First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Feminist researcher supports ‘combining intersectionality and quantum physics’
357 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 6/13/17

Rujikin wrote:


Kefkapwnsall wrote:

See literally just then
For the record cis comes from Latin meaning this side of in this case the gender binary naturally transitioning to the other side
He also literally made fun of gender-fluid people in this very thread today let me be angry dammit


.... Being derived from that makes less sense than keyboard + face rolling. Saying hetro is too normal I guess. Gotta baconate the words, I can do it too.

You people and your obsession with gender. I'm so glad I dont have one. It seems like a hassle.


MonoDreams wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


Kefkapwnsall wrote:

Nope because trans people aren't the ones telling cis people where to shit
I should just start face rolling my keyboard to create new genders.


You can sexually identify as a keyboard if you want


I do love hitting on keyboards. You may be onto something there.


it is funny all the new words they can come up with it is like some magical wand you wave and poof* a new gender is created* jaja
5493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/13/17
Just when I thought Feminism has finally reached peak crazy...

Stuff like this appears...

It has gone beyond parody now and has crossed into the Event Horizon of Echo Chamber Madness.


21349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 6/13/17

TheZaphod wrote:

Just when I thought Feminism has finally reached peak crazy...

Stuff like this appears...

It has gone beyond parody now and has crossed into the Event Horizon of Echo Chamber Madness.




God dammit you made me choke on my water! That was friggin hilarious!
19562 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 6/13/17

Rujikin wrote:

But trans is a physical change so why wouldn't it be in the same category as sex?


Being trans is not a physical change. Being trans is in your head. The hormones and surgery just alter your body to match your desired appearance, and enable the specific engineering you would like sex to involve.

Most trans people want to look like the gender they feel like, so other people will treat them like that gender. A relative minority of trans people want their sexual experience reengineered to work like that gender, too.

In any case, they're less than one percent of the population, so treating them however they want to be treated is a whole hell of a lot less work than arguing with them about it. These people are obsessive. They've spent their whole lives overthinking the question of what gender they are, and it REALLY REALLY MATTERS to them. If you try to tell them otherwise, they will argue about it forever.

Just use the fucking pronouns. It's not that hard.


So why do you even care about and have a gender?


Why do you?

Being a specific gender means things. If it didn't, we wouldn't even have genders. The gender you label yourself communicates things about who you are, and when other people call you by that label it signals that they respect your right to communicate those things.

When you demand that calling someone by a woman's name and using feminine pronouns is absolutely required to indicate that she was born with a vagina, that communicates some truly disturbing things about what you think a woman is.
778 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / PA, USA
Offline
Posted 6/13/17
Reminds me of a certain South African brat who sees science as evil colonialism and wants it banned in favor of native witchcraft... She certainly enjoys her tablet, though...
https://youtu.be/C9SiRNibD14
778 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / PA, USA
Offline
Posted 6/13/17 , edited 6/13/17
I don't know... Needing or demanding that other people to validate sexuality and whatnot by using specific pronouns doesn't seem to reflect self-confidence, and doesn't allow other people to naturally become accustomed to their personal preferences. It seems to me that expecting other people, especially strangers, to automatically bend over backwards and reaffirm personal identity is cementing unrealistic expectations and overt dependency.

EDIT: typos
Sogno- 
47831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / SC
Offline
Posted 6/13/17
2116 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 6/13/17
I've been meaning to read this, actually. And now that I have:

It has absolutely nothing to do with real quantum mechanics; it has everything to do with the mystical version of quantum mechanics created by people who wanted to promulgate a distorted picture of science (as cool and incomprehensible - and so worth throwing money at, or as sinister and oppressive - and so a scapegoat). The author, Whitney Stark, seems to know nothing more about quantum mechanics than that it is supposed to be "weird": she invokes particle-wave duality and speaks of the "wavelike properties" of "political strategies", as if the quantum mechanical part of a particle is its waveness. There may in fact be a way to make the latter make sense using the notion of the classical limit - though I don't think of it that way, and as far as I know physicists don't think in terms of wave-particle duality - but Stark is forcing the analogy to politics: The popular way of speaking about quantum mechanics involves distinguishing particles and waves, sure, but that's just a distinction in type. Stark's argument is basically that, since an electron can act like both a particle and a wave, which are two different things, and it's possible to think of people as individuals or in groups - also two different things - politics must be quantum. That really is what she's saying, and it's the only point she makes. To say that's an argumentative leap is an understatement: there is no Planck's constant, no unitary time evolution, no noncommutativity, and no probability density; her argument has nothing to do with these. (Though if you look in her notes, she does think that witchcraft is relevant to quantum mechanics.) So there is no reason for her to talk about quantum mechanics in the first place.

Now, it is true that quantum mechanics is strange, and that strangeness broke our notions of determinism. And as quantum mechanics came into being in the first few decades of the 20th century, we even talk about it when we talk about the contemporaneous failure of the modernist project in the World Wars. But that doesn't mean the analogy goes any further than that. I would say that it doesn't.

Unfortunately, it seems that Stark's main source for her quantum-mechanics-themed nonsense is someone with an actual Ph. D. in physics - Karen Barad. Barad seems to have done lattice QCD at Stony Brook, but she ended up becoming a feminist political theorist and injecting quantum mechanics into her ideas. I would hope that Barad actually knows what she's saying, but it's very possible that she distorted actual quantum mechanics just to make points. Now I have to read some of her work. Her Wikipedia entry makes it sound like her opinions on science in general are reasonable - at least, I think they're reasonable - but she also describes quantum entanglement as "hauntological". In my book, that means she is almost certainly trying to pull a fast one.

Also, I don't know who taught Stark how to write, but damn it, if you're going to do the whole literary opaqueness thing, don't create grammatical ugliness too. Stark seems to know some gobbledy-gook, but I don't think she's very skilled in it.
91 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 6/13/17
You know all this nonsense make me wish to go back to the early 2000
19562 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 6/13/17

Cardamom_Ginger wrote:

It seems to me that expecting other people, especially strangers, to automatically bend over backwards and reaffirm personal identity


I expect other people to believe me when I tell them my name and gender, since I know them better than literally anyone else on the planet. And then I expect them to refer to me by my name and gender, not someone else's. Because that is how human beings behave towards one another.

Anyone who considers that too much to ask is just a dick.
519 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 6/17/17
Well, if Intersectionality is combined with quantum mechanics it won't exist if we look at it. That's definitely a plus in my book.
21349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 6/17/17

IamUnderYourBed wrote:

You know all this nonsense make me wish to go back to the early 2000


I know what you mean. Hopefully by 2030 it will be GONE
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.