For your consideration...

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Behold, the Poe-ing of queer theory:



Edit: should I restore deleted comments?

Comments

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Which answer, and which premises are you referring to?

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

You already know which of both. Your comments show that. You can cease being glib.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

perhaps he can't. It might be a congenital defect.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

His history of commentary in this community does lend that hypothesis some small credence. :)

[madscience.livejournal.com]

The premise of yelena_r0ssini's first comment was that gender is partly biological. I already addressed that in my reply. If you're referring to something else, you're going to have to be more specific because I'm not in the mood to play guessing games.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

It is acknowledged by peer-reviewed science that gender is partly biological and partly social construct. Ohkruhlik's Gender and the Biological Sciences goes over the history of that determination fairly well and how the biological science intersects with feminist critique. This dates back to the early 1990s. I should add that your statement "Gender is not in-born; gender is socially constructed." deals in absolutes that were prominent in the late 1970s and early 1980s, to be dismissed by the dawn of the 1990s. Too simple, you see.

So going from the accepted scientific viewpoint of both biologists and sociologists that yelena_r0ssini has correctly promoted, how is her answer not logically consistent with that accepted scientific viewpoint?

And furthermore, why should we accept your viewpoint on gender as nothing but pure social construction when it is a particularly outdated product of now-discarded second wave feminism?

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Because sociology in general, and feminism in particular, left its high water mark around 1980 and has been declining into unscientific incoherence ever since.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Your remarks are incorrect. So sociology's increasing reliance on numbers, math, formulae, and rigorous experimentation using the scientific method, all while dropping dogma and biased crap from last century, is "unscientific incoherence"? That's just plain nonsense. It sounds like you're talking about anthropology instead, which is all about dogma, personal experiences, and "intuitions".

I'd almost suspect you of wanting to go back to having humanist assumptions about social theory, instead of relying on numbers, but that would be illogical of you and you highly prize logic. Perhaps you might read more current things than what was published in the 80s and become conversant with computational sociology.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

"sociology's increasing reliance on numbers, math, formulae, and rigorous experimentation"

That's the exact opposite of what has occurred since 1980. The only sense in which sociology has increased its reliance on statistics is increasing its flagrantly dishonest use of statistics to make political points.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Oh really?
Please explain to me how social network analysis, one of the main techniques of sociology, is not scientifically rigorous.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

On second thought, it sounds like you are confusing sociological theory with social theory. The former is science and the seat of sociology; the latter is philosophical and has very little to do with sociology today.