College student kicked out of class for telling professor there are only two genders

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/12/college-student-kicked-out-class-for-telling-professor-there-are-only-two-genders.html

Students are there to Learn, not to teach.

This was obviously an OPINION, probably Off Topic.

It's not opinion. By the current definition of gender, there are an infinite number of genders. Each individual person can invent their own gender. For example,


- Neutrois
- Bi-gender
- Agender
- Demi-girl
- Hijra
- Pangender
- Androgyne
- Genderqueer
- Male
- Female

Genders are basically meaningless. They are like a name. They tell you almost nothing about a person.

However, there are two sexes (you very very rare cases of intersex people or people with XXY chromosomes for example, like how you can get people born with 6 fingers or 3 nipples).

Sex is HIGHLY important. Males and females are biologically different, they have different brains, different hormone levels, which causes them to have different behaviours.

All this fuss about "gender" is pathetic and pointless. If every person in the world decided to identify as pangender, the world would carry on exactly the same. The people of the male sex will still have a higher tendency to aggression and commit more crimes on average, the people of the female sex will still be less competitive and more social on average, no matter what gender they identify as.

I don't know about the kicking out of class part -- arguing with the professor perhaps -- but it's been known for quite some time now that what we call "gender" lies on a spectrum and is not binary.

What is "male" behaviour and what is "female" behavior? In some male dominated societies men were makeup but women don't. Until the modern era just a few hundred years ago men wore dresses and heels. Why is it possible for a western woman to live and dress as a man but allowed to be a heterosexual female albeit gender-nonconforming? This isn't simple stuff and it's not so cut and dry.

How can there be such a thing as homosexuality, or heterosexuality, or bi-sexuality, if gender is a spectrum?

What was the fight for gay marriage all about if there is no such thing as men or women?

Here's a good place to start learning:

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/

Thanks I read through it all. It created more questions so let me rephrase my question this:

If I, a biological male who identifies as male am in a sexual relationship with a biological female who identifies as male but has not undergone any surgery, am I gay?

quidprostatusquo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I, a biological male who identifies as male am
> in a sexual relationship with a biological female
> who identifies as male but has not undergone any
> surgery, am I gay?

Got me. Call yourself whatever you want to. Same for your partner.

The point of that article was that "biological" isn't the same for everyone, and that it doesn't always coincide with "psychological" gender. And that humans feel all sorts of sexual attractions. And that maybe we shouldn't try to stuff them all into "traditional" genders, which "traditionally" were only decided on by externally visible "biology."

I didn't ask what I should call myself.

I asked if being in a sexual relationship with a biological woman who identifies as male constitutes homosexuality?

quidprostatusquo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didn't ask what I should call myself.

Um, yeah, you pretty much did. You asked if you were gay.

> I asked if being in a sexual relationship with a
> biological woman who identifies as male
> constitutes homosexuality?

You asked if you were gay in your scenario.
I answered -- "Got me." As in "I don't know."
And I suggested you can call yourself gay if you want to, or not.

I think you'd have to decide for yourself if that wacky, hypothetical relationship "constitutes homosexuality."
I'm not really sure, though, why you'd care to label it.
If it makes you happy, who cares what label you put on it?
Or what label anybody else puts on it?

If it doesn't make you happy...why would you be in it? Or want to label it?

I appreciate your honesty that you don't know, or that you're not sure.

> I'm not really sure, though, why you'd care to label it.
> If it makes you happy, who cares what label you put on it?
> Or what label anybody else puts on it?

That's how a lot of people feel about all these extra pronouns.

Does calling yourself what you want work for race too? Because race is also on a spectrum and my psychological race may not mesh with my biological race, whatever that is.

What exactly do you mean by "race?"

Race is a concept that geneticists and biologists consider irredeemably muddled. So yes, to scientists racial identity would indeed be considered arbitrary and in fact illusory.

Well, let's see. Did he transition while you were with him (this is where it get's murky, you'll have to look up other couple's experience with this situation), or did he already present as male when you first met? Plus, trans people don't need to undergo genital re-assignment surgery in order to complete their transition.

It's a hypothetical so what would the answer be in both scenarios?

animatheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Plus, trans people don't need
> to undergo genital re-assignment surgery in order
> to complete their transition.

There's nothing to transition to or from.

animatheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, let's see. Did he transition while you were
> with him (this is where it get's murky, you'll
> have to look up other couple's experience with
> this situation), or did he already present as male
> when you first met? Plus, trans people don't need
> to undergo genital re-assignment surgery in order
> to complete their transition.

That is exactly it. The question is who were you initially attracted to, a person you viewed as male or a person you viewed as female.

You are straight in that situation.

It's heteroSEXual and homoSEXual, but heterogenderal and homogenderal.

Gender is pretty much irrelevent.

If all the women in the world decided to identify as men, you'd still only be attracted to the ones of the female sex.

Biology is real. Gender is a social constuct.

Gender shouldn't exist, it's a pointless and useless categorisation. We should only talk about biological sex and completely forget about gender in my opinion.

quidprostatusquo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How can there be such a thing as homosexuality, or
> heterosexuality, or bi-sexuality, if gender is a
> spectrum?
>
> What was the fight for gay marriage all about if
> there is no such thing as men or women?

Gender, sex, and sexuality are different things. Simply put, gender is what is between your ears, sex is what is between your legs, sexuality is what you are attracted to.

Emphasis on "concept."

And, per your wikipedia citation, historical.

In short, there is nothing inevitable about binary gender systems.

The form behind him says, "...refusal to stop talking out of turn, angry outbursts..."

Sounds like he was kicked out of class for being an ass. Not for telling a professor there are only two genders.

The student was unruly and causing a disturbance but the fundies won't see it that way.

Could be, but like the BOM, I don't always believe everything I read. Could be that was written by the professor making the accusation against him. The student claims he only asked one question (or made one statement). Sounds like the U administration will have to hear from witnesses in class or drop it.

IMO the headline is not accurate. The student wasn't kicked out of class for having a different point of view. He was kicked out for causing a major disruption and behaving in a disrespectful manner to a guest speaker.

Most professors welcome respectful disagreement and dialogue. If the disagreement goes beyond the scope of the given class, the professor will usually invite you to continue the discussion during his or her office hours.

The situation is similar to causing a major disruption during a work meeting. You are not always going to agree with what is being said. But you can't disrupt the flow of the meeting.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IMO the headline is not accurate.

Yes. Anyone can behave in an uncivilized and disruptive manner, then claim after the fact that it was his ideology that caused him to be booted from class, a meeting, or whatever gathering he was invited to leave. There presumably would have been an appropriate time during the class session for the guy to express his dissent, but not while someone else was talking, and not necessarily for whatever length of time was needed until everyone in the room with him agreed with his point of view.

To the best of my knowledge there are, in fact, only two genders.
What is done to alter them does not create a new and different gender. But it surely can be a place to start an argument of fight.

Sex is complicated. Human sexuality is even more complicated.

Humans have a genetic sex component (DNA/chromosomes), a brain component(structure/formation), and a physical anatomical component (genitalia). Then there is something more abstract called the psyche which combined with self-awareness and sentience is even more more complicated.

You can look this stuff up and you'll find out that humans are not 100% one "sex" or the other but a combination of both with variation. I've heard many stories about people being operated on or autopsied and discovered to have all kinds of sex things that you woudn't think they would have.

The world is not so simple anymore.

The only difference now is that people are open about it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2018 08:09PM by anybody.

Male and female characteristics all have a bi-modal distribution. In some cases, like height, there's a bit of overlap. In other cases, like muscle mass, there's almost no overlap at all.

It's mis-leading to say it's a spectrum. I know it's technically true, but it's like how saying "Emma was Joseph Smith's wife" is technically true, but mis-leading.

If you say it's a spectrum, it makes people think there's no difference between males and females. If you say "Emma was Joseph Smith's wife", it makes people think he only had one wife.

"...les differences?" Pas de penache.

(Tip of the hat to my favorite French missionary--and it's NOT Mitt Romney!)

Merci, mon ami :)

Whether the professor was right to kick him out depends on how agressive and argumentative the kid was. I think he had a right to express his view if he raised his hand rather than interrupting, but he did not have the right to argue or take up class time with disruptive behavior.He isnt the teacher and the teacher gets to decide when enough is enough or when behavior is out of line. If the kid thinks he was treated unfairly by a professor who cant take disagreemment, he can lodge a complaint. I suspect that the student wouldnt let it go

Years ago this would be handled internally by the universtity and the matter would have ended then and there but not nowadays.

The extreme polarisation of politics in America and the self-perception of evangelicals and conservatives as a persecuted minority with liberal "enemies" out to get them and end their way of life blows incidents like this totally out of proportion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2018 08:16PM by anybody.

Universities still have rights although I suppose the kid could sue if the university ruled against him. So could the professor if he were punished in some way. Who was right isnt exactly clear. The kid could have been out of line or the teacher could have been thin skinned and incapable of handling a differing opinions. It is hard to say from the article. I tend to side with the teacher, but all the facts arent in and I could be wrong .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2018 08:35PM by bona dea.

The kid claimed it was a "Christianity" class.

But the professor in question (Dr. Alison Downey) doesn't teach a "Christianity" class. She teaches two sessions of "World Religions' (RLST 110). The IUP catalog describes that course thusly:

"A comparative study of the history, teaching, and rituals of the major religions of the world and their influence on contemporary society. This nonsectarian approach to religions emphasizes comparisons/contrasts between Western and non-Western religious traditions as well as the contemporary global nature of Western traditions."

The course # is covered over in the photo with the article. I wonder why they did that? Because the class wasn't a "Christianity" class?

The Professor's bio says:
"Alison Downie earned her PhD in Systematic Theology at Duquesne University (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) with a concentration in Christian Feminist Theology. Her academic interests include ecofeminist theologies, disability theologies, religious understandings of self and memoir, religious themes in literature and film, and interfaith dialogues. She is also active in the scholarship of teaching and learning."

Based on the course description above, fluid gender theories seems like an odd topic to come up. I’m not aware of any religion that adheres to anything but traditional gender roles. Perhaps the professor herself was inappropriately injecting her own interests into the course material.

Gordon B. Stinky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps
> the professor herself was inappropriately
> injecting her own interests into the course
> material.

Given the professor's research interests

https://www.iup.edu/religiousstudies/faculty/downie,-alison/

and the fact that she most likely designed the syllabus herself, I don't see what "inappropriate" interjecting there could be.

That is one reason I tend to side with the professor, but none of us were there.It is possible the teacher over reacted to someone.

Well, it's from fauxnews.com, so . . . . .

That’s an insult to foxes everywhere

True, the student could have been removed for being disruptive.

However, if the student was making a more politically correct argument, teachers are more likely to tolertate the rudeness, or fear backlash if they take action against them.

Was recently reading a speech by Amy Wax, J.D., M.D., and professor of Law at U. of Penn. She had been attacked after her politically incorrect opinions were published.


https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/are-we-free-to-discuss-americas-real-problems/

"It is well documented that American universities today, more than ever before, are dominated by academics on the left end of the political spectrum. How should these academics handle opinions that depart, even quite sharply, from their “politically correct” views? The proper response would be to engage in reasoned debate—to attempt to explain, using logic, evidence, facts, and substantive arguments, why those opinions are wrong. This kind of civil discourse is obviously important at law schools like mine, because law schools are dedicated to teaching students how to think about and argue all sides of a question. But academic institutions in general should also be places where people are free to think and reason about important questions that affect our society and our way of life—something not possible in today’s atmosphere of enforced orthodoxy. "

"How should these academics handle opinions that depart, even quite sharply, from their “politically correct” views? The proper response would be to engage in reasoned debate—to attempt to explain, using logic, evidence, facts, and substantive arguments, why those opinions are wrong."

Isn't that the truth. I think back to my endless attempts to engage the mormons in reasoned debate - using logic, evidence and facts. Time and time again the progressive, liberal mormons refused to engage with me.

But even with an uptight, conservative student who was worried about how many genders exist, I'd gladly give him the floor and ask questions. And more questions. I'd want to know how he ended up with his opinion and have him share that with the class.

Free Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was recently reading a speech by Amy Wax, J.D.,
> M.D., and professor of Law at U. of Penn. She
> had been attacked after her politically incorrect
> opinions were published.

What a hypocrite.
She decries the response to her published article, calling supposed "attacks" on her " unreasoned speech: hurling slurs and epithets, name-calling, vilification, and mindless labeling."

Yet, reading the paper in question, that's *exactly* what she engaged in; unreasoned speech, hurling slurs and epithets, name-calling, vilification, and mindless labeling.

Perhaps she should consider that the reaction to her paper was because she had engaged in the very things she claims to condemn, and because of her hypocrisy, rather than the universities being "dominated by academics on the left end of the political spectrum."

And that just maybe, if she made "reasoned arguments" in her papers INSTEAD of engaging in the faults she claims to hate, that what she might get back is reasoned argument. But that's probably too much to ask, she's too busy being angry that her hypocrisy had been exposed...

Incidentally, this is the same professor who violated school policies by publicly discussing private grades, and (falsely) claimed that black students never did well in law school...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/penn-law-professor-demoted-saying-122136081.html

Maybe she can have reasonable discussions with people once she stops being a racist. But I doubt it.

I perused the source.

Not surprisingly, the articles on that website include gems like The Problem Of Identity Politics And Its Solution; a rant against the "cosmopolitan elite" in Immigration In The National Interest; and Russian Collusion? Yes, there is a question mark after that last title.

So you present us with an article by a compromised woman in a journal that includes all sorts of thinly veiled racism and homophobia. "Cosmopolitan elite. . ." Lenin and Trotsky used the word that way, too.

How many are there?

Let's see: neutral... Forward... Reverse

Somebody can't count
And Somebody's mad

M@t

Since it is from fux nooz, the article is highly suspect.

I remember the fundie crush at my college in the early '80s. One of my professors taught a "The Bible as Literature" class in the English Dept. and fundie kids kept signing up and jamming the class "rebuking" him. Steady parade of security guys hauling them out. A lot of flunking out by freshmen students/preachers?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2018 12:13AM by snagglepuss.

I thought there were two genders also, maybe the kid was just mean to the professor

Anonymous 2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> College student kicked out of class for telling
> professor there are only two genders
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/12/college-stude
> nt-kicked-out-class-for-telling-professor-there-ar
> e-only-two-genders.html

Studies have proven if you are a Fox viewer, you are less informed than if you didnt watch TV.
Because you ate being fed lies.
Kinda like the Morgue.
On the other end of the spectrum.there are NPR listeners, the secularists, who are most informed.
There's a good reason.

In sport there is an ongoing debate on what is a male and female. Just as the Fox News story may not be as simple as it appears so is gender identification. The IAAF and the IOC have been trying for decades to come up with a set of rules on what is a female. Religion never saw this coming in its different scriptures.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/magazine/the-humiliating-practice-of-sex-testing-female-athletes.html

I had several wacky professors in college. It’s a game. How you play the game is figure out what the professor wants to hear and barf it back to them. Get your grade and continue to move down the game board to graduation. The overall objective is to get a better job not get into arguments with the staff.