Philosophical Vegan Forum

brimstoneSalad wrote:
The thing with Wikipedia, is that it's only about as credible as the academic experts who are in charge of it.
Think of a college: You go to the physics department, and you get really rigorous and reliable information.
You go to the humanities, and you'll get a lot of nebulous fluff.

The same is true on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only as rigorous as the science of the topic itself is hard. Once it gets down to issues of "opinions" and rhetoric, it falls apart.

Physics and Chemistry are spot on, Nutrition is pretty good too, Psychology is a bit more dicey, and it goes on from there as the academic discipline itself the article is dealing with becomes softer.

So, if you go there for pop culture, you'll get out of it the same amount of rigor and accuracy that the topic deserves: Which is not a lot.

And in terms of political research like this? Well, it's not the hardest of sciences.
Wikipedia uses whatever sources are available, but who is doing research on gender pay gaps?

Anyway, the article actually isn't bad. It doesn't support his position as much as he thinks it does if you read it.

Look at the pay-gap section, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in ... es#Pay_gap

wikipedia wrote:Pay gap
Main article: Gender pay gap in the United States

Women's median usual weekly earnings as percentage of men's, for full-time workers, by industry, 2009[17]
With regards to the gender pay gap in the United States, International Labour Organization notes as of 2010 women in the United States earned about 81% of what their male counterparts did.[18] While the gender pay gap has been narrowing since the passage of the Equal Pay Act, the convergence began to slow down in the 1990s.[19] In addition, overall wage inequality has been increasing since the 1980s as middle-wage jobs are increasing replaced by larger percentages of both high-paying and low-paying jobs, creating a highly polarized environment.[20]

According to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the primary cause of this gap is discrimination manifested in the tendency of women to be hired more frequently in lower paying occupations, in addition to the fact that male dominated occupations are higher paying than female dominated occupations, and that, even within comparable occupations, women are often paid less than men.[21]

In addition to the gender pay gap, a "family gap" also exists, wherein women with children receive about 10-15% less pay when compared to women without children.[15][22] According to Jane Waldfogel, professor of social work and public affairs at Columbia University, this family gap is a contributing factor to the United States' large gender pay gap.[22] She also noted that men did not seem to be affected by this gap, as married men (who are more likely to have children) generally earned higher than unmarried men.[15][22]

It's a fairly well rounded explanation. Most women with children don't get management jobs because they have other responsibilities, and won't put in the work of men. Since men stay at work and fulfill those responsibilities (at the cost of family obligations), they do.

The problem in the article is that it's primarily focused on Women's issues, but male issues are discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia quite well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement

This is more of a categorical problem than a content problem.
It's unfair for gender inequality to be in the Feminism portal, when it should be in the rights portal or something.
These issues should all stand side by side in a general article like that.

This is something that will likely be fixed at some point.

True, there are some things which Wikipedia says that are accurate, but I still would never link directly to a Wikipedia article in any of my website articles. To me, it is just untrustworthy. I'll rather look independently at the research I find and come to my conclusion based off of what I see in the data and the bias. I have been proven wrong many times before when researching.

For instance, when writing an article and researching, if I come to feel there is reasonable doubt to show that my post would be inaccurate, I will either alter my post to connect to what the evidence says, or simply not post the article at all. But as someone with experience in journalism, I don't trust Wikipedia as a credible source.

Sure I'm not denying Wikipedia could be wrong about things, it isn't peer reviewed. But that doesn't necessarily mean it IS wrong on every or any issue either. Much of it does link to reliable sources and much of it is completely reliable.

Which is why I'm asking, rather than dismissing it in its entirety, please look at the actual content and tell me what about it is inaccurate scientifically. I'm open to changing my mind on it if there is peer reviewed evidence which indicates otherwise. Rather than attempting a falsification by association fallacy and dismissing all of it merely because its in Wikipedia because you very likely could be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


As far as CHS goes, she is widely regarded as an anti feminist in many rationalist circles.
- A conservative think tank employee
- who gives legitimacy to the anti abortion voice,
- who dismisses the current sociological research consensus on gender inequality l
- who is invited for giving talks by the likes of conservative republicans
- who keeps diverting attention away from many contemporary inequality issues that research indicates exists in the first world by saying third wave feminists aren't doing enough for third world women
- yet ironically subscribes to an antiquated first wave version of feminism that is actually heterosexual white middle/upper class centric and actually excludes the sort of people who she suggests feminists should be focusing on. Hypocrisy much?

Has hero worshiping reached to a stage that you have to brush aside all of these as trivial/out of context?, maybe overt majority of atheist feminists are wall rong? when will people start thinking that hey maybe they should look at the other side -when she marries trump and becomes a westboro leader?

Feminism is about gender equality. Saying things like rationalist feminists are similar to creationist rationalists is again not evidence based which is why I had previously suggested actually getting involved in rationalist feminist circles and then decide for yourself empirically as to whether they are being rational or not rather than dismissing things based on a bunch of things picked up by anti feminists to portray feminism in a bad light.

If people wanted to undermine veganism they could use similar tactics and try to present a view that the vegan movement is overwhelmingly woo based, pseudoscientific, racist, objectifying to women etc by picking out exclusively on the many mainstream voices in the movement who are at fault for doing these things. a thunderf00t vegan version of "How veganism poisons everything". One could easily see how people anyways uncomfortable with the concept of making a significant lifestyle change might easily be further distanced well away from it if this is one of the things they'd first encounter.

If anyone has dealt with many atheists online regarding veganism you'd see how very averse to it many of them can get and how irrational many of them will be. Not everyone is willing to actually look on both sides of the issue as to whethee the opponents argument actually has merit and assess things rationally. It's how TVA first got to atheism yet not everyone is going to be even remotely as intellectually rigorous.

The recent story about Maryam Namazie is really a perfect example of why people hate feminism.

Basically she went to do a speech critical of Islam at a British university, and the university's Islamic group did everything in their power to disrupt her speech

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl0sI47tVgY

Then the university's feminist society goes and give their full support to the bearded children instead of the real victim of abuse.

http://goldfemsoc.tumblr.com/post/13439 ... solidarity

Feminists don't seem to mind real patriarchy when it's right in front of them -.-
Or they just have some idea that brown people are off the hook on every issue. (Fuck white people tho)

knot wrote:The recent story about Maryam Namazie is really a perfect example of why people hate feminism.

Basically she went to do a speech critical of Islam at a British university, and the university's Islamic group did everything in their power to disrupt her speech

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl0sI47tVgY

Then the university's feminist society goes and give their full support to the bearded children instead of the real victim of abuse.

http://goldfemsoc.tumblr.com/post/13439 ... solidarity

Feminists don't seem to mind real patriarchy when it's right in front of them -.-
Or they just have some idea that brown people are off the hook on every issue. (Fuck white people tho)

Yes its pretty clear it was a very very abysmal thing to do. That said it doesn't represent all feminists literally how yourovsky or freelee don't represent feminists. Most other feminists are in open condemnation of this terrible behaviour. And maryam namazie herself identifies as feminist.

People want to make entire feminism as bunk because of such incidences.

garrethdsouza wrote:

knot wrote:The recent story about Maryam Namazie is really a perfect example of why people hate feminism.

Basically she went to do a speech critical of Islam at a British university, and the university's Islamic group did everything in their power to disrupt her speech

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl0sI47tVgY

Then the university's feminist society goes and give their full support to the bearded children instead of the real victim of abuse.

http://goldfemsoc.tumblr.com/post/13439 ... solidarity

Feminists don't seem to mind real patriarchy when it's right in front of them -.-
Or they just have some idea that brown people are off the hook on every issue. (Fuck white people tho)

Yes its pretty clear it was a very very abysmal thing to do. That said it doesn't represent all feminists literally how yourovsky or freelee don't represent feminists. Most other feminists are in open condemnation of this terrible behaviour. And maryam namazie herself identifies as feminist.

People want to make entire feminism as bunk because of such incidences.

I have not seen too many people say that there are no good feminists ever, the only exception might be GirlSaysWhat, but aside from a few people, most "anti-feminists" are 100% pro gender equality, and pro feminism when it comes to allowing women in Saudi Arabia to drive cars, and wear whatever they want, and be able to get an education, as with the case of support for Malala Yousafzai by most "anti-feminists."

From what I have seen, most people are critical of modern day feminists like Anita Sarkeesian, Laci Green, Lena Dunham, Chanty Binx, and that feminist who decided to go out of her way to sit on "manspreaders" or that feminist who was thought of as wonderful for slamming into people on the street and calling it "manslamming." The women who fight for the rights of men, the women who fight for sex worker rights, the women who work to help women learn martial arts to help defend themselves against potential attackers, the women who help women get into coding for programs and games, the anti-islamic feminists, and even the feminist Kate Smurthwaite who was barred from a show about free speech because she was "not feminist enough," are all women that "anti-feminists" seem to like.

It's like veganism. Most people are OK with someone who calls for a reduction of animal suffering and refuses to eat meat, but the modern feminist movement is equivalent to the vegans who yell at restaurants who don't serve vegan options, send them death threats, and march into a steak house while you are eating and yelling at people for being complacent in animal murder and the consumption of animal flesh and by-products. Much of modern feminism is equivalent to the vegan who runs around and calling carnists "flesh-eating udder-suckers," or the like.

If you actually talk to anti-feminists, you will know what they are really against. And yes, a few feminists are outspoken against the "men earn 77 cents for every dollar a man makes!" type of BS, but to be honest, we are not vocal enough.

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:As a Male to Female Transgender it'd only make sense for me to prefer female pronouns. A male to female transgender that prefers male pronouns would be odd, or a drag queen.

And to me, there are only 2 genders, Male and Female. Even societies that have "third genders" only truly have two, especially when "third gender" means a man who feels like a woman. I have not seen a single society ever that had more than Male or Female as genders until 21st century America came to be, now Mayonnaise is a gender and the use of more than 2 genders only hurts people like me. You can't be a gender that doesn't exist anymore than you can have the spirit of an animal residing in you that doesn't exist.

"Agender's", "Bigenders," "Third Genders" and "Otherkin" hurt my credibility and make my life harder as someone who just wants to be a regular woman. I don't even like Identifying as trans, as I am not trans, I am female. I am a woman. And I personally believe that if you identify as "trans" instead of simply as "male" or "female" than you are just an attention-seeking loser who needs to stop. The more people identify as "trans-woman" or "third gender" the more nobody takes me seriously, the more people view me as a freak. The more it harms me.

THAT is my views on people wanting to identify under a non-existent pronoun to feel like a f-cking snowflake.

First, 'otherkin' isn't a gender-related, so it doesn't have anything to do with this.

And what you're saying is like,
"UGH, these goddamn 'bisexuals', and 'asexuals'. There are only two sexual orientations: homosexuality and heterosexuality! People who talk about this spectrum shit are just freaks and they're making me look bad. Obviously there are only homosexuals and heterosexuals, pft. Because obviously people are just lying and looking for attention by saying they are attracted both men and women. It's not like that's a hard thing for many people to come out as, and therefore something many people would rather not be or talk about. They're just goddamn liars."

What do you mean, there hasn't been a single society with more than men and women before the 21st century?
http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclo ... gp.gen.004

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, French explorers, traders, and missionaries in the Mississippi Valley occasionally encountered Native Americans who could be classified neither as men nor women. They called such individuals berdaches, a French term for younger partners in male homosexual relationships. In fact, Plains Indian berdaches are best described as occupying an alternative or third gender role, in which traits of men and women are combined with those unique to berdache status. Male berdaches did women's work, cross-dressed or combined male and female clothing, and formed relationships with non-berdache men.

EquALLity wrote:

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:As a Male to Female Transgender it'd only make sense for me to prefer female pronouns. A male to female transgender that prefers male pronouns would be odd, or a drag queen.

And to me, there are only 2 genders, Male and Female. Even societies that have "third genders" only truly have two, especially when "third gender" means a man who feels like a woman. I have not seen a single society ever that had more than Male or Female as genders until 21st century America came to be, now Mayonnaise is a gender and the use of more than 2 genders only hurts people like me. You can't be a gender that doesn't exist anymore than you can have the spirit of an animal residing in you that doesn't exist.

"Agender's", "Bigenders," "Third Genders" and "Otherkin" hurt my credibility and make my life harder as someone who just wants to be a regular woman. I don't even like Identifying as trans, as I am not trans, I am female. I am a woman. And I personally believe that if you identify as "trans" instead of simply as "male" or "female" than you are just an attention-seeking loser who needs to stop. The more people identify as "trans-woman" or "third gender" the more nobody takes me seriously, the more people view me as a freak. The more it harms me.

THAT is my views on people wanting to identify under a non-existent pronoun to feel like a f-cking snowflake.

First, 'otherkin' isn't a gender-related, so it doesn't have anything to do with this.

And what you're saying is like,
"UGH, these goddamn 'bisexuals', and 'asexuals'. There are only two sexual orientations: homosexuality and heterosexuality! People who talk about this spectrum shit are just freaks and they're making me look bad. Obviously there are only homosexuals and heterosexuals, pft. Because obviously people are just lying and looking for attention by saying they are attracted both men and women. It's not like that's a hard thing for many people to come out as, and therefore something many people would rather not be or talk about. They're just goddamn liars."

What do you mean, there hasn't been a single society with more than men and women before the 21st century?
http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclo ... gp.gen.004

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, French explorers, traders, and missionaries in the Mississippi Valley occasionally encountered Native Americans who could be classified neither as men nor women. They called such individuals berdaches, a French term for younger partners in male homosexual relationships. In fact, Plains Indian berdaches are best described as occupying an alternative or third gender role, in which traits of men and women are combined with those unique to berdache status. Male berdaches did women's work, cross-dressed or combined male and female clothing, and formed relationships with non-berdache men.

Otherkin is directly linked to transgenders in the mere fact that many otherkin use the same arguments and ride on the coattails of the trans movement to get attention.

And no, being attracted to both genders or not having a sex drive is actually a legitimate thing.

"Male berdaches did women's work, cross-dressed or combined male and female clothing, and formed relationships with non-berdache men."

Otherwise known as a drag queen, or a guy who views himself as a woman. Blending two genders is not a third gender, and men who behave like women are not men who behave like a third gender, they are like women. They have sex mainly with guys. This is not a third gender by any means.

As someone who has Native American ancestry, I believe I know what I am talking about when it comes to my own historical culture. Also, people in the 1600's who encountered people who acted unconventionally and gave them a new classification is not exactly a new thing, saying that at the time epileptics were possessed by the devil, and left handed individuals were seen as blasphemous.

But you would know all about the credibility of 17th century missionaries and explorers right? Gotta love those wonderful natives from India right? Oh right, he didn't land in India, he landed in South America. You know, the same way the explorer Christopher Columbus, which we must trust because he is a eastern explorer of the the 16th century, called the Raccoon a "clownlike dog". Now is a raccoon a clownlike dog? No, it's a different genus, the Procyon Lotor.

So if we can't trust explorers to know anything about simple animal differentiation, which is a hard science, why would we trust a few 17th century french missionaries idea of what a different gender is? You can't, because a man acting feminine is not a new gender. A man showing a blend of masculinity and femininity, or anyone outside of strict gender roles, is not a new gender.

Also, there is the "third gender" of india, which is described as a MtF transgender by the practical sense, which was put forward as a way of denying transpeople rights, and forcing them to not have sex or face the consequences of India's homophobic laws.

So no, no society has a legit third gender.

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:Otherkin is directly linked to transgenders in the mere fact that many otherkin use the same arguments and ride on the coattails of the trans movement to get attention.

It doesn't matter, because that doesn't make the arguments equally valid. Gender is different from species.

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:And no, being attracted to both genders or not having a sex drive is actually a legitimate thing.

Yes, just like sometimes feeling more masculine and sometimes feeling more feminine (etc.) is actually a legitimate thing.

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:"Male berdaches did women's work, cross-dressed or combined male and female clothing, and formed relationships with non-berdache men."

Otherwise known as a drag queen, or a guy who views himself as a woman. Blending two genders is not a third gender, and men who behave like women are not men who behave like a third gender, they are like women. They have sex mainly with guys. This is not a third gender by any means.

A drag queen is different from a biologically male, but gender-wise woman. A drag queen is a person who identifies as a man, but who dresses up in 'womens' clothes' and makeup for entertainment purposes. It doesn't sound like these people were doing that, since they also had 'roles' from the primary genders.

These people were bigendered, a group you also mentioned. They sometimes cross-dressed and sometimes combined traditionally mens' clothing and traditionally womens' clothing.

Third gender seems to be an umbrella term, but I've never heard any people say they feel like their gender is a pencil, like how you seem to be defining it.

Also, you didn't just speak of third-gendered people. You also attacked bigenders (people who sometimes feel more masculine and sometimes feel more feminine) and agenders (people who don't have a gender).

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote: As someone who has Native American ancestry, I believe I know what I am talking about when it comes to my own historical culture.

Well you don't seem to know much about LGBTQPA+ issues. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

But following your logic:

In the 1990s the term "two-spirit" was introduced by Native Americans as an alternative to berdache, and traditional third gender roles became the subject of renewed interest among Natives and non-Natives alike. As Michael Red Earth, a gay-identified Dakota, writes, "Once I realized that this respect and acceptance was a legacy of our traditional Native past, I was empowered to present my whole self to the world and reassume the responsibilities of being a two-spirited person."

Here's another article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

Two-Spirit (also two spirit or twospirit) is a modern umbrella term used by some indigenous North Americans to describe gender-variant individuals in their communities.[2]

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:So if we can't trust explorers to know anything about simple animal differentiation, which is a hard science, why would we trust a few 17th century french missionaries idea of what a different gender is?

These were observations, not judgement calls about animal species.

Also, there is the "third gender" of india, which is described as a MtF transgender by the practical sense, which was put forward as a way of denying transpeople rights, and forcing them to not have sex or face the consequences of India's homophobic laws.

Source?

I'm apparently a bisexual transwoman who doesn't know much about how gender works.

Forget this, I am not going to debate a 15 year old with a Warrior Cats icon who uses the term "LGBTQPA+". If I wanted to bang my head against a brick wall I'd debate a creationist.

^

Well, okie-dokie, have a nice life then.
Unless that's too PC for you.