linked article. Very interesting. For a critique of Kendi's ideas, with some of the same concern about ignoring class conflict, here

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/07/how-anti-racist-is-ibram-x-kendis-anti-racism.html

Jumping in, against my better judgement...

Bear with me here - this analogy makes sense.

We have a homeless problem here in San Francisco. One issue that makes it challenging is that some homeless people perceive being homeless as their natural, permanent state instead of a temporary bad circumstance. And then well-meaning "homeless advocates" focus on the rights of the homeless to be happily homeless and sleep undisturbed on the street, bathe in the park fountain, use any business restroom they want whenever they want to do their business and brush their teeth. So energy goes into making being homeless a little less miserable instead of getting people sheltered and, if necessary, treated.

The "homeless advocates" often fight "affordable housing" initiatives because the low-income homeless would not be able to afford that housing. So the cycle of short-term shelters continues while the middle class, working class, and creative types flee for the more affordable suburbs.

One homeless man even complained that the City wanted to "force" him to spend his SSI money on an SRO. But he could sleep on the street... for free! Why couldn't he make his own choices?

Mahagonny reminds me of this situation. He is an adjunct, but sees it as a natural permanent state. He fights for being a slightly less miserable adjunct instead of pushing to make more full-time faculty lines for himself and others. He drags down others who are better off instead of trying to figure out ways to get those advantages for himself and then remember to help others in the same situation.

When I was an adjunct, I wanted to be full-time. When I went full-time and started advocating for more full-time positions, I was surprised how many adjuncts were actually quite happy to be part-time. They didn't want the full teaching loads because it worked well with other parts of their lives. They didn't want to deal with committee responsibilities or internal politics. They just would be fine with being paid a little better for the work they actually did.

In fact, they fought the creation of full-time positions because instead of one full-time position, they saw their own and one other half-time position disappearing.

Quote from: ciao_yall on July 24, 2021, 08:40:03 AM
many adjuncts were actually quite happy to be part-time. They didn't want the full teaching loads because it worked well with other parts of their lives. They didn't want to deal with committee responsibilities or internal politics. They just would be fine with being paid a little better for the work they actually did.

That would be fine if people were just doing this as side work or for supplemental income, but too many want to make a career of adjuncting and then are upset when that career doesn't grant them status, job security, and sufficient income.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 24, 2021, 09:26:39 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on July 24, 2021, 08:40:03 AM
many adjuncts were actually quite happy to be part-time. They didn't want the full teaching loads because it worked well with other parts of their lives. They didn't want to deal with committee responsibilities or internal politics. They just would be fine with being paid a little better for the work they actually did.

That would be fine if people were just doing this as side work or for supplemental income, but too many want to make a career of adjuncting and then are upset when that career doesn't grant them status, job security, and sufficient income.

Circling back to the topic of this thread, and one adjunct faculty member's relationship to it, I note that not all history professors agree with Nikole Hannah-Jones' distorted view of American history. They couldn't. They are not that stupid. Nevertheless they object to a donor for the UNC system having a question about whether Hannah-Jones has any regard at all for the mission statement, namely, telling the news without spin or bias, even when not only is that an absolutely valid concern, but the faculty neglected to notice it, leaving a void.

And, since we must discuss Mahagonny, in spite of all this dysfunction and grandstanding I and other adjunct faculty are expected to be cheerleaders for academic tenure.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 24, 2021, 09:26:39 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on July 24, 2021, 08:40:03 AM
many adjuncts were actually quite happy to be part-time. They didn't want the full teaching loads because it worked well with other parts of their lives. They didn't want to deal with committee responsibilities or internal politics. They just would be fine with being paid a little better for the work they actually did.

That would be fine if people were just doing this as side work or for supplemental income, but too many want to make a career of adjuncting and then are upset when that career doesn't grant them status, job security, and sufficient income.

Just to be clear; there are a significant class of people in this category, (such as retired profs and people with another full-time job), who are happy with the pay, etc. and who don't want to be lumped in with the perpetually-disgruntled adjuncts.

Quote from: marshwiggle on July 24, 2021, 10:49:30 AM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 24, 2021, 09:26:39 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on July 24, 2021, 08:40:03 AM
many adjuncts were actually quite happy to be part-time. They didn't want the full teaching loads because it worked well with other parts of their lives. They didn't want to deal with committee responsibilities or internal politics. They just would be fine with being paid a little better for the work they actually did.

That would be fine if people were just doing this as side work or for supplemental income, but too many want to make a career of adjuncting and then are upset when that career doesn't grant them status, job security, and sufficient income.

Just to be clear; there are a significant class of people in this category, (such as retired profs and people with another full-time job), who are happy with the pay, etc. and who don't want to be lumped in with the perpetually-disgruntled adjuncts.

That's fine. More power to those folks.

Quote... but too many want to make a career of adjuncting and then are upset when that career doesn't grant them status, job security, and sufficient income.

Again, hard to believe the facts -- the odds -- weren't known to them ahead of time. 

Quote from: dismalist on July 24, 2021, 11:07:51 AM

Quote... but too many want to make a career of adjuncting and then are upset when that career doesn't grant them status, job security, and sufficient income.

Again, hard to believe the facts -- the odds -- weren't known to them ahead of time.

Of course.

Look, I understand that people want to be professors and that they are socialized through grad school to think that being a academic is the only way forward, but one cannot eek out a decent living (let alone a comfortable retirement) through adjuncting alone. If you have a PhD, are not otherwise wealthy, and have a slim-to-none shot at getting a full time position, then you should be looking for non-academic jobs.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 24, 2021, 11:25:08 AM

Quote from: dismalist on July 24, 2021, 11:07:51 AM

Quote... but too many want to make a career of adjuncting and then are upset when that career doesn't grant them status, job security, and sufficient income.

Again, hard to believe the facts -- the odds -- weren't known to them ahead of time.

Of course.

Look, I understand that people want to be professors and that they are socialized through grad school to think that being a academic is the only way forward, but one cannot eek out a decent living (let alone a comfortable retirement) through adjuncting alone. If you have a PhD, are not otherwise wealthy, and have a slim-to-none shot at getting a full time position, then you should be looking for non-academic jobs.

From my experience, people go into grad school already fixated on the idea of becoming a professor,  and no one can socialize them out of it.  Both my wife and I fit that profile.  We were both warned independently about the then-already-bad job market but decided independently to pursue the life anyway.  We have both tried to warn off young people from pursuing academia as a career, and it has always failed.  People are simply too in-love with the idea of academia to be put-off, in my experience.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 24, 2021, 02:33:42 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 24, 2021, 11:25:08 AM

Quote from: dismalist on July 24, 2021, 11:07:51 AM

Quote... but too many want to make a career of adjuncting and then are upset when that career doesn't grant them status, job security, and sufficient income.

Again, hard to believe the facts -- the odds -- weren't known to them ahead of time.

Of course.

Look, I understand that people want to be professors and that they are socialized through grad school to think that being a academic is the only way forward, but one cannot eek out a decent living (let alone a comfortable retirement) through adjuncting alone. If you have a PhD, are not otherwise wealthy, and have a slim-to-none shot at getting a full time position, then you should be looking for non-academic jobs.

From my experience, people go into grad school already fixated on the idea of becoming a professor,  and no one can socialize them out of it.  Both my wife and I fit that profile.  We were both warned independently about the then-already-bad job market but decided independently to pursue the life anyway.  We have both tried to warn off young people from pursuing academia as a career, and it has always failed.  People are simply too in-love with the idea of academia to be put-off, in my experience.

But that means everything is OK!

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 24, 2021, 09:26:39 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on July 24, 2021, 08:40:03 AM
many adjuncts were actually quite happy to be part-time. They didn't want the full teaching loads because it worked well with other parts of their lives. They didn't want to deal with committee responsibilities or internal politics. They just would be fine with being paid a little better for the work they actually did.

That would be fine if people were just doing this as side work or for supplemental income, but too many want to make a career of adjuncting and then are upset when that career doesn't grant them status, job security, and sufficient income.

Alternatively, they don't remain open to other career possibilities and continue to sit on the proverbial equator, waiting for it to snow.

Quote from: dismalist on July 24, 2021, 02:39:09 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 24, 2021, 02:33:42 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 24, 2021, 11:25:08 AM

Quote from: dismalist on July 24, 2021, 11:07:51 AM

Quote... but too many want to make a career of adjuncting and then are upset when that career doesn't grant them status, job security, and sufficient income.

Again, hard to believe the facts -- the odds -- weren't known to them ahead of time.

Of course.

Look, I understand that people want to be professors and that they are socialized through grad school to think that being a academic is the only way forward, but one cannot eek out a decent living (let alone a comfortable retirement) through adjuncting alone. If you have a PhD, are not otherwise wealthy, and have a slim-to-none shot at getting a full time position, then you should be looking for non-academic jobs.

From my experience, people go into grad school already fixated on the idea of becoming a professor,  and no one can socialize them out of it.  Both my wife and I fit that profile.  We were both warned independently about the then-already-bad job market but decided independently to pursue the life anyway.  We have both tried to warn off young people from pursuing academia as a career, and it has always failed.  People are simply too in-love with the idea of academia to be put-off, in my experience.

But that means everything is OK!

Everything is 'OK' or stable as long as there is no social justice dynamic. If 50% of adjunct faculty instead of 7% were black there would be a furor. As it is wealthy white academics who once worked as adjuncts see themselves as having been exploited. Which makes them entitled to their share of the booty, and nothing to live down or cause embarrassment, because adjuncts are mostly white.

Quote from: mahagonny on July 24, 2021, 06:08:32 PM

Quote from: dismalist on July 24, 2021, 02:39:09 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 24, 2021, 02:33:42 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 24, 2021, 11:25:08 AM

Quote from: dismalist on July 24, 2021, 11:07:51 AM

Quote... but too many want to make a career of adjuncting and then are upset when that career doesn't grant them status, job security, and sufficient income.

Again, hard to believe the facts -- the odds -- weren't known to them ahead of time.

Of course.

Look, I understand that people want to be professors and that they are socialized through grad school to think that being a academic is the only way forward, but one cannot eek out a decent living (let alone a comfortable retirement) through adjuncting alone. If you have a PhD, are not otherwise wealthy, and have a slim-to-none shot at getting a full time position, then you should be looking for non-academic jobs.

From my experience, people go into grad school already fixated on the idea of becoming a professor,  and no one can socialize them out of it.  Both my wife and I fit that profile.  We were both warned independently about the then-already-bad job market but decided independently to pursue the life anyway.  We have both tried to warn off young people from pursuing academia as a career, and it has always failed.  People are simply too in-love with the idea of academia to be put-off, in my experience.

But that means everything is OK!

Everything is 'OK' or stable as long as there is no social justice dynamic. If 50% of adjunct faculty instead of 7% were black there would be a furor. As it is wealthy white academics who once worked as adjuncts see themselves as having been exploited. Which makes them entitled to their share of the booty, and nothing to live down or cause embarrassment, because adjuncts are mostly white.

Envy is one of the seven deadly sins, and for good reason. Pride and wrath are right up there with envy.

Quote from: dismalist on July 24, 2021, 06:28:54 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on July 24, 2021, 06:08:32 PM

Quote from: dismalist on July 24, 2021, 02:39:09 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 24, 2021, 02:33:42 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 24, 2021, 11:25:08 AM

Quote from: dismalist on July 24, 2021, 11:07:51 AM

Quote... but too many want to make a career of adjuncting and then are upset when that career doesn't grant them status, job security, and sufficient income.

Again, hard to believe the facts -- the odds -- weren't known to them ahead of time.

Of course.

Look, I understand that people want to be professors and that they are socialized through grad school to think that being a academic is the only way forward, but one cannot eek out a decent living (let alone a comfortable retirement) through adjuncting alone. If you have a PhD, are not otherwise wealthy, and have a slim-to-none shot at getting a full time position, then you should be looking for non-academic jobs.

From my experience, people go into grad school already fixated on the idea of becoming a professor,  and no one can socialize them out of it.  Both my wife and I fit that profile.  We were both warned independently about the then-already-bad job market but decided independently to pursue the life anyway.  We have both tried to warn off young people from pursuing academia as a career, and it has always failed.  People are simply too in-love with the idea of academia to be put-off, in my experience.

But that means everything is OK!

Everything is 'OK' or stable as long as there is no social justice dynamic. If 50% of adjunct faculty instead of 7% were black there would be a furor. As it is wealthy white academics who once worked as adjuncts see themselves as having been exploited. Which makes them entitled to their share of the booty, and nothing to live down or cause embarrassment, because adjuncts are mostly white.

Envy is one of the seven deadly sins, and for good reason. Pride and wrath are right up there with envy.

Racist. You can't say that. Your white privilege...confess now.

Quote from: dismalist on July 24, 2021, 02:39:09 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 24, 2021, 02:33:42 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 24, 2021, 11:25:08 AM

Quote from: dismalist on July 24, 2021, 11:07:51 AM

Quote... but too many want to make a career of adjuncting and then are upset when that career doesn't grant them status, job security, and sufficient income.

Again, hard to believe the facts -- the odds -- weren't known to them ahead of time.

Of course.

Look, I understand that people want to be professors and that they are socialized through grad school to think that being a academic is the only way forward, but one cannot eek out a decent living (let alone a comfortable retirement) through adjuncting alone. If you have a PhD, are not otherwise wealthy, and have a slim-to-none shot at getting a full time position, then you should be looking for non-academic jobs.

From my experience, people go into grad school already fixated on the idea of becoming a professor,  and no one can socialize them out of it.  Both my wife and I fit that profile.  We were both warned independently about the then-already-bad job market but decided independently to pursue the life anyway.  We have both tried to warn off young people from pursuing academia as a career, and it has always failed.  People are simply too in-love with the idea of academia to be put-off, in my experience.

But that means everything is OK!

Well...no.  Didn't mean to imply that.

ciao_yall's homeless analogy is a very apt one, and just like the homeless problem damaging our streets, the adjunct army actually hurts academia a lot (and no easy answer in sight).  I suppose if we got all the adjuncts and homeless to those happy-to-be-so we'd be in much better shape.

I was simply suggesting that people know the risks but decide to take the ride anyway.  Blind optimism is a factor as is deep dissatisfaction with anything not academia. 

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 24, 2021, 02:33:42 PM

From my experience, people go into grad school already fixated on the idea of becoming a professor,  and no one can socialize them out of it.  Both my wife and I fit that profile.  We were both warned independently about the then-already-bad job market but decided independently to pursue the life anyway.  We have both tried to warn off young people from pursuing academia as a career, and it has always failed.  People are simply too in-love with the idea of academia to be put-off, in my experience.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 25, 2021, 08:42:03 AM

ciao_yall's homeless analogy is a very apt one, and just like the homeless problem damaging our streets, the adjunct army actually hurts academia a lot (and no easy answer in sight).  I suppose if we got all the adjuncts and homeless to those happy-to-be-so we'd be in much better shape.

I was simply suggesting that people know the risks but decide to take the ride anyway.  Blind optimism is a factor as is deep dissatisfaction with anything not academia.

If people will aim for academia, regardless of any information about the job market, pay, etc. then the only way to save people from themselves is to have government-enforced limits on admissions to PhD programs. (Presumably, many of these people would go into debt even if they were unfunded, so simply limiting funding won't work.)

Just like the homeless people who refuse to be housed, there's no non-coercive way to help people with that kind of single-minded goal.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 25, 2021, 08:42:03 AM

Quote from: dismalist on July 24, 2021, 02:39:09 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 24, 2021, 02:33:42 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 24, 2021, 11:25:08 AM

Quote from: dismalist on July 24, 2021, 11:07:51 AM

Quote... but too many want to make a career of adjuncting and then are upset when that career doesn't grant them status, job security, and sufficient income.

Again, hard to believe the facts -- the odds -- weren't known to them ahead of time.

Of course.

Look, I understand that people want to be professors and that they are socialized through grad school to think that being a academic is the only way forward, but one cannot eek out a decent living (let alone a comfortable retirement) through adjuncting alone. If you have a PhD, are not otherwise wealthy, and have a slim-to-none shot at getting a full time position, then you should be looking for non-academic jobs.

From my experience, people go into grad school already fixated on the idea of becoming a professor,  and no one can socialize them out of it.  Both my wife and I fit that profile.  We were both warned independently about the then-already-bad job market but decided independently to pursue the life anyway.  We have both tried to warn off young people from pursuing academia as a career, and it has always failed.  People are simply too in-love with the idea of academia to be put-off, in my experience.

But that means everything is OK!

Well...no.  Didn't mean to imply that.

ciao_yall's homeless analogy is a very apt one, and just like the homeless problem damaging our streets, the adjunct army actually hurts academia a lot (and no easy answer in sight).  I suppose if we got all the adjuncts and homeless to those happy-to-be-so we'd be in much better shape.

I was simply suggesting that people know the risks but decide to take the ride anyway.  Blind optimism is a factor as is deep dissatisfaction with anything not academia.

Obviously it is crazy inadvisable to try to support oneself as an adjunct unless one has other income, especially if you are planning to do so for a lifetime. I wouldn't recommend most people go into PhDs these days even if they can get a TT job, let alone if they only get adjunct work.

But saying that the adjunct army hurts academia sounds very much like blaming the victim. The large number of adjuncts is the result and symptom of other problems.

What are the problems? One main candidate is the decisions of departments and deans to create or keep their PhDs program that serve little purpose aside from allowing faculty to teach more grad courses. There's also the administrative bloat we are all very familiar with -- why aren't there adjunct administrators? Then there's the general issue of underfunding. There are plenty of causes of the current state of academia. Yeah, there are those who romanticize it and don't face the harsh realities. They are way down the list of people who should be blamed for the problems though.

Strangely, the structure of the adjuncting question has much in common with the vaccination question.

I know the probability of winding up as an adjunct when I go into and complete a PhD program. I enter the program and graduate. I happen to become an adjunct. Result of own informed decision. Not a problem.

I know the probability of getting Covid, but I do not get vaccinated. I happen to get Covid, suffer and even die. Result of own informed decision. Not a problem.

Quote from: dismalist on July 25, 2021, 12:28:22 PM
Strangely, the structure of the adjuncting question has much in common with the vaccination question.

I know the probability of winding up as an adjunct when I go into and complete a PhD program. I enter the program and graduate. I happen to become an adjunct. Result of own informed decision. Not a problem.

I know the probability of getting Covid, but I do not get vaccinated. I happen to get Covid, suffer and even die. Result of own informed decision. Not a problem.

The difference is, people who choose not to get vaccinated and get sick with Covid seem to not be complaining about their poor medical care; some still don't even seem to believe they actually have Covid. However, the unhappy adjuncts are often blaming the system for not fixing their problem. If they'd claim that the stories of adjunct un- or under-employment were exaggerated, it would be great.

Quote from: marshwiggle on July 25, 2021, 12:42:58 PM

Quote from: dismalist on July 25, 2021, 12:28:22 PM
Strangely, the structure of the adjuncting question has much in common with the vaccination question.

I know the probability of winding up as an adjunct when I go into and complete a PhD program. I enter the program and graduate. I happen to become an adjunct. Result of own informed decision. Not a problem.

I know the probability of getting Covid, but I do not get vaccinated. I happen to get Covid, suffer and even die. Result of own informed decision. Not a problem.

The difference is, people who choose not to get vaccinated and get sick with Covid seem to not be complaining about their poor medical care; some still don't even seem to believe they actually have Covid. However, the unhappy adjuncts are often blaming the system for not fixing their problem. If they'd claim that the stories of adjunct un- or under-employment were exaggerated, it would be great.

Well, there is another difference. Pretty sure an adjunct cannot infect my grandkids with adjunctitis.

Quote from: jimbogumbo on July 25, 2021, 01:11:42 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on July 25, 2021, 12:42:58 PM

Quote from: dismalist on July 25, 2021, 12:28:22 PM
Strangely, the structure of the adjuncting question has much in common with the vaccination question.

I know the probability of winding up as an adjunct when I go into and complete a PhD program. I enter the program and graduate. I happen to become an adjunct. Result of own informed decision. Not a problem.

I know the probability of getting Covid, but I do not get vaccinated. I happen to get Covid, suffer and even die. Result of own informed decision. Not a problem.

The difference is, people who choose not to get vaccinated and get sick with Covid seem to not be complaining about their poor medical care; some still don't even seem to believe they actually have Covid. However, the unhappy adjuncts are often blaming the system for not fixing their problem. If they'd claim that the stories of adjunct un- or under-employment were exaggerated, it would be great.

Well, there is another difference. Pretty sure an adjunct cannot infect my grandkids with adjunctitis.

Yes, this is one of the more absurd comparisons I've come across.

Quote from: downer on July 25, 2021, 11:54:53 AM
But saying that the adjunct army hurts academia sounds very much like blaming the victim. The large number of adjuncts is the result and symptom of other problems.

There is the moral judgment...

• (homeless and adjuncts are bad people and deserve what they get)

and there is the objective statement...

• (the homeless create a great deal of crime, tend to lack adequate resources for personal cleanliness, and are impoverished and thus tend to drain public resources; the adjunct army creates a great many issues in academia for teachers, students, and schools)

I'm willing to bet if you think about it a few moments the difference will be clear and you can see which one of those I am making. 

I have been an adjunct and trailing spouse, university PR writer, FT tutoring coordinator, VAP, and now a FT NTT lecturer.  I speak from experience.

I'm talking about the "harsh realities."

Quote from: downer on July 25, 2021, 11:54:53 AM
What are the problems? One main candidate is the decisions of departments and deans to create or keep their PhDs program that serve little purpose aside from allowing faculty to teach more grad courses. There's also the administrative bloat we are all very familiar with -- why aren't there adjunct administrators? Then there's the general issue of underfunding. There are plenty of causes of the current state of academia. Yeah, there are those who romanticize it and don't face the harsh realities. They are way down the list of people who should be blamed for the problems though.

This has been hashed over so often and at such length that I am not about to rehash it here.

I too wonder about admin bloat, which has been discussed at length, and the rest of that is also part of the hashing that's already been done.  I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Quote from: jimbogumbo on July 25, 2021, 01:11:42 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on July 25, 2021, 12:42:58 PM

Quote from: dismalist on July 25, 2021, 12:28:22 PM
Strangely, the structure of the adjuncting question has much in common with the vaccination question.

I know the probability of winding up as an adjunct when I go into and complete a PhD program. I enter the program and graduate. I happen to become an adjunct. Result of own informed decision. Not a problem.

I know the probability of getting Covid, but I do not get vaccinated. I happen to get Covid, suffer and even die. Result of own informed decision. Not a problem.

The difference is, people who choose not to get vaccinated and get sick with Covid seem to not be complaining about their poor medical care; some still don't even seem to believe they actually have Covid. However, the unhappy adjuncts are often blaming the system for not fixing their problem. If they'd claim that the stories of adjunct un- or under-employment were exaggerated, it would be great.

Well, there is another difference. Pretty sure an adjunct cannot infect my grandkids with adjunctitis.

The infection part is handled easily. For Covid, get them vaccinated [the FDA willing]. For adjunctitis, don't get a PhD. Both are cheap.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on July 25, 2021, 01:34:51 PM

Quote from: downer on July 25, 2021, 11:54:53 AM
But saying that the adjunct army hurts academia sounds very much like blaming the victim. The large number of adjuncts is the result and symptom of other problems.

There is the moral judgment...

• (homeless and adjuncts are bad people and deserve what they get)

and there is the objective statement...

• (the homeless create a great deal of crime, tend to lack adequate resources for personal cleanliness, and are impoverished and thus tend to drain public resources; the adjunct army creates a great many issues in academia for teachers, students, and schools)

I'm willing to bet if you think about it a few moments the difference will be clear and you can see which one of those I am making. 

I have been an adjunct and trailing spouse, university PR writer, FT tutoring coordinator, VAP, and now a FT NTT lecturer.  I speak from experience.

I'm talking about the "harsh realities."

Quote from: downer on July 25, 2021, 11:54:53 AM
What are the problems? One main candidate is the decisions of departments and deans to create or keep their PhDs program that serve little purpose aside from allowing faculty to teach more grad courses. There's also the administrative bloat we are all very familiar with -- why aren't there adjunct administrators? Then there's the general issue of underfunding. There are plenty of causes of the current state of academia. Yeah, there are those who romanticize it and don't face the harsh realities. They are way down the list of people who should be blamed for the problems though.

This has been hashed over so often and at such length that I am not about to rehash it here.

I too wonder about admin bloat, which has been discussed at length, and the rest of that is also part of the hashing that's already been done.  I'm not sure what you are getting at.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the adjunct army creates a great many issues. There are many issues, for sure, but what are they? I don't see the problems that occur when departments hire large numbers of adjunct faculty as separable from the other issues. They come in a package. Why do departments do it? Because they have little money. Why do they have little money? Because money is being wasted on other things (such as admin bloat), or there's just not enough coming in to the school. Why are there adjuncts willing to do the work? Because there are too many people with PhDs graduated by universities, when there are not enough tt jobs for them.

If we want to solve the problems, we can't just get rid of the adjunct army. There have to be systematic changes all over. And of course, that ain't gonna happen. Probably what changes that do occur will be more of the crash-and-burn variety, and we will see what we are left with when the smoke settles.

I'm not going to get into the analogy with homelessness. That just seems offensive (to all sorts of groups) and stupid.

Academic administrative bloat is the twin sister of excessive government regulation. Democrats love big government and they, even far-left democrats, absolutely dominate academia, including administration. Higher education is another thing, one of many, that the democrats have crapped all over and left others to figure out how to muddle through. Then there's the Diversity Industrial Complex, another gold mine for the groovy people. We are under siege. Don't get me started...

QuoteIf we want to solve the problems, we can't just get rid of the adjunct army. There have to be systematic changes all over. And of course, that ain't gonna happen. Probably what changes that do occur will be more of the crash-and-burn variety, and we will see what we are left with when the smoke settles.

Aha! Finally something to look forward to. And it was worth the wait. Thnx

Random points:

1) what, if anything, do big-time college athletics depts., and pro sports leagues, do, in the way of counseling out those athletes who are not going to stick long-term in the pros?

2) obviously we cannot actually compare being a grad student today, seeking a career as a professor, with one thirty years ago who was reading all the 'imminent professor shortage' stuff, but it does still remain the case that these young people have not really been given adequate information, are often being taught by aging professors who, stunningly, do not  seem to know contemporary realities either, and that they have been raised from a very young age to be schoolish, academic-oriented, and thus have been set on the 'professor' training path, often to the exclusion of more or less any other serious career options.

Quote from: kaysixteen on July 25, 2021, 07:40:30 PM
Random points:

1) what, if anything, do big-time college athletics depts., and pro sports leagues, do, in the way of counseling out those athletes who are not going to stick long-term in the pros?

2) obviously we cannot actually compare being a grad student today, seeking a career as a professor, with one thirty years ago who was reading all the 'imminent professor shortage' stuff, but it does still remain the case that these young people have not really been given adequate information, are often being taught by aging professors who, stunningly, do not  seem to know contemporary realities either, and that they have been raised from a very young age to be schoolish, academic-oriented, and thus have been set on the 'professor' training path, often to the exclusion of more or less any other serious career options.

The general theme here appears to be that higher education today exists mostly for the purpose of providing a good living to the people working in it who have landed the real jobs. To use an unpleasant word, a racket.

Well, 'racket' may be a strong word, but there ain't no doubt that many aging professors have for, ahem, many years, not been exactly scrupulous adherents to the 9th commandment, when it comes to advising young adults about the academic career path and its prospects.

Speaking again of Hannah Jones, this piece contains a quotation from a recent interview:

'When asked by Hill how she responds to people like Megyn Kelly, who called her work "anti-historical" and "dangerous," Hannah-Jones replied, "I don't really have a response to someone like Megyn Kelly; she's not actually worthy of me responding to, frankly." Hill—after a brief pause in which he considered pressing on that non-answer and being an actual journalist —breezily ended that portion of the interview with, "Fair enough," thus declining the invitation of his conscience. ("Democracy dies in darkness." Err, or something.)'

It has been said of Ibram X. Kendi that instead of engaging with arguments his strategy is to stigmatize them. She took it to a whole new level, infantile lashing out. Shaking my head trying to figure out how a poorly socialized non-PHD zero peer reviewed writer gets her pick of tenure-on-arrival positions.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/07/24/nikole-hannah-jones-hates-you/

Quote from: kaysixteen on July 26, 2021, 09:13:08 PM
Well, 'racket' may be a strong word, but there ain't no doubt that many aging professors have for, ahem, many years, not been exactly scrupulous adherents to the 9th commandment, when it comes to advising young adults about the academic career path and its prospects.

Indeed.

Quote from: mahagonny on July 27, 2021, 06:43:32 AM
Speaking again of Hannah Jones, this piece contains a quotation from a recent interview:

'When asked by Hill how she responds to people like Megyn Kelly, who called her work "anti-historical" and "dangerous," Hannah-Jones replied, "I don't really have a response to someone like Megyn Kelly; she's not actually worthy of me responding to, frankly." Hill—after a brief pause in which he considered pressing on that non-answer and being an actual journalist —breezily ended that portion of the interview with, "Fair enough," thus declining the invitation of his conscience. ("Democracy dies in darkness." Err, or something.)'

It's not a journalist's responsibility to engage in every absurd claim someone makes in the name of some kind of pseudo-fairness.

Quote from: Diogenes on July 27, 2021, 07:57:29 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on July 27, 2021, 06:43:32 AM
Speaking again of Hannah Jones, this piece contains a quotation from a recent interview:

'When asked by Hill how she responds to people like Megyn Kelly, who called her work "anti-historical" and "dangerous," Hannah-Jones replied, "I don't really have a response to someone like Megyn Kelly; she's not actually worthy of me responding to, frankly." Hill—after a brief pause in which he considered pressing on that non-answer and being an actual journalist —breezily ended that portion of the interview with, "Fair enough," thus declining the invitation of his conscience. ("Democracy dies in darkness." Err, or something.)'

It's not a journalist's responsibility to engage in every absurd claim someone makes in the name of some kind of pseudo-fairness.

Not as a journalist, perhaps, but as someone hired for an academic post in some history-adjacent field, an accusation of being "anti-historical" is a serious criticism. (Especially if it's an accusation that is made by academics as well.)

This thread exposes conservatives in a delicious way: Cancel culture is this right wing boogie man that conservatives pretend to be soooo concerned about, especially in the academy where they think that their every thought is policed. But when NJH is denied tenure, despite the committee's recommendation, because the Board of Trustees felt pressure from conservative activists, the conservatives on this board bend over backwards to justify the cancellation.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 27, 2021, 08:26:37 AM
This thread exposes conservatives in a delicious way: Cancel culture is this right wing boogie man that conservatives pretend to be soooo concerned about, especially in the academy where they think that their every thought is policed. But when NJH is denied tenure, despite the committee's recommendation, because the Board of Trustees felt pressure from conservative activists, the conservatives on this board bend over backwards to justify the cancellation.

Yes, they should have instead objected that someone without a PhD and no academic research or publishing record shouldn't even be eligible for a full-time position, let alone tenure. That has nothing to do with ideology.

Quote from: marshwiggle on July 27, 2021, 08:34:53 AM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 27, 2021, 08:26:37 AM
This thread exposes conservatives in a delicious way: Cancel culture is this right wing boogie man that conservatives pretend to be soooo concerned about, especially in the academy where they think that their every thought is policed. But when NJH is denied tenure, despite the committee's recommendation, because the Board of Trustees felt pressure from conservative activists, the conservatives on this board bend over backwards to justify the cancellation.

Yes, they should have instead objected that someone without a PhD and no academic research or publishing record shouldn't even be eligible for a full-time position, let alone tenure. That has nothing to do with ideology.

Ok but the Board didn't make a choice based on the criteria that you put forward, which is really for the tenure committee to decide (and two have now decided that she's tenureable). The board was pressured by right wing activists and they turned their rubber stamp into a cancel culture hammer. This is exactly the kind of thing that conservatives claim happens to them all the time - and they're stinking mad over it! (Not that they can name an instance where it has happened to one of theirs.)

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 27, 2021, 08:48:31 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on July 27, 2021, 08:34:53 AM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 27, 2021, 08:26:37 AM
This thread exposes conservatives in a delicious way: Cancel culture is this right wing boogie man that conservatives pretend to be soooo concerned about, especially in the academy where they think that their every thought is policed. But when NJH is denied tenure, despite the committee's recommendation, because the Board of Trustees felt pressure from conservative activists, the conservatives on this board bend over backwards to justify the cancellation.

Yes, they should have instead objected that someone without a PhD and no academic research or publishing record shouldn't even be eligible for a full-time position, let alone tenure. That has nothing to do with ideology.

Ok but the Board didn't make a choice based on the criteria that you put forward, which is really for the tenure committee to decide (and two have now decided that she's tenureable). The board was pressured by right wing activists and they turned their rubber stamp into a cancel culture hammer. This is exactly the kind of thing that conservatives claim happens to them all the time - and they're stinking mad over it! (Not that they can name an instance where it has happened to one of theirs.)

I completely agree that both sides engage in it when it suits them. What's sad is that given that both sides have had it work against them, they don't both realize that they'd be better off without it than being able to use it when they have the power. (It's like the "stolen election" hysteria of the past two elections. If both sides make people distrust the outcome of elections, it undermines the entire democratic process, which in the long run hurts everyone.)

Quote from: marshwiggle on July 27, 2021, 09:32:34 AM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 27, 2021, 08:48:31 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on July 27, 2021, 08:34:53 AM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 27, 2021, 08:26:37 AM
This thread exposes conservatives in a delicious way: Cancel culture is this right wing boogie man that conservatives pretend to be soooo concerned about, especially in the academy where they think that their every thought is policed. But when NJH is denied tenure, despite the committee's recommendation, because the Board of Trustees felt pressure from conservative activists, the conservatives on this board bend over backwards to justify the cancellation.

Yes, they should have instead objected that someone without a PhD and no academic research or publishing record shouldn't even be eligible for a full-time position, let alone tenure. That has nothing to do with ideology.

Ok but the Board didn't make a choice based on the criteria that you put forward, which is really for the tenure committee to decide (and two have now decided that she's tenureable). The board was pressured by right wing activists and they turned their rubber stamp into a cancel culture hammer. This is exactly the kind of thing that conservatives claim happens to them all the time - and they're stinking mad over it! (Not that they can name an instance where it has happened to one of theirs.)

I completely agree that both sides engage in it when it suits them. What's sad is that given that both sides have had it work against them, they don't both realize that they'd be better off without it than being able to use it when they have the power. (It's like the "stolen election" hysteria of the past two elections. If both sides make people distrust the outcome of elections, it undermines the entire democratic process, which in the long run hurts everyone.)

Glad you acknowledge that conservative outrage about "cancel culture" is a charade.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 27, 2021, 09:50:42 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on July 27, 2021, 09:32:34 AM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 27, 2021, 08:48:31 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on July 27, 2021, 08:34:53 AM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 27, 2021, 08:26:37 AM
This thread exposes conservatives in a delicious way: Cancel culture is this right wing boogie man that conservatives pretend to be soooo concerned about, especially in the academy where they think that their every thought is policed. But when NJH is denied tenure, despite the committee's recommendation, because the Board of Trustees felt pressure from conservative activists, the conservatives on this board bend over backwards to justify the cancellation.

Yes, they should have instead objected that someone without a PhD and no academic research or publishing record shouldn't even be eligible for a full-time position, let alone tenure. That has nothing to do with ideology.

Ok but the Board didn't make a choice based on the criteria that you put forward, which is really for the tenure committee to decide (and two have now decided that she's tenureable). The board was pressured by right wing activists and they turned their rubber stamp into a cancel culture hammer. This is exactly the kind of thing that conservatives claim happens to them all the time - and they're stinking mad over it! (Not that they can name an instance where it has happened to one of theirs.)

I completely agree that both sides engage in it when it suits them. What's sad is that given that both sides have had it work against them, they don't both realize that they'd be better off without it than being able to use it when they have the power. (It's like the "stolen election" hysteria of the past two elections. If both sides make people distrust the outcome of elections, it undermines the entire democratic process, which in the long run hurts everyone.)

Glad you acknowledge that conservative outrage about "cancel culture" is a charade.

As I've consistently stated, I'm a moderate. The extremists at both ends of the political spectrum are exasperating and dangerous.

Quote from: Diogenes on July 27, 2021, 07:57:29 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on July 27, 2021, 06:43:32 AM
Speaking again of Hannah Jones, this piece contains a quotation from a recent interview:

'When asked by Hill how she responds to people like Megyn Kelly, who called her work "anti-historical" and "dangerous," Hannah-Jones replied, "I don't really have a response to someone like Megyn Kelly; she's not actually worthy of me responding to, frankly." Hill—after a brief pause in which he considered pressing on that non-answer and being an actual journalist —breezily ended that portion of the interview with, "Fair enough," thus declining the invitation of his conscience. ("Democracy dies in darkness." Err, or something.)'

It's not a journalist's responsibility to engage in every absurd claim someone makes in the name of some kind of pseudo-fairness.

If it's an absurd claim she should be able to explain how so. And since her 'groundbreaking work' was proposed as criteria for government grants, and changes to public school curriculum, she owes the public a strong defense of this basis for overhauling public education. Not to mention the lay public agrees with Megyn Kelly much more than with NHJ.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 27, 2021, 08:48:31 AM


Ok but the Board didn't make a choice based on the criteria that you put forward, which is really for the tenure committee to decide (and two have now decided that she's tenureable). The board was pressured by right wing activists and they turned their rubber stamp into a cancel culture hammer. This is exactly the kind of thing that conservatives claim happens to them all the time - and they're stinking mad over it! (Not that they can name an instance where it has happened to one of theirs.)

The tenure committee did a crappy job assessing her scholarship because they got all excited about the potential added visibility to their school. It's the board who caved in to pressure. The white guilt bully.
There was no cancelling to begin with. She would have had five years at $180K per, and then tenure after that. Unless she made a total fool of herself in the meantime, which appears quite possible.

Quote from: mahagonny on July 27, 2021, 10:04:16 AM

Quote from: Diogenes on July 27, 2021, 07:57:29 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on July 27, 2021, 06:43:32 AM
Speaking again of Hannah Jones, this piece contains a quotation from a recent interview:

'When asked by Hill how she responds to people like Megyn Kelly, who called her work "anti-historical" and "dangerous," Hannah-Jones replied, "I don't really have a response to someone like Megyn Kelly; she's not actually worthy of me responding to, frankly." Hill—after a brief pause in which he considered pressing on that non-answer and being an actual journalist —breezily ended that portion of the interview with, "Fair enough," thus declining the invitation of his conscience. ("Democracy dies in darkness." Err, or something.)'

It's not a journalist's responsibility to engage in every absurd claim someone makes in the name of some kind of pseudo-fairness.

If it's an absurd claim she should be able to explain how so. And since her 'groundbreaking work' was proposed as criteria for government grants, and changes to public school curriculum, she owes the public a strong defense of this basis for overhauling public education. Not to mention the lay public agrees with Megyn Kelly much more than with NHJ.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 27, 2021, 08:48:31 AM


Ok but the Board didn't make a choice based on the criteria that you put forward, which is really for the tenure committee to decide (and two have now decided that she's tenureable). The board was pressured by right wing activists and they turned their rubber stamp into a cancel culture hammer. This is exactly the kind of thing that conservatives claim happens to them all the time - and they're stinking mad over it! (Not that they can name an instance where it has happened to one of theirs.)

The tenure committee did a crappy job assessing her scholarship because they got all excited about the potential added visibility to their school. It's the board who caved in to pressure. The white guilt bully.
There was no cancelling to begin with. She would have had five years at $180K per, and then tenure after that. Unless she made a total fool of herself in the meantime, which appears quite possible.

Lol. Mahagonny, what would you know about assessing someone for tenure or evaluating scholarship?

And feel free to drop some evidence that the public agrees with MK about anything.

I don't see what the hubub is about in cancellation and purportedly questionable hiring t or by institutions of higher learning -- so long as there is freedom of choice and competition. A speaker who is cancelled at college A may well be invited to speak at college B or C. A person denied tenure at college X may well receive it at college Y.

Classical liberalism allows just that, which may make the situation hopeless, however.

[Classical] Liberalism – it is well to recall today – is the supreme form of generosity; it is the right which the majority concedes to minorities and hence is the noblest cry that has ever resounded on this planet. It announces the determination to share existence with the enemy; more than that, with an enemy which is weak. It was incredible that the human species should have arrived at so noble an attitude, so paradoxical, so refined, so anti-natural. Hence it is not to be wondered that this same humanity should soon appear anxious to get rid of it. It is a discipline too difficult and complex to take firm root on earth.

--Ortega, 1932.

Quote from: dismalist on July 27, 2021, 11:43:07 AM
I don't see what the hubub is about in cancellation and purportedly questionable hiring t or by institutions of higher learning -- so long as there is freedom of choice and competition. A speaker who is cancelled at college A may well be invited to speak at college B or C. A person denied tenure at college X may well receive it at college Y.

Classical liberalism allows just that, which may make the situation hopeless, however.

[Classical] Liberalism – it is well to recall today – is the supreme form of generosity; it is the right which the majority concedes to minorities and hence is the noblest cry that has ever resounded on this planet. It announces the determination to share existence with the enemy; more than that, with an enemy which is weak. It was incredible that the human species should have arrived at so noble an attitude, so paradoxical, so refined, so anti-natural. Hence it is not to be wondered that this same humanity should soon appear anxious to get rid of it. It is a discipline too difficult and complex to take firm root on earth.

--Ortega, 1932.

And let all that fresh racism go to waste?

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 27, 2021, 10:29:40 AM

Lol. Mahagonny, what would you know about assessing someone for tenure or evaluating scholarship?

Do you mean how much do I know about how it's purported to work or how much do I know about how it does work? How much do we know about human nature? Did you see how much funding the Kendi man is getting nowadays?
There are enough signs to raise questions about this 1619 work. Not just from conservatives. An awful lot rests on it and the awards for it.

QuoteAnd feel free to drop some evidence that the public agrees with MK about anything.

Here's one:  https://time.com/collection-post/70888/megyn-kelly-2014-time-100/

Quote from: dismalist on July 27, 2021, 11:43:07 AM
I don't see what the hubub is about in cancellation and purportedly questionable hiring t or by institutions of higher learning -- so long as there is freedom of choice and competition. A speaker who is cancelled at college A may well be invited to speak at college B or C. A person denied tenure at college X may well receive it at college Y.

One of the big problems with speakers getting cancelled is that it often happens at the last minute, or even with protesters preventing it as it happens. All of the planning and cost have been incurred by then and are lost. If an institution has an approval process for speakers, then that's the level at which concerns should be raised.
Mob rule is not good for democracy, whatever part of the spectrum the mob comes from.

Quote from: mahagonny on July 28, 2021, 04:01:32 AM

QuoteAnd feel free to drop some evidence that the public agrees with MK about anything.

Here's one:  https://time.com/collection-post/70888/megyn-kelly-2014-time-100/

Did you even read this before posting it? It doesn't show that the public agrees with Megyn Kelly on the 1619 project or anything else. It only shows that Brit Hume and Brit Hume's wife liked Megyn Kelly and that the former thought her crappy "reporting" was insightful.

By showing this as "evidence" you're making it clear that you aren't capable of evaluating the scholarship of NHJ or anyone else. God help us all if you are reviewing scientific papers for journals.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 28, 2021, 08:36:45 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on July 28, 2021, 04:01:32 AM

QuoteAnd feel free to drop some evidence that the public agrees with MK about anything.

Here's one:  https://time.com/collection-post/70888/megyn-kelly-2014-time-100/

Did you even read this before posting it? It doesn't show that the public agrees with Megyn Kelly on the 1619 project or anything else. It only shows that Brit Hume and Brit Hume's wife liked Megyn Kelly and that the former thought her crappy "reporting" was insightful.

By showing this as "evidence" you're making it clear that you aren't capable of evaluating the scholarship of NHJ or anyone else. God help us all if you are reviewing scientific papers for journals.

Well, I answered your request literally. Obviously if Kelly was included in Time's list of most influential people, she probably has had a lot of influence.
Here's what we could do, Sunny: instead of just butting heads let's work together. Keep an eye out for more info about this. I suspect the popularity is falling as it gets more tied to sweeping changes. A lot of people give lip service to supporting left activism when it involves race out of fear of being labeled racist. This changes when they come for your kids.

Quote from: mahagonny on July 28, 2021, 10:40:06 AM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on July 28, 2021, 08:36:45 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on July 28, 2021, 04:01:32 AM

QuoteAnd feel free to drop some evidence that the public agrees with MK about anything.

Here's one:  https://time.com/collection-post/70888/megyn-kelly-2014-time-100/

Did you even read this before posting it? It doesn't show that the public agrees with Megyn Kelly on the 1619 project or anything else. It only shows that Brit Hume and Brit Hume's wife liked Megyn Kelly and that the former thought her crappy "reporting" was insightful.

By showing this as "evidence" you're making it clear that you aren't capable of evaluating the scholarship of NHJ or anyone else. God help us all if you are reviewing scientific papers for journals.

Well, I answered your request literally. Obviously if Kelly was included in Time's list of most influential people, she probably has had a lot of influence.
Here's what we could do, Sunny: instead of just butting heads let's work together. Keep an eye out for more info about this. I suspect the popularity is falling as it gets more tied to sweeping changes. A lot of people give lip service to supporting left activism when it involves race out of fear of being labeled racist. This changes when they come for your kids.

You actually didn't answer my request at all or validate your claim at all. Either you are purposely sharing weak data to disingenuously support your claim or you are powerfully data illiterate - either way, you should stay far away from data and data analysis.

And you don't need to tell me to keep watching, because I always watch the polling data, which is why I was able to thoroughly and easily debunk your every claim in this thread.

Randi Weingarten and the MTA  are all ready to spill blood over the new innovative 'teaching.' (I use quotations, because more often, knowledge is meant to blend with what you've already learned, whereas if you are taught that you may not treat people the same irrespective of their skin color, you're being fed knowledge that denounces things already learned; thus it is more likely political indoctrination, not new knowledge.)

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/27/opinions/teachers-union-critical-race-theory-schools-weingarten/index.html

"My union, the American Federation of Teachers, will defend any member who gets in trouble for teaching honest history. We have a legal defense fund ready to go. And we are preparing for litigation as we speak. Teaching the truth is not radical or wrong."

Since it's clear she's all excited about the new ideas, I note that she doesn't say that she'd have the MTA also defend any member who insists on teaching the way they did last year, before we went to bed one night and woke up to learn that the truth about the past  had changed. If they wouldn't then they don't support academic freedom.

This is similar to the frustration I'm having with my union these days. Instead of advocating for the rights and working conditions of teachers generally they are inserting the union into culture wars and pretending we all think the same.

Quote from: mahagonny on July 29, 2021, 07:48:24 AM
Randi Weingarten and the MTA  are all ready to spill blood over the new innovative 'teaching.' (I use quotations, because more often, knowledge is meant to blend with what you've already learned, whereas if you are taught that you may not treat people the same irrespective of their skin color, you're being fed knowledge that denounces things already learned; thus it is more likely political indoctrination, not new knowledge.)

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/27/opinions/teachers-union-critical-race-theory-schools-weingarten/index.html

"My union, the American Federation of Teachers, will defend any member who gets in trouble for teaching honest history. We have a legal defense fund ready to go. And we are preparing for litigation as we speak. Teaching the truth is not radical or wrong."

Since it's clear she's all excited about the new ideas, I note that she doesn't say that she'd have the MTA also defend any member who insists on teaching the way they did last year, before we went to bed one night and woke up to learn that the truth about the past  had changed. If they wouldn't then they don't support academic freedom.

This is similar to the frustration I'm having with my union these days. Instead of advocating for the rights and working conditions of teachers generally they are inserting the union into culture wars and pretending we all think the same.

Spill blood? You need to use a better example of the use of violence in cancel culture wars. I suggest you look at the Lincoln Children's Museum (Nebraska) who was forced to cancel their LGBT event earlier this week because of threat of violence (including death threats). I don't know if it's possible to go any lower than threatening children, in order to get a cultural event canceled. But then again, I didn't think the use of violence on Jan. 6 could ever be on the table either.

Quote from: lightning on July 29, 2021, 11:53:01 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on July 29, 2021, 07:48:24 AM
Randi Weingarten and the MTA  are all ready to spill blood over the new innovative 'teaching.' (I use quotations, because more often, knowledge is meant to blend with what you've already learned, whereas if you are taught that you may not treat people the same irrespective of their skin color, you're being fed knowledge that denounces things already learned; thus it is more likely political indoctrination, not new knowledge.)

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/27/opinions/teachers-union-critical-race-theory-schools-weingarten/index.html

"My union, the American Federation of Teachers, will defend any member who gets in trouble for teaching honest history. We have a legal defense fund ready to go. And we are preparing for litigation as we speak. Teaching the truth is not radical or wrong."

Since it's clear she's all excited about the new ideas, I note that she doesn't say that she'd have the MTA also defend any member who insists on teaching the way they did last year, before we went to bed one night and woke up to learn that the truth about the past  had changed. If they wouldn't then they don't support academic freedom.

This is similar to the frustration I'm having with my union these days. Instead of advocating for the rights and working conditions of teachers generally they are inserting the union into culture wars and pretending we all think the same.

Spill blood? You need to use a better example of the use of violence in cancel culture wars. I suggest you look at the Lincoln Children's Museum (Nebraska) who was forced to cancel their LGBT event earlier this week because of threat of violence (including death threats). I don't know if it's possible to go any lower than threatening children, in order to get a cultural event canceled. But then again, I didn't think the use of violence on Jan. 6 could ever be on the table either.

I meant it figuratively, but you prompt me to think of several things:
1. Parents in places like Loudoun, VA and others are soon going to realize they have to choice but to declare war on people who insist on CRT-derived approaches to teaching young children because the CRT mob thinks like an urban youth gang, i.e. 'anyone who would compromise or listen to differing ideas is a traitor';
2. Telling a child they need to understand they have defective character, as evidenced by immutable qualities such as skin color is psychological violence;
3. If there is nothing that could happen between you and another person that would motivate you to fight them physically, you have no firmly held moral beliefs. (Thanks to the effervescent Dr. Jordan Peterson for that one!)

I understand if the escalating culture wars are upsetting you. It is unnerving.

I know you meant it figuratively, but one side in the culture wars is more likely to take it literally. (e.g. the scumbags that threatened the LGBT participants in a children's museum event or the treasonous scumbags who threatened the life of the former vice-president on Jan 6, while he was trying to complete election formalities.)

So far, I'm not seeing any kind of violent CRT cancel culture activities that are on par with Jan. 6 or the children's museum in Nebraska).

There is certainly escalation rhetoric, but the violence and intent of violence is clearly coming from one side. You can talk all you want about "spill blood" and telling me it was figurative, but the actions from one side of the cancel culture wars is taking that stuff literally.

I don't even like to use the words "Civil War" anymore, when referencing culture wars, because there are scumbags out there who are literally arming themselves for a real & violent civil war, if the 2020 presidential election results are not reversed in August.

Words matter.

QuoteWords matter.

...but white lives don't. In fact, 'all lives' don't matter either. One may not say 'all lives matter' or 'white lives matter' without getting into trouble currently with the left.
Whereas people on the right are happy to hear, say, promote statements such as 'black lives matter'  'white lives matter' and 'all lives matter' as long as saying them does not promote mayhem, and are happy to fund police to protect those most vulnerable to homicide.

So it is clear that the condoning of homicide comes from the left, by and large, and also the tyranny over how violence in our society gets discussed.

Interesting information here: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls

Quote from: mahagonny on July 30, 2021, 06:23:09 PM

QuoteWords matter.

...but white lives don't. In fact, 'all lives' don't matter either. One may not say 'all lives matter' or 'white lives matter' without getting into trouble currently with the left.
Whereas people on the right are happy to hear, say, promote statements such as 'black lives matter'  'white lives matter' and 'all lives matter' as long as saying them does not promote mayhem, and are happy to fund police to protect those most vulnerable to homicide.

You said "white lives don't." Not me.

Quote from: mahagonny on July 30, 2021, 06:23:09 PM

So it is clear that the condoning of homicide comes from the left, by and large, and also the tyranny over how violence in our society gets discussed.

Nothing you say is clear.

Quote from: mahagonny on July 30, 2021, 06:23:09 PM

Interesting information here: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls

No, not interesting or relevant to anyone except you.
Just like CRT, no one really gives a f**k except people like you and the parents that the right-wing rage machine picks out to put a few faces to the manufactured rage. Most parents on any aisle of the political spectrum are dis-engaged with k-12 curriculums (it's why if you even ask "what is CRT" to the average k-12 parent, they won't even take the time to inquire further--they just don't care). The only ones engaged with their schools are helicopter parents who want special treatment for their kid, especially when their kids' grades are disappointing, but the engagement has more to do with grades and less to do with curriculum.

Your pathetic and predictable attempt at using tangentially related topics as equivalencies (false equivalencies) to distract from the egregious cancel culture that happened at UNC & elsewhere (and violent in some cases), well, your playbook has bored most of us. That's why I only respond to you when I'm drinking coffee and having ice cream or involved in some other recreational activity (it beats watching mind-numbing TV). Thanks for entertaining me (and us), you clown.

University of Mississippi reaches financial settlement with fired professor for an undisclosed amount:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/07/30/ole-miss-settles-professor (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/07/30/ole-miss-settles-professor).

Quote from: lightning on July 30, 2021, 07:59:05 PM

Just like CRT, no one really gives a f**k except people like you and the parents that the right-wing rage machine picks out to put a few faces to the manufactured rage. Most parents on any aisle of the political spectrum are dis-engaged with k-12 curriculums (it's why if you even ask "what is CRT" to the average k-12 parent, they won't even take the time to inquire further--they just don't care). The only ones engaged with their schools are helicopter parents who want special treatment for their kid, especially when their kids' grades are disappointing, but the engagement has more to do with grades and less to do with curriculum.

I am amazed that you could think you know something as detailed as this so intimately from afar. Also frankly I don't appreciate your use of the term 'rage.' Sounds like it is intended to raise doubts about someone's mental stability. The parents in Loudoun are using their legal right to be heard and protest. They are saying 'we don't like what you are doing with our children and we want it to stop.' This is a sane response. If your point is you think there is a small enough number of them that they can be defeated, that's different. It wouldn't surprise me if that's what you hope. But 'manufactured rage' is a smear suggesting you think you need some bullying tactics to get what you want.

Quote from: mahagonny on July 31, 2021, 06:57:45 AM

Quote from: lightning on July 30, 2021, 07:59:05 PM

Just like CRT, no one really gives a f**k except people like you and the parents that the right-wing rage machine picks out to put a few faces to the manufactured rage. Most parents on any aisle of the political spectrum are dis-engaged with k-12 curriculums (it's why if you even ask "what is CRT" to the average k-12 parent, they won't even take the time to inquire further--they just don't care). The only ones engaged with their schools are helicopter parents who want special treatment for their kid, especially when their kids' grades are disappointing, but the engagement has more to do with grades and less to do with curriculum.

I am amazed that you could think you know something as detailed as this so intimately from afar. Also frankly I don't appreciate your use of the term 'rage.' Sounds like it is intended to raise doubts about someone's mental stability. The parents in Loudoun are using their legal right to be heard and protest. They are saying 'we don't like what you are doing with our children and we want it to stop.' This is a sane response. If your point is you think there is a small enough number of them that they can be defeated, that's different. It wouldn't surprise me if that's what you hope. But 'manufactured rage' is a smear suggesting you think you need some bullying tactics to get what you want.

I meant it figuratively. But, please go on with your wild and tangential speculation, as you probably need it to get through the day. I'll even let you have the last word on this, because I know it means a lot to you. Frankly, you are not even entertaining anymore--you are just boring.

Quote from: lightning on July 31, 2021, 08:23:16 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on July 31, 2021, 06:57:45 AM

Quote from: lightning on July 30, 2021, 07:59:05 PM

Just like CRT, no one really gives a f**k except people like you and the parents that the right-wing rage machine picks out to put a few faces to the manufactured rage. Most parents on any aisle of the political spectrum are dis-engaged with k-12 curriculums (it's why if you even ask "what is CRT" to the average k-12 parent, they won't even take the time to inquire further--they just don't care). The only ones engaged with their schools are helicopter parents who want special treatment for their kid, especially when their kids' grades are disappointing, but the engagement has more to do with grades and less to do with curriculum.

I am amazed that you could think you know something as detailed as this so intimately from afar. Also frankly I don't appreciate your use of the term 'rage.' Sounds like it is intended to raise doubts about someone's mental stability. The parents in Loudoun are using their legal right to be heard and protest. They are saying 'we don't like what you are doing with our children and we want it to stop.' This is a sane response. If your point is you think there is a small enough number of them that they can be defeated, that's different. It wouldn't surprise me if that's what you hope. But 'manufactured rage' is a smear suggesting you think you need some bullying tactics to get what you want.

I meant it figuratively. But, please go on with your wild and tangential speculation, as you probably need it to get through the day. I'll even let you have the last word on this, because I know it means a lot to you. Frankly, you are not even entertaining anymore--you are just boring.

Actually I don't need the last word, because you've conceded that the parents are not unhinged lunatics nor is the press ginning up a fake news story; they are normal people reacting sanely. And I wouldn't get taken in by the silliness of "oh, you don't even know what CRT is anyway.' The parents not only know all they need to to make an informed decision, they are better nicer, more well adjusted people than the CRT proponents, even if they haver lower IQ (though in the case of Ibram X. Kendi, I would doubt it.)

Nothing here is tangential. All these folks who sound like they've been smoking the same water pipe, e.g. Ibram Kendi, Hannah-Jones, Eddie Glaude, Khalil Gibran Mohammed, Charles Blow, L. Z. Granderson, Chauncey deVega all are part of a misguided movement. May it die a slow, noisy death so their names are remembered.
As my mother used to say, boring people get bored.
ETA: Those Black writers and professors with the hopelessly bleak view of the world are not representative of Black America either. They're just the noisy ones who make a lot of money peddling their resentment to white liberals.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324853704578587610461933172

Oh, and I forgot this guy. What a sad case. He gets paid a lot of money to write nothing, but I wouldn't want to be him.

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/sims-video-utopia/

Man, I love the ignore function. Sure makes for interesting reading.

Yes, I note who's posting to a thread and then ignore it until the next round if need be.

Its like a washing machine on spin cycle, pretty much the same dirty, facts-adjusted-to-my-opinions water comes spewing out, no matter what you start with

I've only opened this one twice.

M.

See, if you need to comment on the fact that you're ignoring a poster, it's not the opportunity to ignore posters that you love. It's something else.

More intemperate, divisive ranting by the bully Hannah-Jones.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2021/09/08/nikole_hannah-jones_schools_a_teacher_551172.html


"Tafuto joins a growing number of teachers who have broken ranks with the teachers union and their radicalized fellow teachers to complain about the subversion of American schools. The trend has caught the attention of no less than the godmother of 1619-ism, Nikole Hannah-Jones, who has a sideline as a fast-draw Twitter assassin. Hannah-Jones's nom-de-Twit is 'Ida Bae Wells'; as Aunt Ida she expresses her disdain for Tafuto:

'So you entered teaching to willfully deny the history of this country and the lived experiences of your students? Fact check: 7 and 8 year-old Black kids already know they are being judged by their skin color and good educators don't pretend otherwise but help explain why.

'This is just so tiresome and it's a game, the game they've long played that says that actual racial inequality is not the problem, talking about it is.'"

I have a friend who was hired on the TT at a school in the south last year (after much adjuncting). She was explicitly hired to teach critical race theory. But she's just heard from her dean that the provost has been trying to fire her for teaching the courses she was hired--and scheduled!--to teach.

Free speech!

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2021, 08:17:10 AM
I have a friend who was hired on the TT at a school in the south last year (after much adjuncting). She was explicitly hired to teach critical race theory. But she's just heard from her dean that the provost has been trying to fire her for teaching the courses she was hired--and scheduled!--to teach.

Free speech!

Isn't inviting a lawsuit?

Sounds like a pain.

What about the distinction between teaching about X and teaching that X is true?

Quote from: downer on September 09, 2021, 08:31:44 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2021, 08:17:10 AM
I have a friend who was hired on the TT at a school in the south last year (after much adjuncting). She was explicitly hired to teach critical race theory. But she's just heard from her dean that the provost has been trying to fire her for teaching the courses she was hired--and scheduled!--to teach.

Free speech!

Isn't inviting a lawsuit?

Sounds like a pain.

What about the distinction between teaching about X and teaching that X is true?

I would imagine so, yes. (Then again, so are all those laws forbidding the teaching of "critical race theory".)

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2021, 09:40:55 AM

Quote from: downer on September 09, 2021, 08:31:44 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2021, 08:17:10 AM
I have a friend who was hired on the TT at a school in the south last year (after much adjuncting). She was explicitly hired to teach critical race theory. But she's just heard from her dean that the provost has been trying to fire her for teaching the courses she was hired--and scheduled!--to teach.

Free speech!

Isn't inviting a lawsuit?

Sounds like a pain.

What about the distinction between teaching about X and teaching that X is true?

I would imagine so, yes. (Then again, so are all those laws forbidding the teaching of "critical race theory".)

It would probably be unconstitutional to forbid teaching Flat Earth Theory or Phlogeston Theory, but then you'd be hard pressed to find anyone teaching those because they were believed to be true. They'd usually be discussed precisely as examples of theories that don't stand up to the evidence. CRT, on the other hand, is probably usually taught by its adherents as being irrefutable.

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 09, 2021, 09:56:30 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2021, 09:40:55 AM

Quote from: downer on September 09, 2021, 08:31:44 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2021, 08:17:10 AM
I have a friend who was hired on the TT at a school in the south last year (after much adjuncting). She was explicitly hired to teach critical race theory. But she's just heard from her dean that the provost has been trying to fire her for teaching the courses she was hired--and scheduled!--to teach.

Free speech!

Isn't inviting a lawsuit?

Sounds like a pain.

What about the distinction between teaching about X and teaching that X is true?

I would imagine so, yes. (Then again, so are all those laws forbidding the teaching of "critical race theory".)

It would probably be unconstitutional to forbid teaching Flat Earth Theory or Phlogeston Theory, but then you'd be hard pressed to find anyone teaching those because they were believed to be true. They'd usually be discussed precisely as examples of theories that don't stand up to the evidence. CRT, on the other hand, is probably usually taught by its adherents as being irrefutable.

In 2013-2014 Ball State had not one but TWO Physics professors teaching that intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory.

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 09, 2021, 01:36:09 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 09, 2021, 09:56:30 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2021, 09:40:55 AM

Quote from: downer on September 09, 2021, 08:31:44 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2021, 08:17:10 AM
I have a friend who was hired on the TT at a school in the south last year (after much adjuncting). She was explicitly hired to teach critical race theory. But she's just heard from her dean that the provost has been trying to fire her for teaching the courses she was hired--and scheduled!--to teach.

Free speech!

Isn't inviting a lawsuit?

Sounds like a pain.

What about the distinction between teaching about X and teaching that X is true?

I would imagine so, yes. (Then again, so are all those laws forbidding the teaching of "critical race theory".)

It would probably be unconstitutional to forbid teaching Flat Earth Theory or Phlogiston Theory, but then you'd be hard pressed to find anyone teaching those because they were believed to be true. They'd usually be discussed precisely as examples of theories that don't stand up to the evidence. CRT, on the other hand, is probably usually taught by its adherents as being irrefutable.

In 2013-2014 Ball State had not one but TWO Physics professors teaching that intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory.

A certain point needs repetition, probably forever: We will never have and do not need universal agreement on all things.

-If somebody is desired to teach Critical Race Theory, let them!
-If somebody thinks s/he would benefit from going to a Phlogiston college, let them go!
-If somebody thinks s/he believes an intelligent designer would design us, let them!

The important thing is to be have institutions that enable us to live peacefully with people with whom we disagree.

There will be different institutions that handle them differently, individual States being the final arbiter.

Quote from: dismalist on September 09, 2021, 02:05:37 PM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 09, 2021, 01:36:09 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 09, 2021, 09:56:30 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2021, 09:40:55 AM

Quote from: downer on September 09, 2021, 08:31:44 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2021, 08:17:10 AM
I have a friend who was hired on the TT at a school in the south last year (after much adjuncting). She was explicitly hired to teach critical race theory. But she's just heard from her dean that the provost has been trying to fire her for teaching the courses she was hired--and scheduled!--to teach.

Free speech!

Isn't inviting a lawsuit?

Sounds like a pain.

What about the distinction between teaching about X and teaching that X is true?

I would imagine so, yes. (Then again, so are all those laws forbidding the teaching of "critical race theory".)

It would probably be unconstitutional to forbid teaching Flat Earth Theory or Phlogiston Theory, but then you'd be hard pressed to find anyone teaching those because they were believed to be true. They'd usually be discussed precisely as examples of theories that don't stand up to the evidence. CRT, on the other hand, is probably usually taught by its adherents as being irrefutable.

In 2013-2014 Ball State had not one but TWO Physics professors teaching that intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory.

A certain point needs repetition, probably forever: We will never have and do not need universal agreement on all things.

-If somebody is desired to teach Critical Race Theory, let them!
-If somebody thinks s/he would benefit from going to a Phlogiston college, let them go!
-If somebody thinks s/he believes an intelligent designer would design us, let them!

The important thing is to be have institutions that enable us to live peacefully with people with whom we disagree.

There will be different institutions that handle them differently, individual States being the final arbiter.

Sorry, repeat all you wish. It is NOT okay for a Physics prof to teach that in a Physics course. Both were, and it was definitely not relevant to either of their courses.

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 09, 2021, 03:55:57 PM

Quote from: dismalist on September 09, 2021, 02:05:37 PM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 09, 2021, 01:36:09 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 09, 2021, 09:56:30 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2021, 09:40:55 AM

Quote from: downer on September 09, 2021, 08:31:44 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2021, 08:17:10 AM
I have a friend who was hired on the TT at a school in the south last year (after much adjuncting). She was explicitly hired to teach critical race theory. But she's just heard from her dean that the provost has been trying to fire her for teaching the courses she was hired--and scheduled!--to teach.

Free speech!

Isn't inviting a lawsuit?

Sounds like a pain.

What about the distinction between teaching about X and teaching that X is true?

I would imagine so, yes. (Then again, so are all those laws forbidding the teaching of "critical race theory".)

It would probably be unconstitutional to forbid teaching Flat Earth Theory or Phlogiston Theory, but then you'd be hard pressed to find anyone teaching those because they were believed to be true. They'd usually be discussed precisely as examples of theories that don't stand up to the evidence. CRT, on the other hand, is probably usually taught by its adherents as being irrefutable.

In 2013-2014 Ball State had not one but TWO Physics professors teaching that intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory.

A certain point needs repetition, probably forever: We will never have and do not need universal agreement on all things.

-If somebody is desired to teach Critical Race Theory, let them!
-If somebody thinks s/he would benefit from going to a Phlogiston college, let them go!
-If somebody thinks s/he believes an intelligent designer would design us, let them!

The important thing is to be have institutions that enable us to live peacefully with people with whom we disagree.

There will be different institutions that handle them differently, individual States being the final arbiter.

Sorry, repeat all you wish. It is NOT okay for a Physics prof to teach that in a Physics course. Both were, and it was definitely not relevant to either of their courses.

Sure, that's a reason to change colleges for the student. Not for you or me. Competition, baby! :-)

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2021, 09:40:55 AM

Quote from: downer on September 09, 2021, 08:31:44 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2021, 08:17:10 AM
I have a friend who was hired on the TT at a school in the south last year (after much adjuncting). She was explicitly hired to teach critical race theory. But she's just heard from her dean that the provost has been trying to fire her for teaching the courses she was hired--and scheduled!--to teach.

Free speech!

Isn't inviting a lawsuit?

Sounds like a pain.

What about the distinction between teaching about X and teaching that X is true?

I would imagine so, yes. (Then again, so are all those laws forbidding the teaching of "critical race theory".)

As I recall the new laws are often written with such things as 'you may not teach that one race is inherently inferior to another' which certainly applies if the message is that 'while all races have enslaved people, only white people are guilty of doing it, and declining to teach that white people are oppressors is refusing to teach history' or some such and other similar stupid bullshit. I don't know if they're mentioning CRT by name, but if they are, the radical lefties are responsible for these crude new laws that may be hard to obey, having proclaimed 'y'all are too stupid to even know what it is, so we are excused from responsibility for telling you what we're doing with your kids.'

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 09, 2021, 03:55:57 PM

Quote from: dismalist on September 09, 2021, 02:05:37 PM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 09, 2021, 01:36:09 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 09, 2021, 09:56:30 AM

It would probably be unconstitutional to forbid teaching Flat Earth Theory or Phlogiston Theory, but then you'd be hard pressed to find anyone teaching those because they were believed to be true. They'd usually be discussed precisely as examples of theories that don't stand up to the evidence. CRT, on the other hand, is probably usually taught by its adherents as being irrefutable.

In 2013-2014 Ball State had not one but TWO Physics professors teaching that intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory.

A certain point needs repetition, probably forever: We will never have and do not need universal agreement on all things.

-If somebody is desired to teach Critical Race Theory, let them!
-If somebody thinks s/he would benefit from going to a Phlogiston college, let them go!
-If somebody thinks s/he believes an intelligent designer would design us, let them!

The important thing is to be have institutions that enable us to live peacefully with people with whom we disagree.

There will be different institutions that handle them differently, individual States being the final arbiter.

Sorry, repeat all you wish. It is NOT okay for a Physics prof to teach that in a Physics course. Both were, and it was definitely not relevant to either of their courses.

I can't see how they could actually test students on this in a *physics course. So I'm not sure how students would have to pretend to agree with it in order to succeed in the course.


(*In a way that would in any way be actually be anything about physics. I can have a test question asking students to give the name of my dog, but that doesn't make it a legitimate part of the course content, and they'd have grounds for a grade appeal if I penalized them for getting it "wrong".)

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2021, 06:19:18 AM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 09, 2021, 03:55:57 PM

Quote from: dismalist on September 09, 2021, 02:05:37 PM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 09, 2021, 01:36:09 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 09, 2021, 09:56:30 AM

It would probably be unconstitutional to forbid teaching Flat Earth Theory or Phlogiston Theory, but then you'd be hard pressed to find anyone teaching those because they were believed to be true. They'd usually be discussed precisely as examples of theories that don't stand up to the evidence. CRT, on the other hand, is probably usually taught by its adherents as being irrefutable.

In 2013-2014 Ball State had not one but TWO Physics professors teaching that intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory.

A certain point needs repetition, probably forever: We will never have and do not need universal agreement on all things.

-If somebody is desired to teach Critical Race Theory, let them!
-If somebody thinks s/he would benefit from going to a Phlogiston college, let them go!
-If somebody thinks s/he believes an intelligent designer would design us, let them!

The important thing is to be have institutions that enable us to live peacefully with people with whom we disagree.

There will be different institutions that handle them differently, individual States being the final arbiter.

Sorry, repeat all you wish. It is NOT okay for a Physics prof to teach that in a Physics course. Both were, and it was definitely not relevant to either of their courses.

I can't see how they could actually test students on this in a *physics course. So I'm not sure how students would have to pretend to agree with it in order to succeed in the course.


(*In a way that would in any way be actually be anything about physics. I can have a test question asking students to give the name of my dog, but that doesn't make it a legitimate part of the course content, and they'd have grounds for a grade appeal if I penalized them for getting it "wrong".)

Because they think your grading could be influenced by whether or not you are taking their side in the culture war in the USA.  Which has become quite intense, with social media, late night TV talk shows, sports, cable news, etc.
They would be wrong, hopefully, but it takes a leap of faith to be certain that the professor is totally trustworthy.

Quote from: mahagonny on September 10, 2021, 06:25:11 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2021, 06:19:18 AM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 09, 2021, 03:55:57 PM

Quote from: dismalist on September 09, 2021, 02:05:37 PM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 09, 2021, 01:36:09 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 09, 2021, 09:56:30 AM

It would probably be unconstitutional to forbid teaching Flat Earth Theory or Phlogiston Theory, but then you'd be hard pressed to find anyone teaching those because they were believed to be true. They'd usually be discussed precisely as examples of theories that don't stand up to the evidence. CRT, on the other hand, is probably usually taught by its adherents as being irrefutable.

In 2013-2014 Ball State had not one but TWO Physics professors teaching that intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory.

A certain point needs repetition, probably forever: We will never have and do not need universal agreement on all things.

-If somebody is desired to teach Critical Race Theory, let them!
-If somebody thinks s/he would benefit from going to a Phlogiston college, let them go!
-If somebody thinks s/he believes an intelligent designer would design us, let them!

The important thing is to be have institutions that enable us to live peacefully with people with whom we disagree.

There will be different institutions that handle them differently, individual States being the final arbiter.

Sorry, repeat all you wish. It is NOT okay for a Physics prof to teach that in a Physics course. Both were, and it was definitely not relevant to either of their courses.

I can't see how they could actually test students on this in a *physics course. So I'm not sure how students would have to pretend to agree with it in order to succeed in the course.


(*In a way that would in any way be actually be anything about physics. I can have a test question asking students to give the name of my dog, but that doesn't make it a legitimate part of the course content, and they'd have grounds for a grade appeal if I penalized them for getting it "wrong".)

Because they think your grading could be influenced by whether or not you are taking their side in the culture war in the USA.  Which has become quite intense, with social media, late night TV talk shows, sports, cable news, etc.
They would be wrong, hopefully, but it takes a leap of faith to be certain that the professor is totally trustworthy.

Sure, but when, exactly would students express that if it weren't on a test or assignment? Unless the class were really small, most people wouldn't participate in most class discussions, so simply not participating in a class discussion about the topic wouldn't "out" anyone. If a prof teaching French was a Flat Earther, unless students were graded on some activity related to the shape of the earth, it's not clear how they would need to identify themselves as disagreeing with the prof.

So the prof acting in a biased manner based on students' beliefs is quite possible, but how the prof would determine students' beliefs without some explicit course requirement isn't obvious to me. (Anyone have a high school teacher who was a rabid fan of some sports team that you didn't like? How hard was it to just keep that to yourself in that class?)

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2021, 07:08:06 AM

Sure, but when, exactly would students express that if it weren't on a test or assignment? Unless the class were really small, most people wouldn't participate in most class discussions, so simply not participating in a class discussion about the topic wouldn't "out" anyone. If a prof teaching French was a Flat Earther, unless students were graded on some activity related to the shape of the earth, it's not clear how they would need to identify themselves as disagreeing with the prof.

So the prof acting in a biased manner based on students' beliefs is quite possible, but how the prof would determine students' beliefs without some explicit course requirement isn't obvious to me. (Anyone have a high school teacher who was a rabid fan of some sports team that you didn't like? How hard was it to just keep that to yourself in that class?)

I can envision that. Yes, you might be one who makes up his mind that he doesn't have to be part of the 'in' crowd. You just complete your work well, kind of come in under the radar, get through it. Many conservative college students today censor themselves a bit, or a lot, socially, or in class. I wouldn't go broadcasting that I am pro-life, for example.

I really don't care what students' personal beliefs are. Nor do I care about those of the two Physics professors. What they can't do is teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory.

To me it's like this:

"Hi upper division math class! While mathematicians have proven that pi is an irrational number, we will treat it as rational as that's what is done in the Bible".

Or "Hi kids! It's easy to prove that sqrt(2) is irrational, but as a staunch Pythagorean I believe it is rational, so that is what we will do".

If a student asserted either of those positions in class they would and should have an assessment graded poorly. What they do at home is of no concern to me, other than as it affects my general state of mind.

Both should be fired.

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 10, 2021, 02:05:22 PM
I really don't care what students' personal beliefs are. Nor do I care about those of the two Physics professors. What they can't do is teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory.

To me it's like this:

"Hi upper division math class! While mathematicians have proven that pi is an irrational number, we will treat it as rational as that's what is done in the Bible".

Or "Hi kids! It's easy to prove that sqrt(2) is irrational, but as a staunch Pythagorean I believe it is rational, so that is what we will do".

If a student asserted either of those positions in class they would and should have an assessment graded poorly. What they do at home is of no concern to me, other than as it affects my general state of mind.

Both should be fired.

Agreed! Fired by whom? The college? If it wants. The State? If it wants. The student? If s/he wants!

Quote from: dismalist on September 10, 2021, 02:13:16 PM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 10, 2021, 02:05:22 PM
I really don't care what students' personal beliefs are. Nor do I care about those of the two Physics professors. What they can't do is teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory.

To me it's like this:

"Hi upper division math class! While mathematicians have proven that pi is an irrational number, we will treat it as rational as that's what is done in the Bible".

Or "Hi kids! It's easy to prove that sqrt(2) is irrational, but as a staunch Pythagorean I believe it is rational, so that is what we will do".

If a student asserted either of those positions in class they would and should have an assessment graded poorly. What they do at home is of no concern to me, other than as it affects my general state of mind.

Both should be fired.

Agreed! Fired by whom? The college? If it wants. The State? If it wants. The student? If s/he wants!

how about by the parents? Or do their kids belong to the state now.

Quote from: mahagonny on September 10, 2021, 03:53:48 PM

Quote from: dismalist on September 10, 2021, 02:13:16 PM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 10, 2021, 02:05:22 PM
I really don't care what students' personal beliefs are. Nor do I care about those of the two Physics professors. What they can't do is teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory.

To me it's like this:

"Hi upper division math class! While mathematicians have proven that pi is an irrational number, we will treat it as rational as that's what is done in the Bible".

Or "Hi kids! It's easy to prove that sqrt(2) is irrational, but as a staunch Pythagorean I believe it is rational, so that is what we will do".

If a student asserted either of those positions in class they would and should have an assessment graded poorly. What they do at home is of no concern to me, other than as it affects my general state of mind.

Both should be fired.

Agreed! Fired by whom? The college? If it wants. The State? If it wants. The student? If s/he wants!

how about by the parents? Or do their kids belong to the state now.

Depends on who pays! :-)

Quote from: dismalist on September 10, 2021, 03:59:03 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on September 10, 2021, 03:53:48 PM

Quote from: dismalist on September 10, 2021, 02:13:16 PM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 10, 2021, 02:05:22 PM
I really don't care what students' personal beliefs are. Nor do I care about those of the two Physics professors. What they can't do is teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory.

To me it's like this:

"Hi upper division math class! While mathematicians have proven that pi is an irrational number, we will treat it as rational as that's what is done in the Bible".

Or "Hi kids! It's easy to prove that sqrt(2) is irrational, but as a staunch Pythagorean I believe it is rational, so that is what we will do".

If a student asserted either of those positions in class they would and should have an assessment graded poorly. What they do at home is of no concern to me, other than as it affects my general state of mind.

Both should be fired.

Agreed! Fired by whom? The college? If it wants. The State? If it wants. The student? If s/he wants!

how about by the parents? Or do their kids belong to the state now.

Depends on who pays! :-)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I want the hypothetical math prof fired, by the college.

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 10, 2021, 04:16:27 PM

Quote from: dismalist on September 10, 2021, 03:59:03 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on September 10, 2021, 03:53:48 PM

Quote from: dismalist on September 10, 2021, 02:13:16 PM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 10, 2021, 02:05:22 PM
I really don't care what students' personal beliefs are. Nor do I care about those of the two Physics professors. What they can't do is teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory.

To me it's like this:

"Hi upper division math class! While mathematicians have proven that pi is an irrational number, we will treat it as rational as that's what is done in the Bible".

Or "Hi kids! It's easy to prove that sqrt(2) is irrational, but as a staunch Pythagorean I believe it is rational, so that is what we will do".

If a student asserted either of those positions in class they would and should have an assessment graded poorly. What they do at home is of no concern to me, other than as it affects my general state of mind.

Both should be fired.

Agreed! Fired by whom? The college? If it wants. The State? If it wants. The student? If s/he wants!

how about by the parents? Or do their kids belong to the state now.

Depends on who pays! :-)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I want the hypothetical math prof fired, by the college.

Excellent choice! And if not, students, or their parents could decide to not attend. The State is usually a bad last resort unless there are many.

Cheers.

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 09, 2021, 03:55:57 PM

Quote from: dismalist on September 09, 2021, 02:05:37 PM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 09, 2021, 01:36:09 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 09, 2021, 09:56:30 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2021, 09:40:55 AM

Quote from: downer on September 09, 2021, 08:31:44 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 09, 2021, 08:17:10 AM
I have a friend who was hired on the TT at a school in the south last year (after much adjuncting). She was explicitly hired to teach critical race theory. But she's just heard from her dean that the provost has been trying to fire her for teaching the courses she was hired--and scheduled!--to teach.

Free speech!

Isn't inviting a lawsuit?

Sounds like a pain.

What about the distinction between teaching about X and teaching that X is true?

I would imagine so, yes. (Then again, so are all those laws forbidding the teaching of "critical race theory".)

It would probably be unconstitutional to forbid teaching Flat Earth Theory or Phlogiston Theory, but then you'd be hard pressed to find anyone teaching those because they were believed to be true. They'd usually be discussed precisely as examples of theories that don't stand up to the evidence. CRT, on the other hand, is probably usually taught by its adherents as being irrefutable.

In 2013-2014 Ball State had not one but TWO Physics professors teaching that intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory.

A certain point needs repetition, probably forever: We will never have and do not need universal agreement on all things.

-If somebody is desired to teach Critical Race Theory, let them!
-If somebody thinks s/he would benefit from going to a Phlogiston college, let them go!
-If somebody thinks s/he believes an intelligent designer would design us, let them!

The important thing is to be have institutions that enable us to live peacefully with people with whom we disagree.

There will be different institutions that handle them differently, individual States being the final arbiter.

Sorry, repeat all you wish. It is NOT okay for a Physics prof to teach that in a Physics course. Both were, and it was definitely not relevant to either of their courses.

That does seem like the weird part. If this was a history of science course, or philosophy of science course, there would be nothing wrong with exploring ideas about the boundaries of science and how scientists and scientific culture define legitimacy. If it's just some weird dude talking about how intelligent design makes sense when he's supposed to be teaching intro physics, that really doesn't work.

To give a parallel, I teach a fair amount about conspiracy theories as a historian. It is hard to try to understand something if you don't take it seriously. "Those guys are nut jobs" isn't a historical argument. I try to get students to think about why particular conspiracy theories might appeal to some people at particular times. I sometimes point out why a conspiracy theory doesn't make any sense, but the point is not to try to debunk the theories. Heck, sometimes a conspiracy theory is true, or at least has an element of truth to it.

Unless I'm missing something, what these professors were doing seems more akin to me spending class time talking about how steel doesn't melt.

QuoteUnless I'm missing something, what these professors were doing seems more akin to me spending class time talking about how steel doesn't melt.

And if so, they will fail. No problem.

From IHE:

Accusations Fly Against Albion College President (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/09/22/albion-college-students-alumni-call-president%E2%80%99s-removal)

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 22, 2021, 08:30:14 AM
From IHE:

Accusations Fly Against Albion College President (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/09/22/albion-college-students-alumni-call-president%E2%80%99s-removal)

I didn't even know therapy goats were a thing.

From the article...

Quote... allegations that he profited from campus construction projects...

That could be something, but no more mention of it in the article.

Quote... and kept two goats on campus against city law.

There is more about the goats than the alleged graft.

Priorities, people?

Quote from: ciao_yall on September 22, 2021, 10:23:13 AM
From the article...

Quote... allegations that he profited from campus construction projects...

That could be something, but no more mention of it in the article.

Quote... and kept two goats on campus against city law.

There is more about the goats than the alleged graft.

Priorities, people?

As a former goat-owner, I'd like to hear more about the goats, please.
Otherwise it mostly sounds like petty whining by fraternity bros.

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 22, 2021, 08:55:06 AM

I didn't even know therapy goats were a thing.

Potential Posting Hall of Fame material?  What say the other posters?

Quote from: apl68 on September 22, 2021, 12:43:49 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 22, 2021, 08:55:06 AM

I didn't even know therapy goats were a thing.

Potential Posting Hall of Fame material?  What say the other posters?

If you think it's worthy, I agree!

Quote from: ciao_yall on September 22, 2021, 12:48:30 PM

Quote from: apl68 on September 22, 2021, 12:43:49 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 22, 2021, 08:55:06 AM

I didn't even know therapy goats were a thing.

Potential Posting Hall of Fame material?  What say the other posters?

If you think it's worthy, I agree!

HOF needs to be fed.

I think a goat would be very therapeutic.  Anybody know where I could get one?

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 22, 2021, 02:17:04 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on September 22, 2021, 12:48:30 PM

Quote from: apl68 on September 22, 2021, 12:43:49 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 22, 2021, 08:55:06 AM

I didn't even know therapy goats were a thing.

Potential Posting Hall of Fame material?  What say the other posters?

If you think it's worthy, I agree!

HOF needs to be fed.

I think a goat would be very therapeutic.  Anybody know where I could get one?

From the article, I believe they were retired to a petting zoo. Maybe the zoo would part with them. After all, they're already trained and certified.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 22, 2021, 02:17:04 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on September 22, 2021, 12:48:30 PM

Quote from: apl68 on September 22, 2021, 12:43:49 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 22, 2021, 08:55:06 AM

I didn't even know therapy goats were a thing.

Potential Posting Hall of Fame material?  What say the other posters?

If you think it's worthy, I agree!

HOF needs to be fed.

I think a goat would be very therapeutic.  Anybody know where I could get one?

From experience I will say that goats are sometimes therapeutic but always educational. I guess that means they are always therapeutic if we define therapy appropriately as teaching you something rather than just making you feel better temporarily.  Sometimes what you learn is that you can't make a goat do what the goat doesn't want to do. This is a lesson that should be learned by all and generalized widely to humans, so I'm all in favor of having goats on every campus.

Also, WHY ARE STUDENTS COMPLAINING ABOUT THERAPY ANIMALS- STUDENTS LOVE THERAPY ANIMALS! Either these are very strange students, the people complaining about the goats were actually groundskeepers who were expected to use the goats for weed control and didn't like it. In either case, all other complaints become suspect given the anti-goat bias in display in this petition.

Quote from: Puget on September 22, 2021, 03:26:58 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 22, 2021, 02:17:04 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on September 22, 2021, 12:48:30 PM

Quote from: apl68 on September 22, 2021, 12:43:49 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 22, 2021, 08:55:06 AM

I didn't even know therapy goats were a thing.

Potential Posting Hall of Fame material?  What say the other posters?

If you think it's worthy, I agree!

HOF needs to be fed.

I think a goat would be very therapeutic.  Anybody know where I could get one?

From experience I will say that goats are sometimes therapeutic but always educational. I guess that means they are always therapeutic if we define therapy appropriately as teaching you something rather than just making you feel better temporarily.  Sometimes what you learn is that you can't make a goat do what the goat doesn't want to do. This is a lesson that should be learned by all and generalized widely to humans, so I'm all in favor of having goats on every campus.

Also, WHY ARE STUDENTS COMPLAINING ABOUT THERAPY ANIMALS- STUDENTS LOVE THERAPY ANIMALS! Either these are very strange students, the people complaining about the goats were actually groundskeepers who were expected to use the goats for weed control and didn't like it. In either case, all other complaints become suspect given the anti-goat bias in display in this petition.

Pretty clear evidence of systemic speciesism.

I think marshwiggle REALLY needs a goat yoga session.

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 23, 2021, 06:22:11 AM
I think marshwiggle REALLY BAAAA-DLY needs a goat yoga session.

Fixed that.

Quote from: Puget on September 22, 2021, 03:26:58 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 22, 2021, 02:17:04 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on September 22, 2021, 12:48:30 PM

Quote from: apl68 on September 22, 2021, 12:43:49 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 22, 2021, 08:55:06 AM

I didn't even know therapy goats were a thing.

Potential Posting Hall of Fame material?  What say the other posters?

If you think it's worthy, I agree!

HOF needs to be fed.

I think a goat would be very therapeutic.  Anybody know where I could get one?

From experience I will say that goats are sometimes therapeutic but always educational.

Based on our family's experiences with keeping goats when I was...younger (Almost forgot myself there and said "When I was a kid") I would have to agree with you there.

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 22, 2021, 08:55:06 AM

I didn't even know therapy goats were a thing.

"I think a goat would be very therapeutic.  Anybody know where I could get one?"
[/quote]

Look no further than Rego Park, Queens, where goats have taken to lounging in SUVs.
https://citizen.com/-Mk07TJpDHxaeo9x6_Le?media=mux:01G7L7Xlz6019ZRmvf800WIeBbLcdYqM6mIreN822hADpI
https://patch.com/new-york/foresthills/police-find-2-goats-car-response-crime-call-nypd-says

ETA: Please excuse the improper quote function--can't seem to get it right.

At the old Fora somebody share an upserd student misspelling in reference to an "escape goat."  One poster wondered whether an escape goat would be a goat specially trained to help you get out of emergencies.

Quote from: apl68 on September 23, 2021, 11:17:24 AM
At the old Fora somebody share an upserd student misspelling in reference to an "escape goat."  One poster wondered whether an escape goat would be a goat specially trained to help you get out of emergencies.

Actually, my recollection is that the origin of the phrase is related to a goat escaping. (The goat which doesn't get sacrificed but is allowed to go free, carrying peoples' sins with it.) Anyone able to confirm or deny?

Two different things, I  think.

I semi-recall the Old Fora saying, and I think it was a Spoonerism-like play on words or unintended pun.

The ritual release of the scapegoat is discussed here;

   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat

...based in part on Lev 16:22.

It's also called, in Christianized terms, "the Judas goat," at abbatoirs where a leader/alpha animal is used to guide the others towards the fatal chute: it's released at the gate and led back to start the process over again with the next victims.

M.

This (https://www.liberalcurrents.com/the-case-not-made-a-response-to-anne-applebaums-the-new-puritans/) excellent review of Anne Applebaum's new book is worth the read. It has something for everyone.

QuoteIndeed, the empirical weaknesses of the essay are quite egregious. There are 21 references to cases that can be publicly confirmed. There are then 19 references to unnamed individuals who spoke to Applebaum directly, the details of which are left out "because they are involved in complicated legal or tenure battles and do not want to speak on the record, or because they fear another wave of social-media attacks." The number of unique individuals contained in these 19 references is not clear. Nearly all are professors or journalists at institutions like Yale or the New York Times, many quite prominent within those prestigious institutions. One could be forgiven for thinking that Applebaum began by speaking to people within her social circle and then simply expanded it outward from there—but just far enough to get "more than a dozen individuals."

QuoteEmployers were always sensitive to media scandals centering on their employees, whether this was fair to those employees or not. The difference is that the total number of people who could put a story in front of the public at large was a vanishingly small fraction of the population. Most of the time institutional leadership could side with some privileged member of their ranks or some rising star even when they had done something plainly wrong, and correctly calculated that the story would not reach very far.

And of course, this calculation is precisely what has had to change. Between phone cameras, the stored and shareable nature of digital communication, and the Internet, everyone can now put a story out into the public view. Few may gain a proper public, but all individually hold some small chance of doing so, and that dramatically increases the overall odds that a media scandal will originate from within an institution.

High-status people occupying prestigious positions have also always been targets for media scandals, because they are precisely the people for whom a scandal will sell papers. Stories about relatively unknown persons who were made to stand in for a type were relatively common too, and so people lower in the social status hierarchy were not exactly safe from the gaze of journalists either. But typological hit pieces don't sell like celebrity tabloids, and so the latter and more respectable variants soaked up much more of the attention of a media class that was, as I have said, relatively small.

QuoteI have tried quite hard to find hard data on this matter. FIRE, an organization I consider fairly credible in its consistency regardless of the partisan valence of particular incidents, has documented 426 "targeting incidents involving scholars at public and private American institutions of higher education," and 477 "disinvitations" (Joe and Hunter Biden being the first and second most recent incidents at the time of this writing). Canceled People, an organization dedicated entirely to tracking cases of this kind, documents 217 cases of "cancellation." The National Association of Scholars documents 185 cases of "cancellation" in academia. The first FIRE database goes back to 2015, the second goes back as far as 1998. The Canceled People list includes a case from 1991. The NAS list has a case from 1975, one from 1988, and one from 2004, growing considerably more recent after that.

I have not bothered to deduplicate these lists; even if they are all unique cases, the total is very small relative to both the size of the populations they are drawn from and the time period over which they occur. If any other problem in social life was occurring at this frequency and at this scale, we would consider it effectively solved.

QuoteAllow me to offer an alternative possibility: colleges do not, in fact, teach students "that it is wise to keep their mouths shut." Instead, they induct students into a peer group, a peer group that has both grown much larger over time as a greater percentage of Americans have obtained a college degree, and has grown more nationally integrated, as the Internet has made rapid communication from any part of the country a reality. A large, integrated peer group, which has become trivially easy to make a public statement in front of, is a recipe for peer pressure. Because it is large, it does not take a large percentage of the group to have an appetite for punitiveness for there to be a large number of individuals in absolute terms who do.

Even mahagonny:

QuoteAs to what can be done, that is clearer. If you don't like the power of the "secretive bureaucracies" at large employers, then consider promoting laws more favorable to the development of unions and alternatives to at-will employment.

Back to the goat thread-within-the-thread.

Using them, or sheep, for grass control is a very old ploy.

In the early 1600s, landowners were permitted to graze their sheep in a town's early burial ground to keep the growth down.

Even more recently, they can be hired out for the same purposes: Colorado St. Univ. has this report:

   https://sam.extension.colostate.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/06/goats-weeds.pdf 

And the Pew Charitable Trusts offer this article on specific growth control near Pittsburgh:

   https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2016/05/20/grazing-goats-get-government-work

I've seen others at work near me.

OK, back to the other sub-thread-thread.

M.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 28, 2021, 08:21:15 AM
This (https://www.liberalcurrents.com/the-case-not-made-a-response-to-anne-applebaums-the-new-puritans/) excellent review of Anne Applebaum's new book is worth the read. It has something for everyone.

QuoteI have tried quite hard to find hard data on this matter. FIRE, an organization I consider fairly credible in its consistency regardless of the partisan valence of particular incidents, has documented 426 "targeting incidents involving scholars at public and private American institutions of higher education," and 477 "disinvitations" (Joe and Hunter Biden being the first and second most recent incidents at the time of this writing). Canceled People, an organization dedicated entirely to tracking cases of this kind, documents 217 cases of "cancellation." The National Association of Scholars documents 185 cases of "cancellation" in academia. The first FIRE database goes back to 2015, the second goes back as far as 1998. The Canceled People list includes a case from 1991. The NAS list has a case from 1975, one from 1988, and one from 2004, growing considerably more recent after that.

I have not bothered to duplicate these lists; even if they are all unique cases, the total is very small relative to both the size of the populations they are drawn from and the time period over which they occur. If any other problem in social life was occurring at this frequency and at this scale, we would consider it effectively solved.

That's an odd quotation at the end. Would 400+ incidents of racism or campus sexual assault be described as "effectively solved"?

NPR's On Point had a thoughtful discussion about academic freedom of speech and the risk of getting cancelled from either the left or the right.

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2021/09/28/the-academics-behind-the-push-to-speak-freely-on-campus

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 28, 2021, 08:50:26 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 28, 2021, 08:21:15 AM
This (https://www.liberalcurrents.com/the-case-not-made-a-response-to-anne-applebaums-the-new-puritans/) excellent review of Anne Applebaum's new book is worth the read. It has something for everyone.

QuoteI have tried quite hard to find hard data on this matter. FIRE, an organization I consider fairly credible in its consistency regardless of the partisan valence of particular incidents, has documented 426 "targeting incidents involving scholars at public and private American institutions of higher education," and 477 "disinvitations" (Joe and Hunter Biden being the first and second most recent incidents at the time of this writing). Canceled People, an organization dedicated entirely to tracking cases of this kind, documents 217 cases of "cancellation." The National Association of Scholars documents 185 cases of "cancellation" in academia. The first FIRE database goes back to 2015, the second goes back as far as 1998. The Canceled People list includes a case from 1991. The NAS list has a case from 1975, one from 1988, and one from 2004, growing considerably more recent after that.

I have not bothered to duplicate these lists; even if they are all unique cases, the total is very small relative to both the size of the populations they are drawn from and the time period over which they occur. If any other problem in social life was occurring at this frequency and at this scale, we would consider it effectively solved.

That's an odd quotation at the end. Would 400+ incidents of racism or campus sexual assault be described as "effectively solved"?

Spread out across 4000 colleges and universities and 20 years or more? Yes.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 28, 2021, 09:50:59 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 28, 2021, 08:50:26 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 28, 2021, 08:21:15 AM
This (https://www.liberalcurrents.com/the-case-not-made-a-response-to-anne-applebaums-the-new-puritans/) excellent review of Anne Applebaum's new book is worth the read. It has something for everyone.

QuoteI have tried quite hard to find hard data on this matter. FIRE, an organization I consider fairly credible in its consistency regardless of the partisan valence of particular incidents, has documented 426 "targeting incidents involving scholars at public and private American institutions of higher education," and 477 "disinvitations" (Joe and Hunter Biden being the first and second most recent incidents at the time of this writing). Canceled People, an organization dedicated entirely to tracking cases of this kind, documents 217 cases of "cancellation." The National Association of Scholars documents 185 cases of "cancellation" in academia. The first FIRE database goes back to 2015, the second goes back as far as 1998. The Canceled People list includes a case from 1991. The NAS list has a case from 1975, one from 1988, and one from 2004, growing considerably more recent after that.

I have not bothered to duplicate these lists; even if they are all unique cases, the total is very small relative to both the size of the populations they are drawn from and the time period over which they occur. If any other problem in social life was occurring at this frequency and at this scale, we would consider it effectively solved.

That's an odd quotation at the end. Would 400+ incidents of racism or campus sexual assault be described as "effectively solved"?

Spread out across 4000 colleges and universities and 20 years or more? Yes.

Can you imagine anyone actually saying such a thing publicly? In the current climate, I can't imagine it.

Saying it's effectively solved doesn't mean it doesn't or can't happen, or that it's fine when it does.

But we would be indescribably lucky if such events happened just once at just 10% of colleges and universities every year, let alone across twenty to thirty years. If we had enacted policies which reduced sexual violence on campus that much, it would be a huge success. (The current yearly estimate is 6.1 sexual assaults on campus per 1000 students. That's about 101 260 a year...)

If you want to put this in another perspective: there are an average of 16 shark attacks in the US each year. Going back to 1978 (as NAS does for its 185 cases of "cancellations") that's 736 shark attacks. Shark attacks are thus a much bigger problem than "cancellations" are (if you went by NAS, as much as four times bigger).

One of the women in my graduate cohort married a fella who lived on a country plot and owned goats.  The goats acted just like dogs but were very distrustful of people they did not know.  I wonder how goats would react to large groups of students.  There are a number of fails on YouTube involving people getting butted by goats.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 28, 2021, 10:45:22 AM
Saying it's effectively solved doesn't mean it doesn't or can't happen, or that it's fine when it does.

But we would be indescribably lucky if such events happened just once at just 10% of colleges and universities every year, let alone across twenty to thirty years. If we had enacted policies which reduced sexual violence on campus that much, it would be a huge success. (The current yearly estimate is 6.1 sexual assaults on campus per 1000 students. That's about 101 260 a year...)

If you want to put this in another perspective: there are an average of 16 shark attacks in the US each year. Going back to 1978 (as NAS does for its 185 cases of "cancellations") that's 736 shark attacks. Shark attacks are thus a much bigger problem than "cancellations" are (if you went by NAS, as much as four times bigger).

Apparently there have been more shark attacks at Caped Cod [more baby seals are attracting the sharks] which induced the Cape Codders to install -- and pay for -- sharp mitigation technologies. To Cancel Culture mitigation technologies I am happy to contribute financially, and I do. :-)

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 28, 2021, 08:21:15 AM

Even mahagonny:

QuoteAs to what can be done, that is clearer. If you don't like the power of the "secretive bureaucracies" at large employers, then consider promoting laws more favorable to the development of unions and alternatives to at-will employment.

In the current political climate, I don't see most unions as much protection unless one is aligned with the democratic platform. I'd be pleased to find out I'm wrong.

Quote from: mahagonny on September 28, 2021, 06:54:24 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 28, 2021, 08:21:15 AM

Even mahagonny:

QuoteAs to what can be done, that is clearer. If you don't like the power of the "secretive bureaucracies" at large employers, then consider promoting laws more favorable to the development of unions and alternatives to at-will employment.

In the current political climate, I don't see most unions as much protection unless one is aligned with the democratic platform. I'd be pleased to find out I'm wrong.

Unions are good for union members alne. And they can't contain all workers, for the higher wages depend on having a smaller work force. The others get nailed. This pushes down wages in non-unionized sectors and States. Lovely.

Quote from: dismalist on September 28, 2021, 07:01:08 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on September 28, 2021, 06:54:24 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 28, 2021, 08:21:15 AM

Even mahagonny:

QuoteAs to what can be done, that is clearer. If you don't like the power of the "secretive bureaucracies" at large employers, then consider promoting laws more favorable to the development of unions and alternatives to at-will employment.

In the current political climate, I don't see most unions as much protection unless one is aligned with the democratic platform. I'd be pleased to find out I'm wrong.

Unions are good for union members alne. And they can't contain all workers, for the higher wages depend on having a smaller work force. The others get nailed. This pushes down wages in non-unionized sectors and States. Lovely.

Oh. Maybe so. I was thinking of more of protection for freedom of speech.

Quote from: mahagonny on September 28, 2021, 07:29:01 PM

Quote from: dismalist on September 28, 2021, 07:01:08 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on September 28, 2021, 06:54:24 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 28, 2021, 08:21:15 AM

Even mahagonny:

QuoteAs to what can be done, that is clearer. If you don't like the power of the "secretive bureaucracies" at large employers, then consider promoting laws more favorable to the development of unions and alternatives to at-will employment.

In the current political climate, I don't see most unions as much protection unless one is aligned with the democratic platform. I'd be pleased to find out I'm wrong.

Unions are good for union members alne. And they can't contain all workers, for the higher wages depend on having a smaller work force. The others get nailed. This pushes down wages in non-unionized sectors and States. Lovely.

Oh. Maybe so. I was thinking of more of protection for freedom of speech.

Unions? Their speech!

Perhaps true. Perhaps there are no ideals left, anywhere, only ruses. Right now I'm thinking the dismalist knows.

Yale: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/arts/yale-grand-strategy-resignation.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/arts/yale-grand-strategy-resignation.html).

MIT: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/why-latest-campus-cancellation-different/620352/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/why-latest-campus-cancellation-different/620352/)

Quote from: spork on October 10, 2021, 02:49:59 PM
MIT: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/why-latest-campus-cancellation-different/620352/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/why-latest-campus-cancellation-different/620352/)

Twitter -- the medium is the message.

CHE: Professor removed from class for showing Othello in blackface (https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-professors-apology-for-showing-a-film-with-blackface-was-not-enough)

This is the essay written by a student (https://sammybsussman.medium.com/playing-a-blackface-video-isnt-fireable-it-shouldn-t-be-okay-61083d6f74b9) in the class (linked in the above article).

I cannot imagine a whinier, snowflakier bit of crocodile-tear melodrama. 

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 15, 2021, 03:29:11 PM
This is the essay written by a student (https://sammybsussman.medium.com/playing-a-blackface-video-isnt-fireable-it-shouldn-t-be-okay-61083d6f74b9) in the class (linked in the above article).

I cannot imagine a whinier, snowflakier bit of crocodile-tear melodrama.

Have you not read Bari Weiss?

Surprised, and pleased that the chair stuck up for him. I'm sure I would think twice about showing a movie like that one, (haven't seen it) but at the same time, was there not some instructional value to the experience being thought of?
In the ninth grade, my English class read Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird. Empathy was the lesson. My favorite was A Patch of Blue, a very sweet story.
Of course, I am strange. I already know that. I even like Al Jolson.

From the link:

QuoteAnd when it comes to incidents like this blackface video that don't warrant termination, tenure prevents administrators from issuing meaningful consequences that will deter similar behavior in the future.

Think of tenure what you will, but this is at least a novel argument against it!

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 15, 2021, 03:44:12 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 15, 2021, 03:29:11 PM
This is the essay written by a student (https://sammybsussman.medium.com/playing-a-blackface-video-isnt-fireable-it-shouldn-t-be-okay-61083d6f74b9) in the class (linked in the above article).

I cannot imagine a whinier, snowflakier bit of crocodile-tear melodrama.

Have you not read Bari Weiss?

No.

I had to Google her to find out who she is.

Sounds like an obnoxious conservative hatemongering snowflake.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 15, 2021, 04:42:32 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 15, 2021, 03:44:12 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on October 15, 2021, 03:29:11 PM
This is the essay written by a student (https://sammybsussman.medium.com/playing-a-blackface-video-isnt-fireable-it-shouldn-t-be-okay-61083d6f74b9) in the class (linked in the above article).

I cannot imagine a whinier, snowflakier bit of crocodile-tear melodrama.

Have you not read Bari Weiss?

No.

I had to Google her to find out who she is.

Sounds like an obnoxious conservative hatemongering snowflake.

Conservatives have been given excellent people to hate lately.

I'm surprised that this case has not yet been mentioned here:

QuoteBright Sheng, Leonard Bernstein Distinguished University Professor of Composition at the University of Michigan, is no longer teaching this semester after he showed his students the 1965 film version of Shakespeare's Othello, which stars white actor Laurence Olivier in blackface as the titular character.

Sheng, who is from China, apologized in writing for his choice after students voiced their discomfort with the blackface portrayal. But some undergraduate students, graduate students and faculty and staff members in an open letter further criticized Sheng for writing that he'd cast people of color in musical productions throughout his career.

Sheng's letter "implies that it is thanks to him that many of them have achieved success in their careers," says the student and faculty open letter, as first reported by the Michigan Daily student newspaper.

Sheng declined an interview request and did not respond to a series of written questions by deadline.

David Gier, dean of the School of Music, Theatre & Dance, referred a request for comment to a university spokesperson. That spokesperson, Kim Broekhuizen, said via email that it's "important to note that Prof. Bright Sheng was not removed from teaching his seminar class this fall. The decision to have Prof. Sheng step away from that class was a decision that he and Dean Gier made together. They agreed to that approach and Dean Gier notified students in the class."

Sheng continues to provide private lessons this term and is scheduled to teach in the winter term, Broekhuizen said.

More at:

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/10/11/professor-not-teaching-after-blackface-%E2%80%98othello%E2%80%99-showing


So, nobody has been officially penalized, but the professor in question was either so contrite he felt that he must step down of his own accord, or so intimidated he felt that it was the safest thing to do.  Or maybe some of both?

I don't blame the students for being upset at the film in question, but given that the offending prof was from overseas and had not spent a whole lifetime becoming versed in American cultural debates, you would think they could have cut him slack--treated it as a teachable moment for the prof, instead of trying to bring down the roof over him.

I mean, he's been in the US since 1982. That's a little longer than I've had to become versed in American cultural debates.



IMO what he should have done was flagged the blackface and explained why it was nonetheless important to view the film. That he didn't is a testament to how little pedagogical know-how we can get away with accumulating over 26 years.

Cancel culture FTW. http://www.montanakaimin.com/news/computer-science-prof-resigns-amid-blog-controversy/article_26e4a624-3372-11ec-93c9-b34f1f0f7532.html?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_3087608_nl_Daily-Briefing_date_20211026&cid=db&source=ams&sourceid=

He's an idiot...but I thought freedom of speech protected such idiots.

Freedom is always, and exclusively, freedom for the one who thinks differently.
― Rosa Luxemburg

Quote from: waterboy on October 26, 2021, 02:42:49 PM
He's an idiot...but I thought freedom of speech protected such idiots.

This is an earlier article from the same website: http://www.montanakaimin.com/features/ethically-bankrupt-blog/article_e652a6b8-2892-11ec-bf62-3b2f56e19994.html

So, if I've got the order of events and salient points right:

1) Prof has written a blog for years of which (until a month or so ago) his colleagues and students at the university were unaware.

2) Once made aware of the contents of the blog, which includes disparaging remarks towards women, Muslims, and LGBTQ people, the university puts the prof on paid leave began an investigation into whether this prof had treated students in a discriminatory manner.

2a) The article reports some statements from former students of this prof. Some say they aren't particularly surprised to learn he has misogynistic opinions (except perhaps at just how extreme they are). Some say they are surprised as they personally didn't notice any discriminatory behavior.

3) Prof (who had started deleting blog content when it began attracting a lot of negative attention) resigns, stating the investigation is being conducted "dishonestly" (without giving any specifics).

---

I guess I'm wondering:

1) whether initiating the investigation was justified given that there had been no formal complaint filed about discriminatory behavior

2) when, if ever, can or should things you write on a blog (separate from your role in your place of employment) have negative consequences at work

RE: question 1:

Is it reasonable to be skeptical that someone who expresses contempt for certain demographics is going to be willing and able to treat students and colleagues from those demographics with the same basic respect and fairness that he would with others? Would that skepticism warrant preemptive actions (like an investigation into Title IX violations)?

Suppose someone had voiced views like those of this prof in a hiring interview (e.g. "women will always make decisions based on feelings rather than logic" or "women should *not* get the same education as men, it gets in the way of their ability to attract husbands before their physical 'value' declines").

But then suppose he follows this with, "Don't worry, I'm willing to play along with this whole 'women as equals' B.S. because I know universities have to be P.C. these days. I can even be polite to the homos, even though they're ruining civilized society everywhere."

Would it be discriminatory not to hire this candidate even if there is no evidence in his work history he has ever engaged in any unprofessional behavior? Is the situation at all different if he makes it clear that these opinions are religiously based?

RE: question 2:

At what point, if any, does the discomfort other people feel after learning about your opinions (expressed outside of the workplace) justify facing consequences at work (at any level: social, institutional, legal...)?

I recall reading an article once about a parent who stopped hiring their regular babysitter for jobs after finding the babysitter's personal blog in which she wrote about how much she loathed the kids she looked after and made lots of insulting remarks about them. She had always acted kind and friendly with the families she sat for, but the parent was too uncomfortable after reading the blog to ever hire her again. Was the parent being unfair? If the sitter had been with an agency, would they have been out of line reprimanding or even firing her?

I think humans are fairly integrated in the ways they bring together their thoughts, beliefs, and ideas about things with their words, actions, and ways of behaving with others.

So, in general, I don't really think anyone can filter out their inner concepts about people (hating someone's kids) from their treatment of them (at some point, it's going to come through and show, whether in masked ways or more obvious ones.

On smaller things, well, maybe--my mom taught us all to eat bananas by putting them on our cereal all the time when we were kids--although we discovered much later she hated them, so she did mask or filter her strong dislike while cutting them and serving them and feeding them to us for the more altruistic goals of good nutrition.

But in general, I think it's a kind of hubris to believe one can harbor hatred in ones heart towards a particular societal group or type of individual, and then turn around and behave kindly to them without any ill effects. They might pretend for awhile, but I just wouldn't ever trust it not to come pouring out, and quite possibly at an inappropriate, dangerous, or threatening moment to the other person, or to many other people, without warning.

It's one thing to forgive someone for something, which I believe we may all owe any repentant other--and quite another to trust them again, which I see as requiring serious self-searching and amendment of life.

I forgave my abusive former spouse, for example, but he's under a permanent restraining order.

His repeated disdain for females, for the arts, and for various things that meant quite a lot to me (all hidden or de-emphasized, or laughed off, before we were married) made it clear that he wasn't likely to change if three efforts at counseling and two times of separation weren't going to change him or lead him to want to change himself.

And anyone that puts so much time and energy into a blog that they create a persuasive world-view, based on their own biases, is deeply invested in those views and is going to be 'drenched' in them. (I'm thinking here of the term 'baptizo,' also used for baptism (a Jewish practice before it was adopted into Christianity), which originally meant 'indelibly dyed,' like a deep purple dye that won't come out.)   

And if at some point an individual who had espoused such serious dislike at some point outfitted themselves with rifles and grenades and broke into some setting where a bunch of their favorite people to hate on were gathered and let loose, the institution would have been considered to have done less than due diligence in protecting said individuals from a strong, likely danger.

Your right to swing your fist stops where the other person's nose begins.

M.

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 02, 2021, 07:17:51 PM


2a) The article reports some statements from former students of this prof. Some say they aren't particularly surprised to learn he has misogynistic opinions (except perhaps at just how extreme they are). Some say they are surprised as they personally didn't notice any discriminatory behavior.

.
.
.
I recall reading an article once about a parent who stopped hiring their regular babysitter for jobs after finding the babysitter's personal blog in which she wrote about how much she loathed the kids she looked after and made lots of insulting remarks about them. She had always acted kind and friendly with the families she sat for, but the parent was too uncomfortable after reading the blog to ever hire her again. Was the parent being unfair? If the sitter had been with an agency, would they have been out of line reprimanding or even firing her?

One difference between the babysitter and the prof is the contract. Firing someone, when there haven't been any complaints about their behaviour, is different than choosing to not re-hire someone.  Now, once people are aware of the blog, is the prof were still employed people would be hyper-sensitive, and so the odds of complaints would go up a lot, but the fact that there were none to date is fascinating.

Number 1 rule of online posting: Don't say anything you can't "own" if/when it gets discovered.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 03, 2021, 06:09:08 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 02, 2021, 07:17:51 PM


2a) The article reports some statements from former students of this prof. Some say they aren't particularly surprised to learn he has misogynistic opinions (except perhaps at just how extreme they are). Some say they are surprised as they personally didn't notice any discriminatory behavior.

.
.
.
I recall reading an article once about a parent who stopped hiring their regular babysitter for jobs after finding the babysitter's personal blog in which she wrote about how much she loathed the kids she looked after and made lots of insulting remarks about them. She had always acted kind and friendly with the families she sat for, but the parent was too uncomfortable after reading the blog to ever hire her again. Was the parent being unfair? If the sitter had been with an agency, would they have been out of line reprimanding or even firing her?

One difference between the babysitter and the prof is the contract. Firing someone, when there haven't been any complaints about their behaviour, is different than choosing to not re-hire someone.  Now, once people are aware of the blog, is the prof were still employed people would be hyper-sensitive, and so the odds of complaints would go up a lot, but the fact that there were none to date is fascinating.

Number 1 rule of online posting: Don't say anything you can't "own" if/when it gets discovered.

The events as reported in the story about the prof are that he resigned mid-investigation, not that he was dismissed. Maybe that happened behind-the-scenes and he got some kind of 'it's either resign or be fired' ultimatum, but at this point that would be speculating (unless you've seen an update on this story?)

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 03, 2021, 06:35:34 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 03, 2021, 06:09:08 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 02, 2021, 07:17:51 PM


2a) The article reports some statements from former students of this prof. Some say they aren't particularly surprised to learn he has misogynistic opinions (except perhaps at just how extreme they are). Some say they are surprised as they personally didn't notice any discriminatory behavior.

.
.
.
I recall reading an article once about a parent who stopped hiring their regular babysitter for jobs after finding the babysitter's personal blog in which she wrote about how much she loathed the kids she looked after and made lots of insulting remarks about them. She had always acted kind and friendly with the families she sat for, but the parent was too uncomfortable after reading the blog to ever hire her again. Was the parent being unfair? If the sitter had been with an agency, would they have been out of line reprimanding or even firing her?

One difference between the babysitter and the prof is the contract. Firing someone, when there haven't been any complaints about their behaviour, is different than choosing to not re-hire someone.  Now, once people are aware of the blog, is the prof were still employed people would be hyper-sensitive, and so the odds of complaints would go up a lot, but the fact that there were none to date is fascinating.

Number 1 rule of online posting: Don't say anything you can't "own" if/when it gets discovered.

The events as reported in the story about the prof are that he resigned mid-investigation, not that he was dismissed. Maybe that happened behind-the-scenes and he got some kind of 'it's either resign or be fired' ultimatum, but at this point that would be speculating (unless you've seen an update on this story?)

I don't have any more news on the story, but sometimes there are legal differences, like regarding pensions, etc. between resigning and getting fired. In many cases people choose the former over the latter for these reasons. No matter how the investigation turned out, he'd probably be a pariah with little chance of life ever going back to "normal".

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 03, 2021, 06:09:08 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 02, 2021, 07:17:51 PM


2a) The article reports some statements from former students of this prof. Some say they aren't particularly surprised to learn he has misogynistic opinions (except perhaps at just how extreme they are). Some say they are surprised as they personally didn't notice any discriminatory behavior.

.
.
.
I recall reading an article once about a parent who stopped hiring their regular babysitter for jobs after finding the babysitter's personal blog in which she wrote about how much she loathed the kids she looked after and made lots of insulting remarks about them. She had always acted kind and friendly with the families she sat for, but the parent was too uncomfortable after reading the blog to ever hire her again. Was the parent being unfair? If the sitter had been with an agency, would they have been out of line reprimanding or even firing her?

One difference between the babysitter and the prof is the contract. Firing someone, when there haven't been any complaints about their behaviour, is different than choosing to not re-hire someone.  Now, once people are aware of the blog, is the prof were still employed people would be hyper-sensitive, and so the odds of complaints would go up a lot, but the fact that there were none to date is fascinating.

Number 1 rule of online posting: Don't say anything you can't "own" if/when it gets discovered.

I'm also not sure how 'fascinating' it is that there haven't been formal complaints about Title IX violations.

I'm not saying it's fair to fire someone without good evidence of wrongdoing (obtained and evaluated with due process), but going through a formal complaint process can be an ordeal. A lack of formal complaints can mean there haven't been any problems. But it can also be the result of people choosing not to rock the boat or who have become targets of negative attention themselves and/or been pressured to drop their complaint.

Is it also fascinating that some students are saying they already had the impression the prof was misogynistic before learning about his blog? It could just be that these students were reading too much into innocuous comments and actions; they might have formed these impressions from their own biases about men. Or it could be that some of the prof's behavior has been inappropriate, even if it wasn't officially reported.

All hypotheticals here since no details were given in the article as to why some students thought he was a misogynist.

If I had to guess, I would suspect the students' negative impressions were based on subtle behaviors and small incidents, not egregious acts of discrimination. It would surprise me if the investigation had turned up an offense severe enough to warrant termination (but I'm not exactly well-versed in what constitutes such an offense).

Something like cutting off female students in discussion sessions more quickly and more often than he does with male students can contribute to an impression of misogyny, but seems like it would be hard to prove (and even if you could prove it, I'm not sure how far you could argue it merits much of an institutional response).

There might also have been little comments, asides, or 'jokes' that some found off-putting (e.g. "intelligent woman - how's that for an oxymoron? haha, I kid, I kid...") but not worth the rigmarole of filing a formal complaint. From my experience, this is by far a more common way to get glimpses of someone's potential biases than outright illegal discrimination.

+1^

There's also the example of people like Larry Nassar, whose flagrant violations all occurred in private or semi-private settings where no-one was there to corroborate....until the sheer number of people coming forward finally tipped the scales in terms of bringing an enaction of accountability into play.

Both the aggregated microagressions you mention, and the macroaggressions secretly made, like Nassar's, are often hard to track.

Which, of course, is why they're so attractive to the aggressors--their stay-out-of-jail-free cards, as it were.

And why they have to be brought to light.

M.

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 03, 2021, 09:55:04 AM

I'm also not sure how 'fascinating' it is that there haven't been formal complaints about Title IX violations.

I'm not saying it's fair to fire someone without good evidence of wrongdoing (obtained and evaluated with due process), but going through a formal complaint process can be an ordeal. A lack of formal complaints can mean there haven't been any problems. But it can also be the result of people choosing not to rock the boat or who have become targets of negative attention themselves and/or been pressured to drop their complaint.

As always, the way to approach the issue is to imagine it were reversed. Suppose this was a progressive prof in a very conservative (possibly religious) institution. If his blog said pro-lifers were idiots, and gun owners were terrorists, etc., should he be fired when it comes to light and students who are pro-life and/or pro-gun are upset?

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 03, 2021, 10:31:08 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 03, 2021, 09:55:04 AM

I'm also not sure how 'fascinating' it is that there haven't been formal complaints about Title IX violations.

I'm not saying it's fair to fire someone without good evidence of wrongdoing (obtained and evaluated with due process), but going through a formal complaint process can be an ordeal. A lack of formal complaints can mean there haven't been any problems. But it can also be the result of people choosing not to rock the boat or who have become targets of negative attention themselves and/or been pressured to drop their complaint.

As always, the way to approach the issue is to imagine it were reversed. Suppose this was a progressive prof in a very conservative (possibly religious) institution. If his blog said pro-lifers were idiots, and gun owners were terrorists, etc., should he be fired when it comes to light and students who are pro-life and/or pro-gun are upset?

No, and I wasn't advocating for this prof to be fired either since there wasn't proof of a fireable offense.

Is that the message you thought I was trying to get across? Why? What did I say that implied I think someone should be fired entirely based on students disliking the contents of their personal blog?

RE: your "reversed" example:
I would be interested in hearing from pro-life/pro-gun students he had taught as to their experiences with him as an instructor. I would understand a university being concerned as to whether his vitriolic attitudes towards people with such views ever bleeds over into how he treats his students.

But again, I was questioning whether or not the investigation into wrongdoing should have been triggered by the blog in the first place, legally or ethically.

And I was questioning the implication that 'no formal complaints' = 'no problems; nothing to see here.' Which can be considered separately from the issue of whether or not the university did the right thing by starting an investigation.

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 03, 2021, 10:49:22 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 03, 2021, 10:31:08 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 03, 2021, 09:55:04 AM

I'm also not sure how 'fascinating' it is that there haven't been formal complaints about Title IX violations.

I'm not saying it's fair to fire someone without good evidence of wrongdoing (obtained and evaluated with due process), but going through a formal complaint process can be an ordeal. A lack of formal complaints can mean there haven't been any problems. But it can also be the result of people choosing not to rock the boat or who have become targets of negative attention themselves and/or been pressured to drop their complaint.

As always, the way to approach the issue is to imagine it were reversed. Suppose this was a progressive prof in a very conservative (possibly religious) institution. If his blog said pro-lifers were idiots, and gun owners were terrorists, etc., should he be fired when it comes to light and students who are pro-life and/or pro-gun are upset?

No, and I wasn't advocating for this prof to be fired either since there wasn't proof of a fireable offense.

Is that the message you thought I was trying to get across? Why? What did I say that implied I think someone should be fired entirely based on students disliking the contents of their personal blog?

Actually, my impression was that you were asking the question honestly, so I didn't think you were saying he should be fired. Given that most people on here are probably fairly progressive, I thought reversing the example might get a different response from some of them.

Quote
RE: your "reversed" example:
I would be interested in hearing from pro-life/pro-gun students he had taught as to their experiences with him as an instructor. I would understand a university being concerned as to whether his vitriolic attitudes towards people with such views ever bleeds over into how he treats his students.

But again, I was questioning whether or not the investigation into wrongdoing should have been triggered by the blog in the first place, legally or ethically.

And I agree, that's one important question on its own. Especially now, as more and more people are getting hassled, fired, etc. over things they said or did, in many cases decades ago, the odds are that many ( a majority?) people have something that if it came to light could get them in hot water, regardless of how their performance in recent memory is perceived.

Quote
And I was questioning the implication that 'no formal complaints' = 'no problems; nothing to see here.' Which can be considered separately from the issue of whether or not the university did the right thing by starting an investigation.

Again, that is a very good question. My point in saying it was "interesting" was not that 'no formal complaints' = 'no problems; nothing to see here', but rather, like stuff in peoples' pasts mentioned above, most people probably have had various informal criticisms. How much informal criticism should be taken to suggest there's probably some deeper problem to be investigated?

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 03, 2021, 10:31:08 AM
As always, the way to approach the issue is to imagine it were reversed. Suppose this was a progressive prof in a very conservative (possibly religious) institution. If his blog said pro-lifers were idiots, and gun owners were terrorists, etc., should he be fired when it comes to light and students who are pro-life and/or pro-gun are upset?

Hi, all! I haven't been around for ages but wandered in to see if anyone was discussing the Kathleen Stock (Sussex) or Bright Sheng (Michigan) cases.

Some cases on this thread raise important questions about the relationship between faculty members' beliefs and treatment of others. I tend to agree with Mamselle that strongly held views likely will come out in actions. But I'm not sure this is a given. In the Stock case, I understand why some students and faculty are angry about her views, but I haven't seen any evidence – or indeed any accusations – that she treated anyone badly, evaluated them unfairly, etc., on the basis of gender identity. Perhaps she did, but then I would have expected to see that included in the complaints against her.

The Sheng case – while instigated by students angry about not being appropriately prepared for a film they were about to see – seems to have veered into accusations of racist action made by some students and even colleagues. I don't think Sheng has been accused of either holding racist views or treating others badly, evaluating them unfairly, etc., on the basis of race. I think it would have been a good idea to contextualize the film ahead of time, but the university's response is pretty egregious. I wonder if there's some personal or professional animus driving the colleagues who have spoken out; it's hard to imagine faculty members publicly attacking a colleague in their own department in this manner. But perhaps I'm naïve – and actually, some of Stock's departmental colleagues may have participated publicly in the campaign against her.

As to Marshwiggle's question: one major difference between the Montana case and this hypothetical one is that the Montana prof said women shouldn't receive the same education as men. This to me goes beyond saying crappy things about women and girls. To be clear, that's not okay either – but given his specific assertion about education, how can he be trusted to treat women students equally with men? If the progressive prof said "pro-lifers" (now there's an oxymoron!) and gun owners shouldn't have equal access to education, treated them badly, evaluated them unfairly, etc., that's a serious problem. But then, that prof is more likely to be removed by irate right-wing legislators or university trustees.

We'd had a few similar cases on my campus, and I see a lot of people leaping to judgment (I've done it myself sometimes) and some faculty calling for censure or firing while forgetting that our union protections apply even to colleagues who are jerks. I wish there were less shouting and more space for reflection and genuine discussion.

It's too bad Stock felt she had to resign, but it's understandable given the pressure against her. I think it was probably the right decision, purely where her own interests were concerned. Her academic work was (is) quite good, apart from its intersection with trans issues.

Her cusade against trans women was astonishingly ill-informed and poorly-argued, however. I expected much more from her. And it's not surprising that she ultimately resigned, given how prominent she made herself in the crusade against trans women. She decided to become a lightning rod, and lightning struck (along with an OBE...).

At least it's a genuine resignation for good reason, unlike that weasel Boghossian. And at least, unlike most other anti-trans folks, she has genuine feminist credentials. (Which makes it all the more surprising how awful her anti-trans advocacy was. But, well. There's precedent for that.)

QuoteAs to Marshwiggle's question: one major difference between the Montana case and this hypothetical one is that the Montana prof said women shouldn't receive the same education as men. This to me goes beyond saying crappy things about women and girls. To be clear, that's not okay either – but given his specific assertion about education, how can he be trusted to treat women students equally with men?

So boys shouldn't be taught that they are oppressors? OK, when do we start?

What's being promoted now is teaching people to accept ideas of inherent identity-group based differences and think of them throughout your day. And some of them are condemnation. It's too late to use 'women should get the same education as men' to advocate for women's rights unless you intend to repudiate the academic left and the push for woke ideology in public school. Which would be an excellent idea.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 06, 2021, 01:20:36 PM
It's too bad Stock felt she had to resign, but it's understandable given the pressure against her. I think it was probably the right decision, purely where her own interests were concerned. Her academic work was (is) quite good, apart from its intersection with trans issues.

Her cusade against trans women was astonishingly ill-informed and poorly-argued, however. I expected much more from her. And it's not surprising that she ultimately resigned, given how prominent she made herself in the crusade against trans women. She decided to become a lightning rod, and lightning struck (along with an OBE...).

At least it's a genuine resignation for good reason, unlike that weasel Boghossian. And at least, unlike most other anti-trans folks, she has genuine feminist credentials. (Which makes it all the more surprising how awful her anti-trans advocacy was. But, well. There's precedent for that.)

Have you read Material Girls?

Me neither.

So maybe we can't actually say.

I have noticed many people casually drop the claim that KS's arguments are bad, with no evidence. It reflects badly on those who make the claim.

I have read a good amount of argument in the topic, and so far, my main impression is that the evidential base for most for of the positive claims regarding trans issues about both what disputed medical interventions work and what disputed policies work is unimpressive.

Is KS genuine in her reaction to the recent campaign against her, or crying wolf? As a matter of interpreting the evidence available (such as radio and online interviews) I'm inclined to believe her. But she is also angry and will continue her mission. She may well find ways to monetize that.

Quote from: history_grrrl on November 06, 2021, 10:47:11 AMI wish there were less shouting and more space for reflection and genuine discussion.

That's not how things go.

I know people know people on both sides and the passions run high. People feel the need to make confident assertions rather than tentative claims. They want to support their friends.

I've read most of the articles, but not the book. What I read was not good, and not up yo the standard I expect from a philosopher of her calibre.

I don't think she's crying wolf, however. She's absolutely backed herselfninto a corner from which she couldn't continue to do her job.

I read a single article about the threat to the idea of the feminine if we accept trans-women as "women."

I do not know much about the philosophic method, but I was really unimpressed.  Had I not known the backstory I would have assumed Stock to be a reactionary right-wing bigot, kind of like the people who claim that if we allow gay marriage then soon we will be marrying horses and cars and whatnot.

I just cannot figure out why that would be a legitimate commentary.  There is no legitimate, quantifiable proof that the concept of trans-women harms women.

I don't even know why other people's orientations bothers anyone in the first place.

Nevertheless, her story epitomizes the sort of reactionary left-wing politics that worries me about the academy (I posted an article about her a while back which I think was overlooked because of another bruhaha)----and I'm a lefty for sure.

Stock built her own pyre, but she should have the right to build it.

Tangentially, anybody feel like shoplifting from a bakery next to the Oberlin campus?

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 06, 2021, 07:35:15 PM
...

I don't even know why other people's orientations bothers anyone in the first place.

'''

Tangentially, anybody feel like shoplifting from a bakery next to the Oberlin campus?

Completely agreed.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 06, 2021, 07:35:15 PM

I don't even know why other people's orientations bothers anyone in the first place.

Being white, male and cisgender bothers plenty of people. I used to be one and I know.

ETA: But then, they deserve to be bothered. And I kind of appreciate how they're making it impossible for the democrats to win.

Quote from: dismalist on November 06, 2021, 08:47:11 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 06, 2021, 07:35:15 PM
...

I don't even know why other people's orientations bothers anyone in the first place.

'''

Completely agreed.

OTOH, you can say this and I can believe you, because since you're a libertarian, this is part of a coherent view.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 06, 2021, 07:35:15 PM

I just cannot figure out why that would be a legitimate commentary.  There is no legitimate, quantifiable proof that the concept of trans-women harms women.

What about the case of the biological male sex offender who identified as trans, was placed in a women's prison and then assaulted women inmates?

It is obvious why people think there are issues of concern.

The empirical issues include:
--to what extent is self-ID of gender abused by people gaming the system
--are females in school and college sports put at a disadvantage by the policies allowing students to self-ID as women
--are women put at risk in women's prisons when males who self-ID as women are brought in to the prisons
--are women put at risk in safe spaces for women-only, such as shelters for women who have experienced spousal and partner abuse, when males who self-ID as women are allowed in
--are there sufficient protections of young people who are questioning their gender from gender reassignment clinics who railroad them into medical options which they later regret.

The big conceptual question is whether innate gender identity is something that makes any sense, as distinct from assigned gender roles and gender stereotypes.

There are also more political issues of balancing rights of groups of females who don't want to share traditionally female-only spaces such as bathrooms and changing rooms with males, with the rights of trans girls and women. The basis of the aversion to sharing the space may also be an issue, and sometimes religious beliefs and practices come in. Some religions make a very big deal about sex differences. Lots of societies are very protective of religious rights. Religious practices also shade into cultural practices.

Quote from: downer on November 07, 2021, 06:09:45 AM

--are there sufficient protections of young people who are questioning their gender from gender reassignment clinics who railroad them into medical options which they later regret.

Or lefty-activist music teachers who have the kid in private and delve into transgender discussion when they should be learning scales or sonatinas, laying the groundwork for the problem you identify.

I can't find it now, but I believe a congressman (Tom Cotton?) has some new legislation in the works to address this. Bringing those deplorables, er, I mean parents, into the situation for input.

Quote from: mahagonny on November 07, 2021, 05:07:38 AM
OTOH, you can say this and I can believe you, because since you're a libertarian, this is part of a coherent view.

Uh...what!?

Quote from: downer on November 07, 2021, 06:09:45 AM
It is obvious why people think there are issues of concern.

The empirical issues include:
--to what extent is self-ID of gender abused by people gaming the system
--are females in school and college sports put at a disadvantage by the policies allowing students to self-ID as women
--are women put at risk in women's prisons when males who self-ID as women are brought in to the prisons
--are women put at risk in safe spaces for women-only, such as shelters for women who have experienced spousal and partner abuse, when males who self-ID as women are allowed in
--are there sufficient protections of young people who are questioning their gender from gender reassignment clinics who railroad them into medical options which they later regret.

The big conceptual question is whether innate gender identity is something that makes any sense, as distinct from assigned gender roles and gender stereotypes.

There are also more political issues of balancing rights of groups of females who don't want to share traditionally female-only spaces such as bathrooms and changing rooms with males, with the rights of trans girls and women. The basis of the aversion to sharing the space may also be an issue, and sometimes religious beliefs and practices come in. Some religions make a very big deal about sex differences. Lots of societies are very protective of religious rights. Religious practices also shade into cultural practices.

Give me one example of "reassignment clinics who railroad them into medical options which they later regret."  One example.

This sounds to me like a very typical catalogue of hypotheticals to justify prejudice. 

Religions may make a big deal about sexuality all they want----and tell their adherents to keep their beliefs out of my, and everyone else's, way.  Worship on your own time.

We might balance your paranoia with some REAL issues-----men assaulting women at college parties (obviously, since gender is a thing here); the many problems having to do with automobiles; guns; having alcohol readily available (isn't it something like 60% of crime is alcohol related? what happens at college parties when men and women drink together?)------and see how they stack up with the list overhead and its paranoid non sequiturs. 

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 07, 2021, 08:11:26 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on November 07, 2021, 05:07:38 AM
OTOH, you can say this and I can believe you, because since you're a libertarian, this is part of a coherent view.

Uh...what!?

White cisgender straight males are walking systems of oppression. It doesn't pay to trust them. So how can you say

Quote
I don't even know why other people's orientations bothers anyone in the first place.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 07, 2021, 08:28:49 AM

Quote from: downer on November 07, 2021, 06:09:45 AM
It is obvious why people think there are issues of concern.

The empirical issues include:
--to what extent is self-ID of gender abused by people gaming the system
--are females in school and college sports put at a disadvantage by the policies allowing students to self-ID as women
--are women put at risk in women's prisons when males who self-ID as women are brought in to the prisons
--are women put at risk in safe spaces for women-only, such as shelters for women who have experienced spousal and partner abuse, when males who self-ID as women are allowed in
--are there sufficient protections of young people who are questioning their gender from gender reassignment clinics who railroad them into medical options which they later regret.

The big conceptual question is whether innate gender identity is something that makes any sense, as distinct from assigned gender roles and gender stereotypes.

There are also more political issues of balancing rights of groups of females who don't want to share traditionally female-only spaces such as bathrooms and changing rooms with males, with the rights of trans girls and women. The basis of the aversion to sharing the space may also be an issue, and sometimes religious beliefs and practices come in. Some religions make a very big deal about sex differences. Lots of societies are very protective of religious rights. Religious practices also shade into cultural practices.

Give me one example of "reassignment clinics who railroad them into medical options which they later regret."  One example.

This sounds to me like a very typical catalogue of hypotheticals to justify prejudice. 

Religions may make a big deal about sexuality all they want----and tell their adherents to keep their beliefs out of my, and everyone else's, way.  Worship on your own time.

We might balance your paranoia with some REAL issues-----men assaulting women at college parties (obviously, since gender is a thing here); the many problems having to do with automobiles; guns; having alcohol readily available (isn't it something like 60% of crime is alcohol related? what happens at college parties when men and women drink together?)------and see how they stack up with the list overhead and its paranoid non sequiturs.

Or, indeed, the base rate of rape and sexual assault in prisons. (Hint: it's omnipresent.)

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 07, 2021, 08:28:49 AM


We might balance your paranoia with some REAL issues-----men assaulting women at college parties (obviously, since gender is a thing here); the many problems having to do with automobiles; guns; having alcohol readily available (isn't it something like 60% of crime is alcohol related? what happens at college parties when men and women drink together?)------and see how they stack up with the list overhead and its paranoid non sequiturs.

These issues are "non-sequiturs"?

Quote from: downer on November 07, 2021, 06:09:45 AM
It is obvious why people think there are issues of concern.

The empirical issues include:
--to what extent is self-ID of gender abused by people gaming the system
--are females in school and college sports put at a disadvantage by the policies allowing students to self-ID as women

From the guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/13/transgender-athletes-girls-sports-high-school):

Quote
The lawsuit centers on two trans sprinters, Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood, who have frequently outperformed their cisgender competitors.

Miller and Andraya have combined to win 15 girls' state indoor or outdoor championship races since 2017, according to the lawsuit.

The three plaintiffs have competed directly against them, almost always losing to Miller and usually behind Yearwood. Mitchell finished third in the 2019 state championship in the girls' 55-meter indoor track competition, behind Miller and Yearwood.

Now if you'll show me the transmen athletes who are similarly crushing biological men, I'll be glad to reconsider. (Or, alternatively, support eliminating separate "mens" and "womens" sports, and just have everyone compete together since biology is irrelevant.)

Quote
--are women put at risk in women's prisons when males who self-ID as women are brought in to the prisons

From https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prisoners/ (https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prisoners/)

Quote
This is the report we published in October 2017. Since that time the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) have confirmed by Freedom of Information requests that 60 of the 125 transgender prisoners known to be in prison in England and Wales are convicted sex offenders.

Paranoid non-sequitur?

Perhaps I was wrong about Stock's resignation: looks like she's in on a big grift.

None of these arguments are relevant.  Biology is a fact regardless of your feelings, the result of a sporting match, someone's desire for an inclusive environment, or someone else's religious dogma.

Perhaps it's too late, but can we get back to the issue of whether a faculty member whose views some/many find objectionable - but who hasn't treated people badly, evaluated them unfairly, etc. - should be "allowed" to keep working? In this way, the Stock and Sheng cases differ in that Sheng actually *did something* in his classroom that angered some students; I don't know if Stock did anything specific in her classes to achieve that result. But does it matter? In the cases that occurred on my campus, one involved a faculty member who published something obnoxious in a journal.

I'm still stuck on the idea that removing people from their jobs - or creating conditions that make it impossible for them to function in their workplace - isn't acceptable even if those who want them out think they are dicks. Where do we draw the line, if that is even possible?

Quote from: history_grrrl on November 09, 2021, 05:04:49 AM
Perhaps it's too late, but can we get back to the issue of whether a faculty member whose views some/many find objectionable - but who hasn't treated people badly, evaluated them unfairly, etc. - should be "allowed" to keep working? In this way, the Stock and Sheng cases differ in that Sheng actually *did something* in his classroom that angered some students; I don't know if Stock did anything specific in her classes to achieve that result. But does it matter? In the cases that occurred on my campus, one involved a faculty member who published something obnoxious in a journal.

I'm still stuck on the idea that removing people from their jobs - or creating conditions that make it impossible for them to function in their workplace - isn't acceptable even if those who want them out think they are dicks. Where do we draw the line, if that is even possible?

Right. Or if someone thinks they are cunts. There has to be a valid reason.

Quote from: history_grrrl on November 09, 2021, 05:04:49 AM
I'm still stuck on the idea that removing people from their jobs - or creating conditions that make it impossible for them to function in their workplace - isn't acceptable even if those who want them out think they are dicks. Where do we draw the line, if that is even possible?

The historical record on places where this is/was normal speaks pretty much for itself about what kind of society this produces.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 07, 2021, 08:28:49 AM

Give me one example of "reassignment clinics who railroad them into medical options which they later regret."  One example.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51676020

Quote from: downer on November 09, 2021, 06:40:25 AM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 07, 2021, 08:28:49 AM

Give me one example of "reassignment clinics who railroad them into medical options which they later regret."  One example.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51676020

Quote
says she should have been challenged more by medical staff over her decision to transition to a male as a teenager.

Made the decision.

Regrets the decision.

Is looking to blame someone.

Not what you allege.

I thought conservatism valued the right to take responsibility for one's actions no matter the consequences.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 09, 2021, 07:21:17 AM

Quote from: downer on November 09, 2021, 06:40:25 AM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 07, 2021, 08:28:49 AM

Give me one example of "reassignment clinics who railroad them into medical options which they later regret."  One example.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51676020

Quote
says she should have been challenged more by medical staff over her decision to transition to a male as a teenager.

Made the decision.

Regrets the decision.

Is looking to blame someone.

Not what you allege.

I thought conservatism valued the right to take responsibility for one's actions no matter the consequences.

The issue is that in many places, including the UK, professionals, including medical professionals, are being regulated by governments to "support" kids' wishes to transition. In what other medical matter would it be considered ethical to allow a minor to choose unilaterally what treatment they should receive?

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 09, 2021, 07:29:41 AM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 09, 2021, 07:21:17 AM

Quote from: downer on November 09, 2021, 06:40:25 AM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 07, 2021, 08:28:49 AM

Give me one example of "reassignment clinics who railroad them into medical options which they later regret."  One example.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51676020

Quote
says she should have been challenged more by medical staff over her decision to transition to a male as a teenager.

Made the decision.

Regrets the decision.

Is looking to blame someone.

Not what you allege.

I thought conservatism valued the right to take responsibility for one's actions no matter the consequences.

The issue is that in many places, including the UK, professionals, including medical professionals, are being regulated by governments to "support" kids' wishes to transition. In what other medical matter would it be considered ethical to allow a minor to choose unilaterally what treatment they should receive?

So doctors are required to support their patients' wishes. 

Where does it say that?

What is wrong with that?

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 09, 2021, 07:31:07 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 09, 2021, 07:29:41 AM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 09, 2021, 07:21:17 AM

Quote from: downer on November 09, 2021, 06:40:25 AM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 07, 2021, 08:28:49 AM

Give me one example of "reassignment clinics who railroad them into medical options which they later regret."  One example.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51676020

Quote
says she should have been challenged more by medical staff over her decision to transition to a male as a teenager.

Made the decision.

Regrets the decision.

Is looking to blame someone.

Not what you allege.

I thought conservatism valued the right to take responsibility for one's actions no matter the consequences.

The issue is that in many places, including the UK, professionals, including medical professionals, are being regulated by governments to "support" kids' wishes to transition. In what other medical matter would it be considered ethical to allow a minor to choose unilaterally what treatment they should receive?

So doctors are required to support their patients' wishes. 

Where does it say that?

What is wrong with that?

Minors are treated differently than adults legally because they are considered not-yet-capable of making life-changing decisions. That's why adults (such as parents or legal guardians) are required to make those decisions until they reach the age of majority.

Should children diagnosed with cancer be able to choose whatever treatment regimen they like, based on what they've seen online? Or should an oncologist actually use professional judgement to determine what sort of treatment is actually most likely to be effacacious and appropriate?

Quote from: financeguy on November 09, 2021, 02:23:20 AM
None of these arguments are relevant.  Biology is a fact regardless of your feelings, the result of a sporting match, someone's desire for an inclusive environment, or someone else's religious dogma.

Right: biology is a fact. And te biological facts aren't on your side.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 09, 2021, 07:35:58 AM
Minors are treated differently than adults legally because they are considered not-yet-capable of making life-changing decisions. That's why adults (such as parents or legal guardians) are required to make those decisions until they reach the age of majority.

Should children diagnosed with cancer be able to choose whatever treatment regimen they like, based on what they've seen online? Or should an oncologist actually use professional judgement to determine what sort of treatment is actually most likely to be effacacious and appropriate?

And I think that is one of our prime mistakes as a culture.

Adolescents are not children.  We should not treat them as such.

Here is Keira Bell's own testimony about her (then) depression and his (now) decision, a course which he pursued until he was 20.

https://www.persuasion.community/p/keira-bell-my-story

He wanted a change.  He pursued a change.  Now he doesn't want the change.

Personal responsibility: conservative ideology loves this.  Walk your talk.

American conservatives generally support Kyle Rittenhouse.  We make our choices.  We live with them.

And in any event, no one was "railroaded."  No one was "required" to support anything.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 09, 2021, 07:49:44 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 09, 2021, 07:35:58 AM
Minors are treated differently than adults legally because they are considered not-yet-capable of making life-changing decisions. That's why adults (such as parents or legal guardians) are required to make those decisions until they reach the age of majority.

Should children diagnosed with cancer be able to choose whatever treatment regimen they like, based on what they've seen online? Or should an oncologist actually use professional judgement to determine what sort of treatment is actually most likely to be effacacious and appropriate?

And I think that is one of our prime mistakes as a culture.

Adolescents are not children.  We should not treat them as such.

Here is Keira Bell's own testimony about her (then) depression and his (now) decision, a course which he pursued until he was 20.

https://www.persuasion.community/p/keira-bell-my-story

He wanted a change.  He pursued a change.  Now he doesn't want the change.

Personal responsibility: conservative ideology loves this.  Walk your talk.

American conservatives generally support Kyle Rittenhouse.  We make our choices.  We live with them.

And in any event, no one was "railroaded."  No one was "required" to support anything.

So you are open to dating minors, Wahoo? Let me know how it goes.

Someone needs to calmly educate me on something. I have a biology advanced degree. Never was that good at genetics but I do recall that XX was female and XY was male. I realize there are rare aberration of this, but biology would suggest that XX supports a female designation of gender and XY supports a male designation. Now, what you decide is your gender identity is apparently much more fluid. Someone? Anyone? Honest confusion here.

Quote from: waterboy on November 09, 2021, 10:56:28 AM
Someone needs to calmly educate me on something. I have a biology advanced degree. Never was that good at genetics but I do recall that XX was female and XY was male. I realize there are rare aberration of this, but biology would suggest that XX supports a female designation of gender and XY supports a male designation. Now, what you decide is your gender identity is apparently much more fluid. Someone? Anyone? Honest confusion here.

I think you hit it---apparently much more fluid.  We have brains.  That changes things.  You may not experience whatever it is, but other people do.  It seems to me that it is that simple.

Once again, who cares?  If someone wants to transition to a new gender, we know that not all the original plumbing will be replaced, but there will be enough replaced that it will make some people happy. 

One of my grad school friends did this.  I have not talked to hu in quite a while, but hu was not very happy in their chromosomal designation, but hu is very happy in hu's new frame.  This person has actually had some academic success that I am very envious of.

There is so much unnatural about our lifestyles, and we have so much room to move around in, I just don't get why anyone cares what other people do with their gender assignment.  Why even ask the question?  Why get upset?  It's not my bag, but I don't think that should stop me from respecting someone else's decision.

Quote from: waterboy on November 09, 2021, 10:56:28 AM
Someone needs to calmly educate me on something. I have a biology advanced degree. Never was that good at genetics but I do recall that XX was female and XY was male. I realize there are rare aberration of this, but biology would suggest that XX supports a female designation of gender and XY supports a male designation. Now, what you decide is your gender identity is apparently much more fluid. Someone? Anyone? Honest confusion here.

That's what we learn in high school biology, yes. But just as with high school physics, the truth is actually much more nuanced. Someone with XX chromosomes can have gonads, and someone with XY can have ovaries. That's because biological sex isn't just chromosomally-determined. We know that various gene activations are also important in sex-differentiation, notably SRY, DMRT1, and FOXL2. Then there are all the secondary sex characteristics (like your genitalia) which develop from the interaction of your genes with your hormones, your environment, etc. We also have to remember that chromosomal sex attributes are actually averages and correlations of those attributes; as with any distribution, there are outliers--but if you look at the distribution of attributes like height, muscle mass, bone density, etc., you'll actually find that the two distributions mostly overlap (this is particularly important when talking about segregated sports, which are intrinsically stupid anyway but hey).

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 09, 2021, 12:16:11 PM

Quote from: waterboy on November 09, 2021, 10:56:28 AM
Someone needs to calmly educate me on something. I have a biology advanced degree. Never was that good at genetics but I do recall that XX was female and XY was male. I realize there are rare aberration of this, but biology would suggest that XX supports a female designation of gender and XY supports a male designation. Now, what you decide is your gender identity is apparently much more fluid. Someone? Anyone? Honest confusion here.

I think you hit it---apparently much more fluid.  We have brains.  That changes things.  You may not experience whatever it is, but other people do.  It seems to me that it is that simple.

Once again, who cares?  If someone wants to transition to a new gender, we know that not all the original plumbing will be replaced, but there will be enough replaced that it will make some people happy. 

The lifelong medical consequences of transitioning are pretty serious. It isn't simply "replacing some plumbing".

Quote
One of my grad school friends did this.  I have not talked to hu in quite a while, but hu was not very happy in their chromosomal designation, but hu is very happy in hu's new frame.  This person has actually had some academic success that I am very envious of.

The issue here is people transitioning before adulthood. From previous research, of boys who wanted to transition but didn't, as adults about 85% were happy in their gender identity as gay men. The ones who still wanted to transition were happy with their choice.

If 85% of people can be prevented from experiencing lifelong medical challenges because of an ill-informed decision as a child, how is it ethical to ignore that?

Quote
There is so much unnatural about our lifestyles, and we have so much room to move around in, I just don't get why anyone cares what other people do with their gender assignment.  Why even ask the question?  Why get upset?  It's not my bag, but I don't think that should stop me from respecting someone else's decision.

We don't let kids drink bleach. We don't let them run in traffic. We try to protect them until they are at an age when they are legally responsible for their own choices. This discussion is about children transitioning; adults should be free to do whatever they want. (Although they should still have a really clear explanation about the medical consequences of their decision, just like for any medical procedure.)

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 09, 2021, 01:03:23 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 09, 2021, 12:16:11 PM

Quote from: waterboy on November 09, 2021, 10:56:28 AM
Someone needs to calmly educate me on something. I have a biology advanced degree. Never was that good at genetics but I do recall that XX was female and XY was male. I realize there are rare aberration of this, but biology would suggest that XX supports a female designation of gender and XY supports a male designation. Now, what you decide is your gender identity is apparently much more fluid. Someone? Anyone? Honest confusion here.

I think you hit it---apparently much more fluid.  We have brains.  That changes things.  You may not experience whatever it is, but other people do.  It seems to me that it is that simple.

Once again, who cares?  If someone wants to transition to a new gender, we know that not all the original plumbing will be replaced, but there will be enough replaced that it will make some people happy. 

The lifelong medical consequences of transitioning are pretty serious. It isn't simply "replacing some plumbing".

Sure.  It is serious surgery.  And this is what the Cleveland Clinic says (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/21526-gender-affirmation-confirmation-or-sex-reassignment-surgery):

Quote
What are the benefits of gender affirmation surgery?
Research has shown that transgender individuals who choose gender-affirming surgery experience long-term mental health benefits. In one study, a person's odds of needing mental health treatment declined by 8% each year after the gender-affirming procedure.

And regardless, people have the right to make this decision.  They know the risks, they roll the dice.

Why is it any of our business what people do if it does not affect us?  And no, meth, for instance, is not in the same category precisely because meth-addicts cause so many legal and social problems----provided that is the territory you were about to enter.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 09, 2021, 12:16:11 PM
One of my grad school friends did this.  I have not talked to hu in quite a while, but hu was not very happy in their chromosomal designation, but hu is very happy in hu's new frame.  This person has actually had some academic success that I am very envious of.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 09, 2021, 01:03:23 PM
The issue here is people transitioning before adulthood. From previous research, of boys who wanted to transition but didn't, as adults about 85% were happy in their gender identity as gay men. The ones who still wanted to transition were happy with their choice.

If 85% of people can be prevented from experiencing lifelong medical challenges because of an ill-informed decision as a child, how is it ethical to ignore that?

IS that the issue?  I was responding to the charge that clinics are "railroading" people into this decision.  You have one example-----which is always the way when people are trying to rationalize a prejudice: find the outlier, try to make a case out of it.

If people think about gender reassignment and decide against it, good on them too.

Really Marshy, you have nothing to say here.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 09, 2021, 01:03:23 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 09, 2021, 12:16:11 PM
There is so much unnatural about our lifestyles, and we have so much room to move around in, I just don't get why anyone cares what other people do with their gender assignment.  Why even ask the question?  Why get upset?  It's not my bag, but I don't think that should stop me from respecting someone else's decision.

We don't let kids drink bleach. We don't let them run in traffic. We try to protect them until they are at an age when they are legally responsible for their own choices. This discussion is about children transitioning; adults should be free to do whatever they want. (Although they should still have a really clear explanation about the medical consequences of their decision, just like for any medical procedure.)

You've got apples.  We're talking oranges. 

Teenagers don't, by and large, drink bleach-----children might. 

And those are pretty false equivalencies anyway. 

I usually ignore your posts, buddy. 

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 09, 2021, 01:03:23 PM

The issue here is people transitioning before adulthood. From previous research, of boys who wanted to transition but didn't, as adults about 85% were happy in their gender identity as gay men. The ones who still wanted to transition were happy with their choice.

If 85% of people can be prevented from experiencing lifelong medical challenges because of an ill-informed decision as a child, how is it ethical to ignore that?

Define "wanted to transition." At the age of 6, had you told me I could be a boy I would have been thrilled! I wept bitterly about being a girl.

Did that make me trans, eligible for puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgery? Or was it "just a phase?" Maybe parents are more aware that "just a phase" might be a little more than that, but I would think most ethical doctors would have some series of protocols before starting any course of treatment.

Today I am a (reasonably) well-adjusted heterosexual cisgender woman.

That said, I do believe that gender is a decision an adult needs to make for themselves. Now a 6-year-old is probably not an adult. But when is a person old enough to understand the ramifications of changing one's gender and deciding for themselves? 14? 18?

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 09, 2021, 06:24:57 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 09, 2021, 01:03:23 PM

The issue here is people transitioning before adulthood. From previous research, of boys who wanted to transition but didn't, as adults about 85% were happy in their gender identity as gay men. The ones who still wanted to transition were happy with their choice.

If 85% of people can be prevented from experiencing lifelong medical challenges because of an ill-informed decision as a child, how is it ethical to ignore that?

Define "wanted to transition." At the age of 6, had you told me I could be a boy I would have been thrilled! I wept bitterly about being a girl.

Did that make me trans, eligible for puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgery? Or was it "just a phase?" Maybe parents are more aware that "just a phase" might be a little more than that, but I would think most ethical doctors would have some series of protocols before starting any course of treatment.

Today I am a (reasonably) well-adjusted heterosexual cisgender woman.

That said, I do believe that gender is a decision an adult needs to make for themselves. Now a 6-year-old is probably not an adult. But when is a person old enough to understand the ramifications of changing one's gender and deciding for themselves? 14? 18?

I haven't done a thorough review of this literature, but from the reading I have done, this seems to have been a particularly crucial element when interpreting such studies. I have not yet found a study in which all the participants were at the point of insisting on hormone therapy or surgery.

A common critique seems to be using too wide of a net when recruiting study participants. For example, including study participants who are gender non-conforming (e.g. a boy who prefers to play with dolls instead of trucks). Questionnaires might include questions like "Do you ever wish you were the opposite gender?" which, like ciao_yall says, could be fueled by many motivations, not just gender dysphoria.

I recall reading about one of these studies years ago and I remember the article I read emphasizing things like cross-dressing not necessarily being an indication that a kid is transgender. Which is different from saying "most kids who want to transition change their minds later."

Another common critique: how studies define desistance (i.e. no longer expressing a desire to live as the opposite gender). Apparently, one of these frequently cited studies classified participants who did not respond to follow-up questionnaires/interviews as 'desisting' for some reason?

Again, I'm not claiming to be anything close to an expert on this subject, but I think the issue is complex, not clear-cut. And I personally haven't seen sufficient evidence to feel confident saying, "It's just a phase. They'll grow out of it." That can also do a great deal of harm to an individual.

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 09, 2021, 07:36:12 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 09, 2021, 06:24:57 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 09, 2021, 01:03:23 PM

The issue here is people transitioning before adulthood. From previous research, of boys who wanted to transition but didn't, as adults about 85% were happy in their gender identity as gay men. The ones who still wanted to transition were happy with their choice.

If 85% of people can be prevented from experiencing lifelong medical challenges because of an ill-informed decision as a child, how is it ethical to ignore that?

Define "wanted to transition." At the age of 6, had you told me I could be a boy I would have been thrilled! I wept bitterly about being a girl.

Did that make me trans, eligible for puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgery? Or was it "just a phase?" Maybe parents are more aware that "just a phase" might be a little more than that, but I would think most ethical doctors would have some series of protocols before starting any course of treatment.

Today I am a (reasonably) well-adjusted heterosexual cisgender woman.

That said, I do believe that gender is a decision an adult needs to make for themselves. Now a 6-year-old is probably not an adult. But when is a person old enough to understand the ramifications of changing one's gender and deciding for themselves? 14? 18?

I haven't done a thorough review of this literature, but from the reading I have done, this seems to have been a particularly crucial element when interpreting such studies. I have not yet found a study in which all the participants were at the point of insisting on hormone therapy or surgery.

A common critique seems to be using too wide of a net when recruiting study participants. For example, including study participants who are gender non-conforming (e.g. a boy who prefers to play with dolls instead of trucks). Questionnaires might include questions like "Do you ever wish you were the opposite gender?" which, like ciao_yall says, could be fueled by many motivations, not just gender dysphoria.

I recall reading about one of these studies years ago and I remember the article I read emphasizing things like cross-dressing not necessarily being an indication that a kid is transgender. Which is different from saying "most kids who want to transition change their minds later."

Another common critique: how studies define desistance (i.e. no longer expressing a desire to live as the opposite gender). Apparently, one of these frequently cited studies classified participants who did not respond to follow-up questionnaires/interviews as 'desisting' for some reason?

Again, I'm not claiming to be anything close to an expert on this subject, but I think the issue is complex, not clear-cut. And I personally haven't seen sufficient evidence to feel confident saying, "It's just a phase. They'll grow out of it." That can also do a great deal of harm to an individual.

Thanks for this, scr.

My niece came out as trans a few years ago. She was well into her 20's by then.

As a child she was all boy. Rough and tumble, made car noises. As a young adult she dated both men and women. She had plenty of LBGT and gender-fluid role models. I'm not sure when she decided that transitioning was for her.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 09, 2021, 12:53:24 PM

Quote from: waterboy on November 09, 2021, 10:56:28 AM
Someone needs to calmly educate me on something. I have a biology advanced degree. Never was that good at genetics but I do recall that XX was female and XY was male. I realize there are rare aberration of this, but biology would suggest that XX supports a female designation of gender and XY supports a male designation. Now, what you decide is your gender identity is apparently much more fluid. Someone? Anyone? Honest confusion here.

That's what we learn in high school biology, yes. But just as with high school physics, the truth is actually much more nuanced. Someone with XX chromosomes can have gonads, and someone with XY can have ovaries. That's because biological sex isn't just chromosomally-determined. We know that various gene activations are also important in sex-differentiation, notably SRY, DMRT1, and FOXL2. Then there are all the secondary sex characteristics (like your genitalia) which develop from the interaction of your genes with your hormones, your environment, etc. We also have to remember that chromosomal sex attributes are actually averages and correlations of those attributes; as with any distribution, there are outliers--but if you look at the distribution of attributes like height, muscle mass, bone density, etc., you'll actually find that the two distributions mostly overlap (this is particularly important when talking about segregated sports, which are intrinsically stupid anyway but hey).

+1

How do you typically get from an XX zygote to an adult woman, or from an XY zygote to an adult man? A lot of developmental pathways involving genes, hormones, and the environment.

There are also people who are neither XX nor XY.

And people who develop both male and female genitalia exist too (if you want to talk biology apart from the brain).

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 09, 2021, 07:36:12 PM


Another common critique: how studies define desistance (i.e. no longer expressing a desire to live as the opposite gender). Apparently, one of these frequently cited studies classified participants who did not respond to follow-up questionnaires/interviews as 'desisting' for some reason?

Oh.Em. Gee. 0_o

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 09, 2021, 07:49:36 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 09, 2021, 12:53:24 PM

Quote from: waterboy on November 09, 2021, 10:56:28 AM
Someone needs to calmly educate me on something. I have a biology advanced degree. Never was that good at genetics but I do recall that XX was female and XY was male. I realize there are rare aberration of this, but biology would suggest that XX supports a female designation of gender and XY supports a male designation. Now, what you decide is your gender identity is apparently much more fluid. Someone? Anyone? Honest confusion here.

That's what we learn in high school biology, yes. But just as with high school physics, the truth is actually much more nuanced. Someone with XX chromosomes can have gonads, and someone with XY can have ovaries. That's because biological sex isn't just chromosomally-determined. We know that various gene activations are also important in sex-differentiation, notably SRY, DMRT1, and FOXL2. Then there are all the secondary sex characteristics (like your genitalia) which develop from the interaction of your genes with your hormones, your environment, etc. We also have to remember that chromosomal sex attributes are actually averages and correlations of those attributes; as with any distribution, there are outliers--but if you look at the distribution of attributes like height, muscle mass, bone density, etc., you'll actually find that the two distributions mostly overlap (this is particularly important when talking about segregated sports, which are intrinsically stupid anyway but hey).

+1

How do you typically get from an XX zygote to an adult woman, or from an XY zygote to an adult man? A lot of developmental pathways involving genes, hormones, and the environment.

There are also people who are neither XX nor XY.

And people who develop both male and female genitalia exist too (if you want to talk biology apart from the brain).

The proportion of people who are intersex is 1.7%, roughly the same as the proportion of people who are redheads.* On the one hand, I like comparing hair color to other types of bigotry, because the classic way we explain why bigotry is bad to children is to say 'wouldn't it be stupid if we discriminated on the basis of hair color?'  But on the other hand, apparently some people dislike redheads? Especially in the UK there's some completely bonkers anti-redhead bias. So I guess any random physical characteristic is fair game for discrimination, because people suck.

Anyway: in the same way it's stupid to force people with red hair to dye their hair to conform to some societal standard of 'not-red', it's stupid to force people who don't match gender binary to conform to gender binary.

*Some quick googling has revealed that this claim is disputed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Prevalence), but it seens to be disputed for reasons like 'Klinefelter syndrome (XXY chromosmes) don't count'. For the purposes of our discussion, which is about the limits of XX=female/XY=male, I'd argue that Klinefelter syndrome--or indeed any situation that departs from straightforward 1:1 mappings between chromosomes and gender assigned at birth--is fully relevant.

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 09, 2021, 07:36:12 PM
Again, I'm not claiming to be anything close to an expert on this subject, but I think the issue is complex, not clear-cut. And I personally haven't seen sufficient evidence to feel confident saying, "It's just a phase. They'll grow out of it." That can also do a great deal of harm to an individual.

The point is not that everyone will "grow out of it". But given the lifelong consequences of transitioning, it is scientifically irresponsible to just overlook all reports of people who regret the decision and avoid trying to find out who and how common they are, and it is morally irresponsible to not try to clearly identify the people who will potentially benefit from transition and those who likely will regret it.

Like in many issues, there will be groups, such as some religious groups, who will argue that transitioning is always wrong. On the other hand, there will be activists who argue that anyone who shows any interest in transitioning should be supported in that and not discouraged in any way.

Both of these groups have a particular bias and neither can be counted on to clearly investigate and report claims that do not support their narrative.

This is like in discussions of sex work. There are people lobbying for it to be legalized, and accepted like any other profession. On the other hand, there are people who lobby for it to be heavily sanctioned due to the high number of sex workers who are victims of trafficking or are exploited due to substance abuse.  The true picture of what sex work is like will include some amounts of what both groups describe. The reason that academics need to be impartial in matters like this is that public policy needs objective, reliable data on the situation which clarifies how many people fit each group, and especially if there need to be distinctions made between the two groups.

There are people who transitioned  in the past and some time later are happy with their decision.
There are people who transitioned  in the past and some time later regret their decision.

If society truly cares about people, then it is essential to get as clear an understanding as possible about both groups, in order to advise people so that people most likely to benefit may do so and people most likely to regret it will be helped to find more appropriate treatment for situation.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 10, 2021, 06:13:39 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 09, 2021, 07:36:12 PM
Again, I'm not claiming to be anything close to an expert on this subject, but I think the issue is complex, not clear-cut. And I personally haven't seen sufficient evidence to feel confident saying, "It's just a phase. They'll grow out of it." That can also do a great deal of harm to an individual.

The point is not that everyone will "grow out of it". But given the lifelong consequences of transitioning, it is scientifically irresponsible to just overlook all reports of people who regret the decision and avoid trying to find out who and how common they are, and it is morally irresponsible to not try to clearly identify the people who will potentially benefit from transition and those who likely will regret it.

.....

If society truly cares about people, then it is essential to get as clear an understanding as possible about both groups, in order to advise people so that people most likely to benefit may do so and people most likely to regret it will be helped to find more appropriate treatment for situation.

Yes, I certainly agree with this. And this seems to be the impetus driving much of this research: how best to identify who will be helped by which types of intervention. But is this aim being served by saying "85% of people who initially wanted to transition but didn't turned out to have been better off" as if the research is clear-cut and settled? How is that being scientifically or morally responsible?

Your initial comment wasn't "It's important to understand how to identify who is actually going to be helped by transitioning before proceeding with the transitioning process."

ETA: On re-reading your posts, I can see this was your implication even if you didn't say it directly. But by pulling out the 85% statistic, it still seems that you're implying that in most cases of boys wanting to transition it would have been the wrong decision. Not all, but most.

The message I got from reading your post was "Most people who say they want to transition would have been harmed if they had actually gone through with it" or at least "Most people who say they want to transition ended up identifying with their birth gender later in life" implying in most cases it is better not to transition (or at least to delay). And you refer to "research" without citation or context.

---

And when discussing the cases in which people either ceased their transitioning process or expressed regret, it's extremely important to attempt to understand the whys. People like to cite these cases to say, "See how awful it is to indulge these people, you're actually hurting them in the long run" while failing to mention that sometimes people don't continue due to difficulty accessing adequate medical care and sometimes people regret transitioning due to social backlash.

People also like to note that trans people have higher rates of depression and suicide than the general population as evidence that being trans itself is harmful to the individual. As if social rejection and bigotry couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 10, 2021, 06:13:39 AM

Like in many issues, there will be groups, such as some religious groups, who will argue that transitioning is always wrong. On the other hand, there will be activists who argue that anyone who shows any interest in transitioning should be supported in that and not discouraged in any way.

Both of these groups have a particular bias and neither can be counted on to clearly investigate and report claims that do not support their narrative.

While I haven't exhaustively verified the validity of the critique points I mentioned, they are verifiable by reading the methods of the published studies. From what I have read, the critiques are worth keeping in mind when reading secondary reporting of this literature.

As with research results, dismissing a critique because you think the source is biased is not as productive towards the aim of increasing knowledge as evaluating the critique on its own terms.

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 10, 2021, 06:44:26 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 10, 2021, 06:13:39 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 09, 2021, 07:36:12 PM
Again, I'm not claiming to be anything close to an expert on this subject, but I think the issue is complex, not clear-cut. And I personally haven't seen sufficient evidence to feel confident saying, "It's just a phase. They'll grow out of it." That can also do a great deal of harm to an individual.

The point is not that everyone will "grow out of it". But given the lifelong consequences of transitioning, it is scientifically irresponsible to just overlook all reports of people who regret the decision and avoid trying to find out who and how common they are, and it is morally irresponsible to not try to clearly identify the people who will potentially benefit from transition and those who likely will regret it.

.....

If society truly cares about people, then it is essential to get as clear an understanding as possible about both groups, in order to advise people so that people most likely to benefit may do so and people most likely to regret it will be helped to find more appropriate treatment for situation.

Yes, I certainly agree with this. And this seems to be the impetus driving much of this research: how best to identify who will be helped by which types of intervention. But is this aim being served by saying "85% of people who initially wanted to transition but didn't turned out to have been better off" as if the research is clear-cut and settled? How is that being scientifically or morally responsible?

Whether the proportion is 85% or 20% (or whatver) isn't the issue. The issue is that since there are some people who are happy and some who aren't, the most honest and caring thing to do is acknowledge both groups exist and try to learn as much as possible about both of them so that we can recognize which group any given person most likely falls into to give them the help that they need.

Quote
Your initial comment wasn't "It's important to understand how to identify who is actually going to be helped by transitioning before proceeding with the transitioning process."

The message I got from reading your post was "Most people who say they want to transition would have been harmed if they had actually gone through with it" or at least "Most people who say they want to transition ended up identifying with their birth gender later in life" implying in most cases it is better not to transition (or at least to delay). And you refer to "research" without citation or context.

I can't recall exactly, but two books related to this topic are "Galileo's Middle Finger" and "Irreversible Damage". That statistic may have been in one or the other.
I believe it came from research by Kenneth Zucker, but I'm not entirely certain.

Quote

And when discussing the cases in which people either ceased their transitioning process or expressed regret, it's extremely important to attempt to understand the whys. People like to cite these cases to say, "See how awful it is to indulge these people, you're actually hurting them in the long run" while failing to mention that sometimes people don't continue due to difficulty accessing adequate medical care and sometimes people regret transitioning due to social backlash.

People also like to note that trans people have higher rates of depression and suicide than the general population as evidence that being trans itself is harmful to the individual. As if social rejection and bigotry couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

The research (again, I believe, Zucker's) indicated that gender dysphoria had a lot of comorbidites for anxiety, depression, etc. Also for girls, autism plays a big part. The suggestion is not that "being trans itself is harmful to the individual", but rather that people who are struggling with various mental health issues and looking for solutions may latch onto gender identity as a possible solution. This would make sense if the people who regret their transition found that it did not provide the resolution they hoped.
(To be clear: This is not to say that all gender dysphoria is due to mental health struggles; it is to say that people with intense struggles may be desperate enough to grasp at anything that might help, and that's why professionals need to be diligent about carefully examining what is really going on to suggest appropriate treatment.)

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 10, 2021, 06:13:39 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 09, 2021, 07:36:12 PM
Again, I'm not claiming to be anything close to an expert on this subject, but I think the issue is complex, not clear-cut. And I personally haven't seen sufficient evidence to feel confident saying, "It's just a phase. They'll grow out of it." That can also do a great deal of harm to an individual.

The point is not that everyone will "grow out of it". But given the lifelong consequences of transitioning, it is scientifically irresponsible to just overlook all reports of people who regret the decision and avoid trying to find out who and how common they are, and it is morally irresponsible to not try to clearly identify the people who will potentially benefit from transition and those who likely will regret it.

I think we are all in agreement in this aspect. Still, pointing to one person who regretted it reminds us that "the plural of anecdote is not data."

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 10, 2021, 08:21:59 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 10, 2021, 06:13:39 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 09, 2021, 07:36:12 PM
Again, I'm not claiming to be anything close to an expert on this subject, but I think the issue is complex, not clear-cut. And I personally haven't seen sufficient evidence to feel confident saying, "It's just a phase. They'll grow out of it." That can also do a great deal of harm to an individual.

The point is not that everyone will "grow out of it". But given the lifelong consequences of transitioning, it is scientifically irresponsible to just overlook all reports of people who regret the decision and avoid trying to find out who and how common they are, and it is morally irresponsible to not try to clearly identify the people who will potentially benefit from transition and those who likely will regret it.

I think we are all in agreement in this aspect. Still, pointing to one person who regretted it reminds us that "the plural of anecdote is not data."

Considerin g both 60 Minutes Australia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qjn0v4Av4) and the BBC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDi-jFVBLA8&t=414s) have done documentaries on detransitioning, there are probably a few more than one.

Kenneth Zucker's work could be a whole thread in itself, and I'd need to do more of a deep dive to discuss his research analytically.

But I'm questioning how the actual percentages don't matter when discussing the question of whether and when transitioning will be harmful vs. beneficial.

The actual numbers of people who regret transitioning doesn't matter so long as it's non-zero?

Say 80% of patients given Treatment X show worse outcomes than patients given Treatment Y (or no treatment at all). That's not going to influence future research or clinical decision-making any differently than if 80% of patients given Treatment X show better outcomes?

A majority of patients transitioning later suffering because of the decision indicates a massive problem in identifying when hormones or surgery is the appropriate intervention. A majority of patients with beneficial outcomes indicates the validity of the treatment, while still acknowledging that it isn't the best option for everyone and further research with the aim of better screening is warranted.

---

And my comment about the rates of depression etc. in trans people wasn't about you specifically. It was an example of how people will take the results of a study, slap an interpretation onto it that may or may not be accurate, and then think that because the numbers are a fact then so is their interpretation. Often, I read reports of studies in which the article indicates or outright states an interpretation that the authors of the study themselves never put forward.

---

I'm also questioning the frequency of doctors recklessly signing off on treatment without a thorough evaluation of a patient's individual case or discussion of alternatives. It's been my impression that it's not a quick and easy process, but I honestly don't know how true that is generally.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 10, 2021, 08:36:35 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 10, 2021, 08:21:59 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 10, 2021, 06:13:39 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 09, 2021, 07:36:12 PM
Again, I'm not claiming to be anything close to an expert on this subject, but I think the issue is complex, not clear-cut. And I personally haven't seen sufficient evidence to feel confident saying, "It's just a phase. They'll grow out of it." That can also do a great deal of harm to an individual.

The point is not that everyone will "grow out of it". But given the lifelong consequences of transitioning, it is scientifically irresponsible to just overlook all reports of people who regret the decision and avoid trying to find out who and how common they are, and it is morally irresponsible to not try to clearly identify the people who will potentially benefit from transition and those who likely will regret it.

I think we are all in agreement in this aspect. Still, pointing to one person who regretted it reminds us that "the plural of anecdote is not data."

Considerin g both 60 Minutes Australia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qjn0v4Av4) and the BBC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDi-jFVBLA8&t=414s) have done documentaries on detransitioning, there are probably a few more than one.

Dog bites man?

Let's also consider that yes, it will be stressful to live as a transgendered person, especially if they don't easily "pass."

Still, they may decide that the stresses of living in their AAB gender are worse than the stresses of living as transgendered person.

And, they may decide later that one stress is worse than they had realized.

Doesn't mean transitioning, or not transitioning, is ever 100% the right or wrong decision for everyone.

There was an excellent Current Affairs piece (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/04/why-the-panic-over-trans-kids) on this particular moral panic back in April. Of particular relevance, I think, is this paragraph:

QuoteA 2018 survey (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6212091/) of practitioners who offer gender affirmation surgeries revealed very few reports of regret. 22,724 patents that had been treated by the surgeons. Only 62 patients had ever reported regret about their gender transition or sought detransition care. 22 of those 62 did report that their gender identity had changed, but another 17 reported that social factors (difficulty in relationships and a lack of family support) had led to the regret, meaning that a good portion of the regrets that do occur come about because we live in a transphobic society. The surgeons had only had to perform 38 detransition procedures in total. A UK study (https://epath.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Boof-of-abstracts-EPATH2019.pdf#page=139) found that out of 3398 patients it studied in an NHS gender identity clinic, only 16 (less than half a percent) reported "transition-related regret or detransitioned."

Let's let that sink in. In the first instance, we have a regret rate of .27%. And a significant percentage of those (27%!) appears to be due entirely to external factors--being rejected by one's family and social circle. So the actual number of internally-driven regrets is more like 45, or .2%.  In the second instance, you've got a regret-rate of .47%.

That's so tiny. If you presented me with a coronavirus vaccine with those odds of adverse effects, I'd take it in a heartbeat. Oh, wait...

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 10, 2021, 08:47:26 AM

A majority of patients transitioning later suffering because of the decision indicates a massive problem in identifying when hormones or surgery is the appropriate intervention. A majority of patients with beneficial outcomes indicates the validity of the treatment, while still acknowledging that it isn't the best option for everyone and further research with the aim of better screening is warranted.

Yes. This is precisely the point.

Quote

I'm also questioning the frequency of doctors recklessly signing off on treatment without a thorough evaluation of a patient's individual case or discussion of alternatives. It's been my impression that it's not a quick and easy process, but I honestly don't know how true that is generally.

My understanding is that this used to be the case, but trans activists have pushed to make "support" of transition the virtually automatic decision, and professionals who are more cautious get labelled "transphobic".

(I believe there have been reports of clinics prescribing puberty-blockers without even having an interview with the patient.)

Mind your own business, Marshy.  It is not your place to decide what is good for other people.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 10, 2021, 11:07:47 AM
Mind your own business, Marshy.  It is not your place to decide what is good for other people.

The point must be that it is the other people who get to decide what is best for themselves.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 10, 2021, 11:07:47 AM
Mind your own business, Marshy.  It is not your place to decide what is good for other people.

Consider two scenarios:

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I am a boy. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I have breast cancer. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

Do both of these make sense? If not, how much due diligence should apply in each case to determine whether this is appropriate?

marshwiggle, the point I was making is that statistics provide information that informs evaluation of an issue. The evaluation informs decision-making. Valuing accuracy when quoting statistics does matter, which is contrary to what you earlier stated.

Isn't a common criticism of activists against sexual harassment or police brutality that they use misleading statistics to make the issue seem more widespread and systemic than it actually is? Or do they get a pass if they say "So what if the proportion of women who have experienced sexual assault is 1 in 2 or 1 in 2000? The point is it happens."

Also, are you sure that advocates for supporting someone's transition aren't talking primarily about identity and self-expression? People transition to living as the gender opposite to the one they were assigned at birth even without surgery or hormone treatments.

Think of "puberty blockers" for a moment. Should we have a free market in puberty blockers?

Look at a market in organs as an analogy. The latter half of the 20th century's most ardent free marketeer said no, there shouldn't be such a market. Why? Because its existence would influence the time of death of some, perhaps many, people! The regulation that  has emerged in the US to deal with this problem is voluntary supply with demand determined by survival chance and quality. A market of sorts on which no money changes hands.

Analogously, I would not trust doctors on average to correctly prescribe puberty blockers, each of whom has a different tradeoff between helping patients and making money. This is analogous to death in the sense that a wrong decision is very, very costly to the individual.

From the thread discussion, there is clearly justified worry over quasi-political solutions and situations. I'm saying a free market for puberty blockers doesn't work well either.

We ain't nowhere.

Edit: spelling

Quote from: dismalist on November 10, 2021, 11:45:53 AM

From the thread discussion, there is clearly justified worry over quasi-political solutions and situations. I'm saying a free market for puberty blockers doesn't work well either.

We ain't nowhere.

A little information on "puberty blockers", from the NHS (UK (https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/)):

Quote

Puberty blockers (gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues) pause the physical changes of puberty, such as breast development or facial hair.

Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.

Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.

It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.

From the age of 16, teenagers who've been on hormone blockers for at least 12 months may be given cross-sex hormones, also known as gender-affirming hormones.

These hormones cause some irreversible changes, such as:

breast development (caused by taking oestrogen)
breaking or deepening of the voice (caused by taking testosterone)
Long-term cross-sex hormone treatment may cause temporary or even permanent infertility.

There is some uncertainty about the risks of long-term cross-sex hormone treatment.

And this doesn't even touch the medical consequences of surgery.

Meanwhile, the staunch supporters of free expression on the Spotsylvania, Virginia school board are removing books they don't like from library shelves (https://fredericksburg.com/news/local/education/spotsylvania-school-board-orders-libraries-to-remove-sexually-explicit-books/article_6c54507a-6383-534d-89b9-c2deb1f6ba17.html).

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 10, 2021, 12:27:04 PM
Meanwhile, the staunch supporters of free expression on the Spotsylvania, Virginia school board are removing books they don't like from library shelves (https://fredericksburg.com/news/local/education/spotsylvania-school-board-orders-libraries-to-remove-sexually-explicit-books/article_6c54507a-6383-534d-89b9-c2deb1f6ba17.html).

Competition, competition:

I'm sure everybody will remove different books. Of course, there's the web, too.

These are only partial book burnings.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 10, 2021, 12:27:04 PM
Meanwhile, the staunch supporters of free expression on the Spotsylvania, Virginia school board are removing books they don't like from library shelves (https://fredericksburg.com/news/local/education/spotsylvania-school-board-orders-libraries-to-remove-sexually-explicit-books/article_6c54507a-6383-534d-89b9-c2deb1f6ba17.html).

I'll see your US example and raise you a Canadian one (https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2021/11/01/library-review-in-waterloo-regions-public-schools-has-no-hidden-agenda.html):

Quote
WATERLOO REGION — No "secret or hidden agenda" is behind the Waterloo Region District School Board's plan to review all library materials and remove anything decided to be inappropriate or harmful.

"The board is in fact very forthright in its commitment to equity and human rights and to improving outcomes for all students," said trustee Laurie Tremble. "The last thing our staff or trustees would condone would be censorship and it is unfortunate that the media and others have used inflammatory language to describe this as book banning."

The technical term is burning, not banning.

Instead, try agreeing on one book. Say, the Bible. But even that didn't work.

This will end badly, but it will end.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 10, 2021, 11:29:41 AM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 10, 2021, 11:07:47 AM
Mind your own business, Marshy.  It is not your place to decide what is good for other people.

Consider two scenarios:

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I am a boy. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I have breast cancer. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

Do both of these make sense? If not, how much due diligence should apply in each case to determine whether this is appropriate?

Neither of those make sense, and neither would happen.

Quote from: dismalist on November 10, 2021, 11:45:53 AM
Think of "puberty blockers" for a moment. Should we have a free market in puberty blockers?

Look at a market in organs as an analogy. The latter half of the 20th century's most ardent free marketeer said no, there shouldn't be such a market. Why? Because its existence would influence the time of death of some, perhaps many, people! The regulation that  has emerged in the US to deal with this problem is voluntary supply with demand determined by survival chance and quality. A market of sorts on which no money changes hands.

Analogously, I would not trust doctors on average to correctly prescribe puberty blockers, each of whom has a different tradeoff between helping patients and making money. This is analogous to death in the sense that a wrong decision is very, very costly to the individual.

From the thread discussion, there is clearly justified worry over quasi-political solutions and situations. I'm saying a free market for puberty blockers doesn't work well either.

We ain't nowhere.

Edit: spelling

I also don't think "doctors on average" are prescribing puberty blockers. Specialists might, but only after an intense screening protocol over quite some time.

Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 10, 2021, 01:20:50 PM

Quote from: dismalist on November 10, 2021, 11:45:53 AM
Think of "puberty blockers" for a moment. Should we have a free market in puberty blockers?

Look at a market in organs as an analogy. The latter half of the 20th century's most ardent free marketeer said no, there shouldn't be such a market. Why? Because its existence would influence the time of death of some, perhaps many, people! The regulation that  has emerged in the US to deal with this problem is voluntary supply with demand determined by survival chance and quality. A market of sorts on which no money changes hands.

Analogously, I would not trust doctors on average to correctly prescribe puberty blockers, each of whom has a different tradeoff between helping patients and making money. This is analogous to death in the sense that a wrong decision is very, very costly to the individual.

From the thread discussion, there is clearly justified worry over quasi-political solutions and situations. I'm saying a free market for puberty blockers doesn't work well either.

We ain't nowhere.

Edit: spelling

I also don't think "doctors on average" are prescribing puberty blockers. Specialists might, but only after an intense screening protocol over quite some time.

And no doctors want to make money.

Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 10, 2021, 01:18:50 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 10, 2021, 11:29:41 AM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 10, 2021, 11:07:47 AM
Mind your own business, Marshy.  It is not your place to decide what is good for other people.

Consider two scenarios:

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I am a boy. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I have breast cancer. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

Do both of these make sense? If not, how much due diligence should apply in each case to determine whether this is appropriate?

Neither of those make sense, and neither would happen.

Is the self-diagnosis of the issue the nonsensical part, or the self-prescribed treatment, or both? What physician response would be appropriate to both?

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 10, 2021, 12:27:04 PM
Meanwhile, the staunch supporters of free expression on the Spotsylvania, Virginia school board are removing books they don't like from library shelves (https://fredericksburg.com/news/local/education/spotsylvania-school-board-orders-libraries-to-remove-sexually-explicit-books/article_6c54507a-6383-534d-89b9-c2deb1f6ba17.html).

Whether they like them or not is irrelevant. I don't like John Denver's singing much, but I wouldn't hide his recordings from minors.
Freedom of expression in your society at large and what should be in public school libraries that's available to minors, and also available to teachers to assign for reading, are different situations calling for different processes of judgment. How would you like your middle school kid reading the Marquis de Sade?

Quote from: mahagonny on November 10, 2021, 01:24:44 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 10, 2021, 12:27:04 PM
Meanwhile, the staunch supporters of free expression on the Spotsylvania, Virginia school board are removing books they don't like from library shelves (https://fredericksburg.com/news/local/education/spotsylvania-school-board-orders-libraries-to-remove-sexually-explicit-books/article_6c54507a-6383-534d-89b9-c2deb1f6ba17.html).

Whether they like them or not is irrelevant. I don't like John Denver's singing much, but I wouldn't hide his recordings from minors.
Freedom of expression in your society at large and what should be in public school libraries that's available to minors, and also available to teachers to assign for reading, are different situations calling for different processes of judgment. How would you like your middle school kid reading the Marquis de Sade?

I doubt he would, since he'd find it boring. But at least he'd learn a good reductio against 'natural' arguments against homosexuality: the anus is round, penises are cylindrical, therefore obviously one was made for the other.

But you know what? If he wants to try reading it, he can. I don't have a problem with it. We can talk about it together.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 10, 2021, 01:44:06 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on November 10, 2021, 01:24:44 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 10, 2021, 12:27:04 PM
Meanwhile, the staunch supporters of free expression on the Spotsylvania, Virginia school board are removing books they don't like from library shelves (https://fredericksburg.com/news/local/education/spotsylvania-school-board-orders-libraries-to-remove-sexually-explicit-books/article_6c54507a-6383-534d-89b9-c2deb1f6ba17.html).

Whether they like them or not is irrelevant. I don't like John Denver's singing much, but I wouldn't hide his recordings from minors.
Freedom of expression in your society at large and what should be in public school libraries that's available to minors, and also available to teachers to assign for reading, are different situations calling for different processes of judgment. How would you like your middle school kid reading the Marquis de Sade?

I doubt he would, since he'd find it boring. But at least he'd learn a good reductio against 'natural' arguments against homosexuality: the anus is round, penises are cylindrical, therefore obviously one was made for the other.

But you know what? If he wants to try reading it, he can. I don't have a problem with it. We can talk about it together.

Did you read the part where he performs 'surgery' on someone which he knows he doesn't know how to do, then watches him die, and gets prurient pleasure from it? I don't think I'd want you near my kid.

And? I read some serious blood-and-guts historical fiction in eighth grade. Also horror. And even some of Mein Kampf. I also played video games and watched movies and TV. Oh, and I watched pornography, too. Lots of it. So did every other eighth grade boy I knew.

I'm not saying I'd force him to read it. Just that he can, if that's what he wants to, and he can read as much of it as he's interested in reading. And I'll be there to guide him through it.

Quote from: dismalist on November 10, 2021, 01:22:07 PM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 10, 2021, 01:20:50 PM

Quote from: dismalist on November 10, 2021, 11:45:53 AM
Think of "puberty blockers" for a moment. Should we have a free market in puberty blockers?

Look at a market in organs as an analogy. The latter half of the 20th century's most ardent free marketeer said no, there shouldn't be such a market. Why? Because its existence would influence the time of death of some, perhaps many, people! The regulation that  has emerged in the US to deal with this problem is voluntary supply with demand determined by survival chance and quality. A market of sorts on which no money changes hands.

Analogously, I would not trust doctors on average to correctly prescribe puberty blockers, each of whom has a different tradeoff between helping patients and making money. This is analogous to death in the sense that a wrong decision is very, very costly to the individual.

From the thread discussion, there is clearly justified worry over quasi-political solutions and situations. I'm saying a free market for puberty blockers doesn't work well either.

We ain't nowhere.

Edit: spelling

I also don't think "doctors on average" are prescribing puberty blockers. Specialists might, but only after an intense screening protocol over quite some time.

And no doctors want to make money.

Even fewer doctors want to be sued for malpractice and lose their licenses.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 10, 2021, 11:29:41 AM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 10, 2021, 11:07:47 AM
Mind your own business, Marshy.  It is not your place to decide what is good for other people.

Consider two scenarios:

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I am a boy. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I have breast cancer. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

Do both of these make sense? If not, how much due diligence should apply in each case to determine whether this is appropriate?

Dumb, Marshy.  Hypotheticals are even weaker than anecdata.

And we let the doctor decide what is the best medical and ethical procedure with the parents' consent (as I imagine that is the law).  That's why we have doctors.

And leave people alone.  The Dudley Do-Right moral crusaders pretending that they stand for common sense and the rights of the downtrodden are always the worst. 

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 10, 2021, 02:22:09 PM
And? I read some serious blood-and-guts historical fiction in eighth grade. Also horror. And even some of Mein Kampf. I also played video games and watched movies and TV. Oh, and I watched pornography, too. Lots of it. So did every other eighth grade boy I knew.

I'm not saying I'd force him to read it. Just that he can, if that's what he wants to, and he can read as much of it as he's interested in reading. And I'll be there to guide him through it.

Speak for yourself. I did not watch pornography in eighth grade, and frankly I'm not thrilled with how you turned out.
There's some pervert who puts some of those books in the children's libraries because he gets a thrill from it.

Quote from: mahagonny on November 10, 2021, 02:34:03 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 10, 2021, 02:22:09 PM
And? I read some serious blood-and-guts historical fiction in eighth grade. Also horror. And even some of Mein Kampf. I also played video games and watched movies and TV. Oh, and I watched pornography, too. Lots of it. So did every other eighth grade boy I knew.

I'm not saying I'd force him to read it. Just that he can, if that's what he wants to, and he can read as much of it as he's interested in reading. And I'll be there to guide him through it.

Speak for yourself. I did not watch pornography in eighth grade, and frankly I'm not thrilled with how you turned out.
There's some pervert who puts some of those books in the children's libraries because he gets a thrill from it.

I was speaking for myself.

Also note that you were in eighth grade what? 50 years ago? We had the internet.

Yes I know, the internet. I also believe it's unhealthy.
ETA: the fact that you had access to internet pornography does not mean you were errant as a 13 year old. It means that society is failing its children and their parents. I don't know what should be done about it.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 10, 2021, 01:23:36 PM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 10, 2021, 01:18:50 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 10, 2021, 11:29:41 AM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 10, 2021, 11:07:47 AM
Mind your own business, Marshy.  It is not your place to decide what is good for other people.

Consider two scenarios:

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I am a boy. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

A 12 year old girl walks into a doctor's office and says "I have breast cancer. I want my breasts removed." The doctor says, "Sure. Let's do that."

Do both of these make sense? If not, how much due diligence should apply in each case to determine whether this is appropriate?

Neither of those make sense, and neither would happen.

Is the self-diagnosis of the issue the nonsensical part, or the self-prescribed treatment, or both? What physician response would be appropriate to both?

People self-diagnose and demand specific treatments all the time. That's not a new trend.

What would be weird is if the doctor responds as in your scenario, without any follow-up questions, discussion with the parents, referral to a specialist, or essentially any other action besides signing off on surgery immediately.

There are plenty of examples of doctors making poor decisions or jumping to the most drastic treatments before exploring alternatives, so the scenario is possible. But...a patient says essentially two sentences and is immediately approved for surgery...that seems very unlikely to me. I certainly find it hard to believe this is the norm. What would the doctor write on the insurance form? "Patient said they want it; I didn't ask questions"?

But I get the sense you also think that if such a scenario were to occur, the doctor's actions would receive little criticism from the medical establishment or the public in general? Like this has become considered best practice in the profession? I didn't think that was the case.

And then to lay such a scenario at the feet of "activists" promoting a culture of acceptance which you seem to be claiming pushes for immediate medical intervention whatever the consequences...It's so much more extreme a stance than I've heard from anyone speaking for acceptance of trans people. Acceptance can mean using preferred pronouns/names, not asking them invasive questions about their bodies or medical history, and general just-be-civil behavior (like not making insulting jokes at their expense).

If people are using "acceptance" to mean a doctor's medical judgment should be completely overruled by the patient's demands for a specific type of treatment, I don't think I've run into any yet. I would guess it's not what most people mean when using the term as relates to trans people.

As for the potential side effects and the fact that there is insufficient data to make firm statements about long-term effects...that's pretty much every type of drug/hormonal therapy. A responsible doctor is going to weigh the potential benefits against the potential risks and communicate those pros and cons to the patient (and their guardians', when appropriate).

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 10, 2021, 02:27:23 PM

Quote from: dismalist on November 10, 2021, 01:22:07 PM

Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 10, 2021, 01:20:50 PM

Quote from: dismalist on November 10, 2021, 11:45:53 AM
Think of "puberty blockers" for a moment. Should we have a free market in puberty blockers?

Look at a market in organs as an analogy. The latter half of the 20th century's most ardent free marketeer said no, there shouldn't be such a market. Why? Because its existence would influence the time of death of some, perhaps many, people! The regulation that  has emerged in the US to deal with this problem is voluntary supply with demand determined by survival chance and quality. A market of sorts on which no money changes hands.

Analogously, I would not trust doctors on average to correctly prescribe puberty blockers, each of whom has a different tradeoff between helping patients and making money. This is analogous to death in the sense that a wrong decision is very, very costly to the individual.

From the thread discussion, there is clearly justified worry over quasi-political solutions and situations. I'm saying a free market for puberty blockers doesn't work well either.

We ain't nowhere.

Edit: spelling

I also don't think "doctors on average" are prescribing puberty blockers. Specialists might, but only after an intense screening protocol over quite some time.

And no doctors want to make money.

Even fewer doctors want to be sued for malpractice and lose their licenses.

Lawsuit against giving the patient what s/he wants? No.

Everyone adult can do whatever they want with their sexuality.

I got interested in the concept of puberty blocker because it denotes the young, who do not have agency, as customers. For those, protection rules have to be developed. I don't know of any, and have not seen any on this thread.

FOR GOD'S SAKE, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 10, 2021, 03:26:45 PM
FOR GOD'S SAKE, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!

Au contraire, I think children should be exposed to more risks than they are by typical middle class parenting skills. If they're not taking enough risks, they're not having enough fun.

But these must be reversible risks like breaking their arms falling off swings. Irreversible risks is a different thing altogether.

Quote from: dismalist on November 10, 2021, 03:39:43 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 10, 2021, 03:26:45 PM
FOR GOD'S SAKE, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!

Au contraire, I think children should be exposed to more risks than they are by typical middle class parenting skills. If they're not taking enough risks, they're not having enough fun.

But these must be reversible risks like breaking their arms falling off swings. Irreversible risks is a different thing altogether.

Every time a child sees the news they learn there are a lot of horrible people out there. What are we supposed to do, hide them in the basement?

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 10, 2021, 05:11:10 PM

Quote from: dismalist on November 10, 2021, 03:39:43 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 10, 2021, 03:26:45 PM
FOR GOD'S SAKE, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!

Au contraire, I think children should be exposed to more risks than they are by typical middle class parenting skills. If they're not taking enough risks, they're not having enough fun.

But these must be reversible risks like breaking their arms falling off swings. Irreversible risks is a different thing altogether.

Every time a child sees the news they learn there are a lot of horrible people out there. What are we supposed to do, hide them in the basement?

I said the opposite. 

Quote from: dismalist on November 10, 2021, 05:29:49 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 10, 2021, 05:11:10 PM

Quote from: dismalist on November 10, 2021, 03:39:43 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 10, 2021, 03:26:45 PM
FOR GOD'S SAKE, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!

Au contraire, I think children should be exposed to more risks than they are by typical middle class parenting skills. If they're not taking enough risks, they're not having enough fun.

But these must be reversible risks like breaking their arms falling off swings. Irreversible risks is a different thing altogether.

Every time a child sees the news they learn there are a lot of horrible people out there. What are we supposed to do, hide them in the basement?

I said the opposite.

Some might say reading about the Marquis de Sade or LGBTQA teens would cause irreversable damage.

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 10, 2021, 05:59:01 PM

Quote from: dismalist on November 10, 2021, 05:29:49 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 10, 2021, 05:11:10 PM

Quote from: dismalist on November 10, 2021, 03:39:43 PM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 10, 2021, 03:26:45 PM
FOR GOD'S SAKE, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!

Au contraire, I think children should be exposed to more risks than they are by typical middle class parenting skills. If they're not taking enough risks, they're not having enough fun.

But these must be reversible risks like breaking their arms falling off swings. Irreversible risks is a different thing altogether.

Every time a child sees the news they learn there are a lot of horrible people out there. What are we supposed to do, hide them in the basement?

I said the opposite.

Some might say reading about the Marquis de Sade or LGBTQA teens would cause irreversable damage.

Now you're saying the opposite of what you originally said. Word games.

End of the announcement.

Well, someone couldn't figure out how to argue that adults shouldn't be allowed to get sexual reassignment in a free society, nor did they have evidence of peeps being "railroaded" into surgical sex-changes, so this someone just moved the goalposts with a big ol' flimsy strawman.

To follow up, someone invented a series of hyperbolic and hysterical hypotheticals that would never happen...so there really was no argument to begin with. 

This is a thread about cancel culture anyway.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 10, 2021, 02:29:27 PM

And we let the doctor decide what is the best medical and ethical procedure with the parents' consent (as I imagine that is the law).  That's why we have doctors.

So I guess you feel the same way about abortion.

Maybe it's time to make a new thread RE: the question of how much autonomy a minor should be granted when it comes to decisions about medical care?

That seems to be what a lot of this side discussion is focusing on.

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 12, 2021, 07:24:52 AM
Maybe it's time to make a new thread RE: the question of how much autonomy a minor should be granted when it comes to decisions about medical care?

That seems to be what a lot of this side discussion is focusing on.

It's not really about medical care. It's rather
"How much autonomy a minor should be granted when it comes to decisions about things that are legal for adults but not for children?"

For instance, in most(?) western countries it is illegal to sell

• tobacco
• alcohol
• firearms

to minors, even when all of those things can legally be sold to adults. It is illegal to allow a minor (under some age limit) to drive a car, regardless of supervision by an adult. The implication is that the potential consequences of those decisions is greater than a minor can grasp and evaluate.

To suggest that a minor should be able to unilaterally choose a medical procedure suggests that the decision is less consequential than other things including drinking, smoking and driving a car.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2021, 08:10:20 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 12, 2021, 07:24:52 AM
Maybe it's time to make a new thread RE: the question of how much autonomy a minor should be granted when it comes to decisions about medical care?

That seems to be what a lot of this side discussion is focusing on.

It's not really about medical care. It's rather
"How much autonomy a minor should be granted when it comes to decisions about things that are legal for adults but not for children?"

For instance, in most(?) western countries it is illegal to sell

• tobacco
• alcohol
• firearms

to minors, even when all of those things can legally be sold to adults. It is illegal to allow a minor (under some age limit) to drive a car, regardless of supervision by an adult. The implication is that the potential consequences of those decisions is greater than a minor can grasp and evaluate.

To suggest that a minor should be able to unilaterally choose a medical procedure suggests that the decision is less consequential than other things including drinking, smoking and driving a car.

1) Point about a new thread still stands.

2) Is there really a huge push to to allow a minor to unilaterally choose a medical procedure to the extent you imply in your hypotheticals? You seem to be painting a scenario in which not even the opinion of the medical professionals carries any weight.

A kid walks into a clinic, then demands and is approved for surgery and that's that. Easy as ordering off a restaurant menu. No questions asked. No parents consulted. No specialist referral. No request for medical history or documentation supporting a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. No discussion of potential benefits vs. risks. It's completely, 100% up to the demands of the child.

Are you claiming this is already happening? Are you claiming this is what people want when they  advocate for "acceptance" of trans people?

Or is this meant to be a this-is-where-we-are-heading-if-we-let-the-wokeness-go-unchecked scenario?

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2021, 08:10:20 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 12, 2021, 07:24:52 AM
Maybe it's time to make a new thread RE: the question of how much autonomy a minor should be granted when it comes to decisions about medical care?

That seems to be what a lot of this side discussion is focusing on.

It's not really about medical care. It's rather
"How much autonomy a minor should be granted when it comes to decisions about things that are legal for adults but not for children?"

For instance, in most(?) western countries it is illegal to sell

• tobacco
• alcohol
• firearms

to minors, even when all of those things can legally be sold to adults. It is illegal to allow a minor (under some age limit) to drive a car, regardless of supervision by an adult. The implication is that the potential consequences of those decisions is greater than a minor can grasp and evaluate.

To suggest that a minor should be able to unilaterally choose a medical procedure suggests that the decision is less consequential than other things including drinking, smoking and driving a car.

There is also a level of urgency and well-being that comes with making medical decisions that does not factor into smoking, drinking, or driving. Anything from deciding, without parental permission, to: Get vaccinated. Receive prescriptions for birth control. Have an abortion. Receive treatment for mental health care, whether therapy or medication. 

Marshy just likes to argue.

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 12, 2021, 08:30:49 AM

2) Is there really a huge push to to allow a minor to unilaterally choose a medical procedure to the extent you imply in your hypotheticals? You seem to be painting a scenario in which not even the opinion of the medical professionals carries any weight.

A kid walks into a clinic, then demands and is approved for surgery and that's that. Easy as ordering off a restaurant menu. No questions asked. No parents consulted. No specialist referral. No request for medical history or documentation supporting a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. No discussion of potential benefits vs. risks. It's completely, 100% up to the demands of the child.

Here's some guidelines from the NHS (https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/gender-development-service-children-adolescents.pdf) in the UK. (I believe they're kind of on the bleeding edge of the curve on this.)

Quote
2.1 NHS Outcomes Framework Domains & Indicators
Domain 1 Preventing people from dying prematurely

Domain 2 Enhancing quality of life for people with longterm conditions

Domain 3 Helping people to recover from episodes of ill health or following injury

Domain4 Ensuring people have a positive experience of care

Domain 5 Treating and caring for people in a safe environment and protecting them from avoidable harm


The service will impact on the domains in the following ways:

Domain 1: Preventing people from dying prematurely
Experiencing GD can be associated with acute distress. The service will seek to reduce the
distress of clients by providing high quality psychological and medical support, including
physical interventions, as required on an individual basis.

(I believe some of the came from "Irreversible Damage". It's primarily about the recent rise in autistic girls claiming to be trans.)

When kids go online looking for information/support the trans activists tell them that saying "I'm going to kill myself" is the magic ticket to getting medical interventions. From the guidelines above, it suggests that a person in greater apparent distress, e.g. suicidal, should be fast-tracked to "medical support, including
physical interventions".

This is contrary to pretty much every other kind of situation, where people in highly emotional states are considered less capable of making rational judgements, and the goal is to help them calm down before taking actions with long-term consequences. The only way it "makes sense" in this situation is if it is already assumed that the outcome is known.

It's not just physicians who get a boost to their business and/or stature when more people are changing genders. It's gender research folks too.

Responding to marshwiggle:

1) Could you clarify this point: "(I believe some of the came from "Irreversible Damage". It's primarily about the recent rise in autistic girls claiming to be trans.)" You believe some of the what came from that book?

2) I just read the NHS guidelines link you posted and I still don't see how this is "on the bleeding edge" of your hypothetical scenarios. There are other sections of the document worth highlighting.

--There are multiple criteria to qualify for gender affirming surgery, including being at least 18 years of age.
--The very next phrase after Domain 1's "...medical support, including physical interventions" is "as required on an individual basis."
--I don't think it's clear from the text for Domain 1 that "acute distress" is a criterion for fast-tracking to "physical interventions," skipping all the steps for assessment, consultation, etc... I think the statement is meant to imply that the "high quality psychological and medical support" is aimed towards helping prevent people getting to the point of "acute distress." It's not very clear in that little blurb, but reading the rest of the document detailing the process involved RE: hormonal treatments gives me the impression they are talking about prevention.

Throughout the rest of the document, which exhaustively lists how various criteria inform recommended practices, there is a strong emphasis on including the family in consultations and therapy, ongoing counseling, consideration of the patient's history (not just what they're saying now), and delaying hormone therapy if there is a mental health issue. If hormone treatment has already begun, displaying signs of mental illness is one of several "stop" criteria (and monitoring physical and mental health throughout treatment is also one of the guidelines, which includes patient input on whether or not they want to continue).

Patient and family education of options and risks is emphasized, as is assessment and consideration of the patient's ability to understand the various treatment options and make an informed decision. You might still argue that teens still shouldn't be considered competent to make these types of decisions for themselves, but this is still a far cry from your hypothetical in which the minor has all the power.

I'm sure there are doctors/clinics who act against guidelines and make hasty, under-informed decisions (which is hardly a problem limited to issues of gender identity), but I'm not seeing this rashness in the guidelines themselves.

Continuing to respond to marshwiggle:

My local library has a waiting list for Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, so I only managed to read the Foreword and part of the first chapter on Amazon and a few snippets quoted in reviews.

This part of the author's premise is certainly plausible: that some teens claiming a trans identity are doing so due to relatively recent increase in positive attention given to people coming out as trans and sharing their stories, and not genuine gender dysphoria. Or they may feel unsure about their identity, so they latch on to a label they think will help them feel more at ease with themselves and grant them access to a supportive community. An uptick in self-diagnoses or outright fakery depending on what's getting a lot of media attention certainly isn't new.

Her focus is on teens who supposedly didn't give any outward indications of gender identity issues until post-puberty, making their claims suspect. Ok.

But, as an argument that such cases represent the norm for people assigned female at birth wanting to transition (and the best explanation for why more youths are identifying as trans than in the past), this book seems like a mess.

She provides illustrative anecdotes based on interviews she conducted, which is not a problem in itself. But a huge red flag is the fact that she writes in detail about people she never interviewed at all. For some stories, she relied entirely on accounts from the parents lamenting how their daughters were caught up with a social trend which ruined their lives.

The teens are portrayed as troubled, rebellious, and irrationally angry about the lack of validation from their families. The parents are portrayed as loving, reasonable, and nothing but supportive. Color me skeptical the reader is getting an accurate representation.

Any teen claiming they had been unhappy at younger ages, but hadn't felt they could express this to their families, is apparently lying to back up their gender identity story. If you only have the perspective of the parents observing the kid, you can't know internal thoughts like this. And parents can have selective memories and biases and skewed perspectives. Parents can be in denial ("Oh, not my kid. She was always such a happy little girl until the trans cult indoctrinated her and took her away from us.")

One teen cut contact with their parents (after years of conflict over their gender identity) and began transitioning when they turned eighteen and moved out. The story ends with the parents getting info from "someone who's been able to snoop in on her" reporting their kid had posted online about how happy they were post-surgery. This is supposed to be a story about someone who isn't really trans and was greatly harmed by being supported in their transition? It's only the parents insisting they know their kid better than he knows himself in this one.

---

The other anecdotal evidence she lists to show the teens are wrong to claim a male identity are...eh...less than compelling.

She opens chapter 1 with: "If you're an American born before 1990, the words 'teenage girls' likely invoke a clutch of young women giggling at the mall...To understand the contemporary trans epidemic among teenage girls, we'll need to explore just how far girlhood has departed from this picture."

Her reasons for dismissing teens' claims to be transmen:
--They don't start lifting weights and watching sports
--They are attracted to boys, not girls
--Most do not opt to undergo phalloplasty (she refers to "the male appendage" as "a defining feature of manhood")

Maybe the rest of the book does better at supporting her thesis, but it's not a promising beginning.

I agree to the need for a new thread.

Mods?

I just wish my music student would come out to his mom if he's really decided he's trans and stop playing with her in a cat-and-mouse sort of way.

She's just about guessed, and would be fine with it, but he's created this oppositional scenario in his head that needs conversation to normalize.

A class on Romanticism in 19th c. Music Theory yesterday set him off, and he kept teasing out the understandings of 'romantic' as self-referential, which they're not, without listening to the non-eroticized explanations the class was looking at.

Fun times....

M.

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 13, 2021, 01:26:19 AM
Continuing to respond to marshwiggle:

My local library has a waiting list for Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, so I only managed to read the Foreword and part of the first chapter on Amazon and a few snippets quoted in reviews.

This part of the author's premise is certainly plausible: that some teens claiming a trans identity are doing so due to relatively recent increase in positive attention given to people coming out as trans and sharing their stories, and not genuine gender dysphoria. Or they may feel unsure about their identity, so they latch on to a label they think will help them feel more at ease with themselves and grant them access to a supportive community. An uptick in self-diagnoses or outright fakery depending on what's getting a lot of media attention certainly isn't new.

The real point is that the rise in the proportion of girls claiming to be trans has risen drastically, and that one of the biggest predictors of a girl coming out as trans is having friends who have come out as trans, i.e. it is a social contagion.

One point regarding the purported high suicide rate of trans youth without support: If gender dysphoria is a medical condition, rather than a social one, then its incidence through history and across cultures should be relatively static. In addition, the suicide rate ought to be higher is societies where it is not recognized and/or supported. Of course in societies like that the suicides will not be attributed to gender dysphoria, but the overall teen suicide rates should be elevated relative to accepting societies. The professed risk of suicide due to gender dysphoria suggests that teen suicide should be relatively easy to look for in other cultures.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 13, 2021, 08:22:32 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 13, 2021, 01:26:19 AM
Continuing to respond to marshwiggle:

My local library has a waiting list for Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, so I only managed to read the Foreword and part of the first chapter on Amazon and a few snippets quoted in reviews.

This part of the author's premise is certainly plausible: that some teens claiming a trans identity are doing so due to relatively recent increase in positive attention given to people coming out as trans and sharing their stories, and not genuine gender dysphoria. Or they may feel unsure about their identity, so they latch on to a label they think will help them feel more at ease with themselves and grant them access to a supportive community. An uptick in self-diagnoses or outright fakery depending on what's getting a lot of media attention certainly isn't new.

The real point is that the rise in the proportion of girls claiming to be trans has risen drastically, and that one of the biggest predictors of a girl coming out as trans is having friends who have come out as trans, i.e. it is a social contagion.

Or, knowing someone who successfully acknowledged their transness encourages people who are trans to publicly acknowledge their own gender. For example, I seriously doubt the underlying rate of gay/homosexual people has changed in the past 40 years, but the rate of gay/homosexual people who publicly  acknowledge their sexuality has risen dramatically.

Quote

One point regarding the purported high suicide rate of trans youth without support: If gender dysphoria is a medical condition, rather than a social one, then its incidence through history and across cultures should be relatively static. In addition, the suicide rate ought to be higher is societies where it is not recognized and/or supported. Of course in societies like that the suicides will not be attributed to gender dysphoria, but the overall teen suicide rates should be elevated relative to accepting societies. The professed risk of suicide due to gender dysphoria suggests that teen suicide should be relatively easy to look for in other cultures.

But, and this is important, suicide rate also varies dramatically based on access to firearms. Being a residential college student is a significant  protective factor for suicide, and our best guess is it's because of the reduced access to firearms. It's not straightforward to compare across cultures.

This study (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2779429) compares outcomes in people who received gender affirming surgeries and people who desired gender affirming surgeries but did not receive them and supports the idea that gender affirming procedures promote mental health.

For the vast majority of trans kids under the age of 16, the major intervention is puberty suppression. Despite the rare and generally mild negative side effects, I would think that people who think trans identity is "just a phase" would support this intervention, since it is largely reversible.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 13, 2021, 08:22:32 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 13, 2021, 01:26:19 AM
Continuing to respond to marshwiggle:

My local library has a waiting list for Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, so I only managed to read the Foreword and part of the first chapter on Amazon and a few snippets quoted in reviews.

This part of the author's premise is certainly plausible: that some teens claiming a trans identity are doing so due to relatively recent increase in positive attention given to people coming out as trans and sharing their stories, and not genuine gender dysphoria. Or they may feel unsure about their identity, so they latch on to a label they think will help them feel more at ease with themselves and grant them access to a supportive community. An uptick in self-diagnoses or outright fakery depending on what's getting a lot of media attention certainly isn't new.

The real point is that the rise in the proportion of girls claiming to be trans has risen drastically, and that one of the biggest predictors of a girl coming out as trans is having friends who have come out as trans, i.e. it is a social contagion.

One point regarding the purported high suicide rate of trans youth without support: If gender dysphoria is a medical condition, rather than a social one, then its incidence through history and across cultures should be relatively static. In addition, the suicide rate ought to be higher is societies where it is not recognized and/or supported. Of course in societies like that the suicides will not be attributed to gender dysphoria, but the overall teen suicide rates should be elevated relative to accepting societies. The professed risk of suicide due to gender dysphoria suggests that teen suicide should be relatively easy to look for in other cultures.

I was directly addressing points you thought were important enough to include in your posts.

You seem to keep making new "real" points whenever your previous points are challenged.

You're completely ignoring every question and critique I raised related to the two resources you used to support your statements.

If accuracy of statistics doesn't matter, accuracy of anecdata doesn't matter, and consideration of alternate explanations for the statistics and anecdata doesn't matter, what does matter?

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 13, 2021, 10:51:44 AM

If accuracy of statistics doesn't matter, accuracy of anecdata doesn't matter, and consideration of alternate explanations for the statistics and anecdata doesn't matter, what does matter?

OK, here's a paper by Dr. Lisa Littman, whose work is referenced in "Irreversible Differences".

Individuals Treated for Gender Dysphoria with Medical and/or Surgical Transition Who Subsequently Detransitioned: A Survey of 100 Detransitioners (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34665380/)

One telling quotation from the abstract:

Quote
The majority (55.0%) felt that they did not receive an adequate evaluation from a doctor or mental health professional before starting transition and only 24.0% of respondents informed their clinicians that they had detransitioned.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 14, 2021, 11:43:23 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 13, 2021, 10:51:44 AM

If accuracy of statistics doesn't matter, accuracy of anecdata doesn't matter, and consideration of alternate explanations for the statistics and anecdata doesn't matter, what does matter?

OK, here's a paper by Dr. Lisa Littman, whose work is referenced in "Irreversible Differences".

Individuals Treated for Gender Dysphoria with Medical and/or Surgical Transition Who Subsequently Detransitioned: A Survey of 100 Detransitioners (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34665380/)

One telling quotation from the abstract:

Quote
The majority (55.0%) felt that they did not receive an adequate evaluation from a doctor or mental health professional before starting transition and only 24.0% of respondents informed their clinicians that they had detransitioned.

The critique of this paper is devastating. Not only is the study prescriptive, the recruited parents were ONLY from among those who visited three websites which support Littman's position. Worse from a clinical standpoint is she had parents use DSM criteria to "evaluate" their child's psychiatric state post surgery.

Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 14, 2021, 12:00:45 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 14, 2021, 11:43:23 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 13, 2021, 10:51:44 AM

If accuracy of statistics doesn't matter, accuracy of anecdata doesn't matter, and consideration of alternate explanations for the statistics and anecdata doesn't matter, what does matter?

OK, here's a paper by Dr. Lisa Littman, whose work is referenced in "Irreversible Differences".

Individuals Treated for Gender Dysphoria with Medical and/or Surgical Transition Who Subsequently Detransitioned: A Survey of 100 Detransitioners (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34665380/)

One telling quotation from the abstract:

Quote
The majority (55.0%) felt that they did not receive an adequate evaluation from a doctor or mental health professional before starting transition and only 24.0% of respondents informed their clinicians that they had detransitioned.

The critique of this paper is devastating. Not only is the study prescriptive, the recruited parents were ONLY from among those who visited three websites which support Littman's position. Worse from a clinical standpoint is she had parents use DSM criteria to "evaluate" their child's psychiatric state post surgery.

Yes, this study [ETA: Littman's studies, not this specific one] had the same problem as many of the anecdotes in the Irreversible Differences book in placing parental assessments in pride of place.

"Scientific responsibility" is not supported by handwaving away critiques on methodology with some generic statement like "Oh, of course people will criticize any study that doesn't fit their ideology-driven narrative."

Not every unpopular opinion is unpopular due to "cancel culture." Not every critique of unpopular opinions which are a target of "cancel culture" is purely reactionary and ideologically based.

Sometimes an unpopular opinion is unpopular because it is based on shoddy scholarship. Refusal to engage with specific critiques of your work (questionable methodology, conclusions which overreach available evidence, refusal to acknowledge studies with results that contradict yours, refusal to consider alternative interpretations of available data, etc...) is a mark of intellectual cowardice. If you really want to champion free inquiry and academic integrity, you should be able to defend your work beyond snarky comments ("Well, I'm sorry the facts don't support your PC narrative.") or playing the martyr ("I dared to ask questions. I dared to speak the truth. And for refusing to compromise my integrity by bowing to ideological orthodoxy, I was viciously attacked.")

And...absolutely nothing further to say about the NHS document you accused of mandating hormones and surgery in response to an adolescent invoking the "magic words" of acute mental distress? Did you even read the document past the point you quoted? Or did you just see the "Preventing people from dying prematurely" blurb and fill in the details with your imagination?

I read that thing point-by-point (twice!) trying to understand your point of view because I took you at your word that you gave a damn about "scientific and moral responsibility." Why do you care so little about 1) ACCURATELY representing the studies and documents you cite to support your claims and 2) the QUALITY of your sources?

You keep going back to the Irreversible Differences book despite indications of the author's personal bias and superficial understanding of the topic she's writing about. Even her cherry-picked anecdotal examples don't clearly support her claims. Why do you trust her ability to vet sources and accurately report on the contents of research studies?

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 14, 2021, 11:43:23 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 13, 2021, 10:51:44 AM

If accuracy of statistics doesn't matter, accuracy of anecdata doesn't matter, and consideration of alternate explanations for the statistics and anecdata doesn't matter, what does matter?

OK, here's a paper by Dr. Lisa Littman, whose work is referenced in "Irreversible Differences".

Individuals Treated for Gender Dysphoria with Medical and/or Surgical Transition Who Subsequently Detransitioned: A Survey of 100 Detransitioners (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34665380/)

One telling quotation from the abstract:

Quote
The majority (55.0%) felt that they did not receive an adequate evaluation from a doctor or mental health professional before starting transition and only 24.0% of respondents informed their clinicians that they had detransitioned.

This isn't an answer to the question I posed.

You keep quoting statistical claims while you previously said the actual numbers don't matter. The fact that you keep emphasizing studies with claims that a majority of minors who receive specific treatments suggest you do care about the actual numbers.

And is it worth pointing out that this study population is not comprised of "people who wanted to transition" (which was the population you were initially focused on) but the subset of people who detransitioned. And 55% of these indicated inadequate support from medical professionals, which is even lower than your previous claim that 85% of boys wanting transition changed their mind later?

And that even if we accept this study at face value and make the stretch that the experiences of these 100 individuals can be taken as representative of the general population of transgender people (or the general population of desistors), you still have a long way to go to demonstrate that 1) the problem is so widespread it is the norm rather than the exception and that 2) the problem originates from government issued mandates and not individual doctors or clinics.

---

You keep ignoring studies other people reference which show a high rate of positive outcomes. Why? Why are only the studies you mention informative?

Every time someone raises an issue with a study you cite, you just throw out another stat, without any indication you've actually read the paper beyond the abstract. You don't address the actual critique and defend the paper you previously cited. You just move on to another one.

Are you just going to keep citing a different study every time someone points out an issue with the previous one, in the hopes that eventually you'll mention one that isn't terrible?

What then?

This particular one is an internet survey of 100 people. How much weight do you give it in the context of all the other published studies investigating treatment outcomes?

If someone can link you to the results of an internet survey of 100 people in which the majority felt they were given good support and careful evaluation and felt positive about the effects of treatment, would it make an impression on you at all?

If someone can link you to the results of an internet survey of 100 people who were told they could not access hormone therapy until they were at least 18 years old, and the majority of those surveyed felt they had been harmed by being forced to delay this treatment until after experiencing the long-term effects of puberty, would this carry any weight with you?

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 14, 2021, 02:45:02 PM

And that even if we accept this study at face value and make the stretch that the experiences of these 100 individuals can be taken as representative of the general population of transgender people (or the general population of desistors), you still have a long way to go to demonstrate that 1) the problem is so widespread it is the norm rather than the exception and that 2) the problem originates from government issued mandates and not individual doctors or clinics.

First of all, I have no issue with adults choosing to transition.

Second, I do not remotely suggest that the 100 people in this study represent the norm for people who transition. They are, by defintion, people who regret the decision. (In fact, in the dataset, 3 were people who retransitioned, after detransitioning, so even those were people who ultimately decided transition was better.)

There are lots of procedures which people undergo which are supposed to be permanent, but which some portion of people later regret. (Tatoos and vasectomies come to mind immediately.) If *adults make the informed choice and then regret it, it's on them. However, if adults allow minors to make that choice, which some of them later regret, then the adults bear responsibility for the choice.

(*In the study listed, all of the transitioners were adults. If adults made this choice and then regretted it, it's likely that some proportion of minors making this decision will also later regret it, unless somehow they are getting significantly better counselling than the adults, which is unlikely.)

When tatoos became trendy, a few years later tatoo removals started to become more popular as some people decided that tatoos had become a liability. It makes sense that the "trendiness" made some people jump on the bandwagon with less thought then they would have taken otherwise.

With tatoo removal and vasectomy reversal, if they are succesful, then the individual is restored to pretty much their former self. However, surgical transitions, if "reversed" will not come close to original, and even hormonal treatment has effects that do not completely disappear when the hormones are stopped. This is profoundly more true for children who go on puberty blockers, since all kinds of development is altered (including brain development.)

You quoted from the study, called the quote "telling" and left it there. You didn't explain exactly what you thought this specific study was telling, so I went back to your previous claims on this thread (of which there are many).

You're still dodging and ignoring the vast majority of responses people have made to your claims and interpretations.

I considered trying to direct your attention back to other posters taking issue with your overblown or unsupported claims on the risks of treatments or your claims about the prevalence of poor treatment outcomes, but there seems to be no point.

You still won't respond to my comment on your claims about the NHS guidelines, and I find that telling.

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 15, 2021, 09:41:10 AM

I considered trying to direct your attention back to other posters taking issue with your overblown or unsupported claims on the risks of treatments or your claims about the prevalence of poor treatment outcomes, but there seems to be no point.

At the risk of failing to answer arguments again, I realize that I'm not sure what specific claims I'm making (whether supported by evidence or not) that you take issue with.

It seems to me that your argument is some combination of

• Any instances of "buyer's remorse" among people who transition are vanishingly rare.
• Any instances of "buyer's remorse" among people who transition are unlikely to be because of social factors (such as those related to "cancel culture", which is why it came up in this thread) leading parents and/or medical professionals to be over-zealous in suggesting or supporting transition.
  

Is that correct, or is there something else which I've missed? Does one of those predominate?

Marswiggle, you routinely seem to ignore responses that you can't (or don't want to) pick apart. Upthread I specifically pushed back on

• Your claim that identifying as trans is due to a social contagion
• Your claim that cross culture suicide rates could somehow be used to estimate the fraction of teens who are trans
• Your apparent belief that use of puberty blockers in teens is somehow more harmful than forcing trans youth to go through the wrong puberty simply because you can find evidence of a comparatively small number of people who choose at some point to detransition

Thoughts?

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 15, 2021, 11:31:43 AM

Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 15, 2021, 09:41:10 AM

I considered trying to direct your attention back to other posters taking issue with your overblown or unsupported claims on the risks of treatments or your claims about the prevalence of poor treatment outcomes, but there seems to be no point.

At the risk of failing to answer arguments again, I realize that I'm not sure what specific claims I'm making (whether supported by evidence or not) that you take issue with.

It seems to me that your argument is some combination of

• Any instances of "buyer's remorse" among people who transition are vanishingly rare.
• Any instances of "buyer's remorse" among people who transition are unlikely to be because of social factors (such as those related to "cancel culture", which is why it came up in this thread) leading parents and/or medical professionals to be over-zealous in suggesting or supporting transition.
  

Is that correct, or is there something else which I've missed? Does one of those predominate?

Is there something you've missed? Are you serious?

I wasn't even making a definitive statement about either of those things.

I haven't decided whether it's worth the energy to summarize the things you've said with which I take issue.

For now, I'll simply reiterate the issue I had with your post about the NHS recommendations:
1) You posted a link to a document describing a specific set of NHS guidelines.
2) You made a specific claim about what those guidelines entailed.
3) Your claim is directly contradicted by the text of said document.
4) This discrepancy is mentioned in a reply to your post.
5) You are asked to comment on this discrepancy. You are asked whether you even read the document you cited.
6) *crickets*

Quote from: onthefringe on November 15, 2021, 12:18:13 PM
Marswiggle, you routinely seem to ignore responses that you can't (or don't want to) pick apart. Upthread I specifically pushed back on

• Your claim that identifying as trans is due to a social contagion
• Your claim that cross culture suicide rates could somehow be used to estimate the fraction of teens who are trans
• Your apparent belief that use of puberty blockers in teens is somehow more harmful than forcing trans youth to go through the wrong puberty simply because you can find evidence of a comparatively small number of people who choose at some point to detransition

Thoughts?

All of these are incorrect.

• There is evidence that some people  identifying as trans is due to a social contagion. (In particular, young girls, especially with autism.)
• Cross culture suicide rates could place an upper bound on the suicide rate of teens who are trans
• The use of puberty blockers in teens is more harmful than forcing trans youth to go through the wrong normal puberty if they are one of the people who choose at some point to detransition

With any medical procedure, no matter how many people it helps, there are some who are worse off after. One of the important parts of getting approval for treatments is trying to identify specifically who is likely to be harmed by the treatment. It would disastrous and immoral to refuse to do that research. In fact, part of the value of that is so that the treatment can be restricted to those most likely to benefit.

Given that some people regret their transition, it would be similarly irresponsible to avoid trying to objectively determine

• what proportion of people who transition later regret it
• what (if any) characteristics identify those who are most likely to regret it so they can get advice that is more appropriate for them

A big part of our debate here is precisely caused by the fact that this kind of objective research is lacking.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 16, 2021, 06:32:05 AM

Given that some people regret their transition, it would be similarly irresponsible to avoid trying to objectively determine

• what proportion of people who transition later regret it
• what (if any) characteristics identify those who are most likely to regret it so they can get advice that is more appropriate for them

A big part of our debate here is precisely caused by the fact that this kind of objective research is lacking.

So something like this:

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 10, 2021, 09:25:15 AM
There was an excellent Current Affairs piece (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/04/why-the-panic-over-trans-kids) on this particular moral panic back in April. Of particular relevance, I think, is this paragraph:

QuoteA 2018 survey (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6212091/) of practitioners who offer gender affirmation surgeries revealed very few reports of regret. 22,724 patents that had been treated by the surgeons. Only 62 patients had ever reported regret about their gender transition or sought detransition care. 22 of those 62 did report that their gender identity had changed, but another 17 reported that social factors (difficulty in relationships and a lack of family support) had led to the regret, meaning that a good portion of the regrets that do occur come about because we live in a transphobic society. The surgeons had only had to perform 38 detransition procedures in total. A UK study (https://epath.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Boof-of-abstracts-EPATH2019.pdf#page=139) found that out of 3398 patients it studied in an NHS gender identity clinic, only 16 (less than half a percent) reported "transition-related regret or detransitioned."

Let's let that sink in. In the first instance, we have a regret rate of .27%. And a significant percentage of those (27%!) appears to be due entirely to external factors--being rejected by one's family and social circle. So the actual number of internally-driven regrets is more like 45, or .2%.  In the second instance, you've got a regret-rate of .47%.

That's so tiny. If you presented me with a coronavirus vaccine with those odds of adverse effects, I'd take it in a heartbeat. Oh, wait...

At this point, I'm struggling to believe this isn't simple trolling.

In the off chance it isn't...marshwiggle, I don't know if saying it now will make it any clearer than the last half dozen times I said it, but my biggest issue with your claims is the way you bang on about objectivity and scientific responsibility while simultaneously showing no concern for either.

---

Your post about the NHS guidelines was either a failure of reading comprehension or a failure of honesty. Rather than own up to either (or demonstrate that I'm the one in the wrong), you just keep posting as though nothing happened. You still do. This does not give the impression of someone who values what's true.

How could you possibly have been unclear as to what my issue was with your claim about the NHS guidelines?

---

People have pointed out reasons to question the validity of the data or the interpretations of the studies you cite, which you either ignore or say don't matter.

You keep claiming that "objective research" into risks vs. benefits of various treatment decisions is lacking, despite the existence of many publications on the subject. Did you look at the list of references on the NHS document? identifying key factors relevant to making treatment recommendations/decisions with the best chance of success is an active area of research.

If you want to make the argument that none of this qualifies as "objective" research and it's all driven by capitulation to ideology and activism, you need to do better at showing your work.

Are you only going to be satisfied that the medical establishment has done its due diligence when the number of youths experiencing negative treatment outcomes is ZERO? Is that a realistic expectation for any medical intervention?

And involving teens in the decision-making process regarding their own medical care is not new nor is it the same as insisting a teen's self-diagnosis and demand for a specific treatment modality to be the final word on the matter.

Jeezus am ever bored with this discussion.  It's endless noodling around these kinds of issues that elects people like Trump.  Nobody cares where you want to pee.

Well, the boring bits are the parts where people just keep hammering on about their own viewpoint without listening to others' commentary or trying to take it on board.

To wit, SCRat, muchos kudos for trying, but the horse you're trying to lead to the waterhole has a firehose in mind, and he's looking for it out in the desert where there are no firehoses. And he doesn't want to visit the Stata Center, where there is a firehose to drink from, because it's not in the desert.

You may just have to let this horse wander off, he's deliberately not getting it, just to create the kind of boring atmosphere that 2_artem is bewailing. Some horses like to be both thirsty and boring.

------------
So, back to the OP's original topic....There's an interesting summary of the issues as of Nov 1, here, which I don't think has been cited yet:

   https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/11/01/the-power-of-dave-chappelles-comedy-netflix-the-closer

Go to it.

M.

Quote from: secundem_artem on November 16, 2021, 03:56:38 PM
Jeezus am ever bored with this discussion.  It's endless noodling around these kinds of issues that elects people like Trump.  Nobody cares where you want to pee.

Wtf?

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 06, 2021, 07:35:15 PM
I read a single article about the threat to the idea of the feminine if we accept trans-women as "women."

I do not know much about the philosophic method, but I was really unimpressed.  Had I not known the backstory I would have assumed Stock to be a reactionary right-wing bigot, kind of like the people who claim that if we allow gay marriage then soon we will be marrying horses and cars and whatnot.

I just cannot figure out why that would be a legitimate commentary.  There is no legitimate, quantifiable proof that the concept of trans-women harms women.

I don't even know why other people's orientations bothers anyone in the first place.

Nevertheless, her story epitomizes the sort of reactionary left-wing politics that worries me about the academy (I posted an article about her a while back which I think was overlooked because of another bruhaha)----and I'm a lefty for sure.

Stock built her own pyre, but she should have the right to build it.

Tangentially, anybody feel like shoplifting from a bakery next to the Oberlin campus?

Award upheld. Imagine being that dean mentioned in this story whose involvement was one of the reasons the college was found liable.

https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/news/local_news/gibson-s-bakery-prevails-in-libel-suit-against-oberlin-college/article_4b16adc0-b1b8-11ec-9665-2febc3643a66.amp.html

Quote from: Mobius on April 01, 2022, 10:27:41 AM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 06, 2021, 07:35:15 PM

Tangentially, anybody feel like shoplifting from a bakery next to the Oberlin campus?

Award upheld. Imagine being that dean mentioned in this story whose involvement was one of the reasons the college was found liable.

https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/news/local_news/gibson-s-bakery-prevails-in-libel-suit-against-oberlin-college/article_4b16adc0-b1b8-11ec-9665-2febc3643a66.amp.html

So does the college accept reality, or do they double down and try to appeal to whatever the next level is?