Havard offers course on healthcare about LGBT "from Infants to adults"

[alhoon]

It's a new concept, but it comes with a lot of utility. Gender norms have changed drastically even less than 100 years ago, long hair can be masculine, women can have body hair again.

I strongly dislike both of these changes in your examples. I applaud that women can now work properly and be elected etc. though which is a drastic change of gender norms. I don't want women on the battlefield though.

[mishkin]

I strongly dislike both of these changes in your examples. I applaud that women can now work properly and be elected etc. though which is a drastic change of gender norms. I don't want women on the battlefield though.

as always, this is just your opinions, your personal tastes, your beliefs.

for years you have maintained that there is a campaign of progressives, SJWs etc. regarding this topic (gender/sex). I suppose that this thread, like others that you have started, is nothing more than a excuse for, in your opinion, expose "the madness". (soon you will start another discussion about the same topic with any excuse). you have no interest in a particular topic, you don't want to debate, you ignore arguments from your peers here and you reject even authorities on the matter (you despise the "new science imposed by progressives"). You are only interested, as you have said, in fighting the "culture war." So it seems useless to me to continue participating in this discussion; everything that needed to be said has been said. I just wanted to make it clear to you that in the real world (this world controlled by progressive radicals and marxist elites) your beliefs will be respected as long as they are not harmful to other people. In this matter, no one is hurting you, you, with your beliefs and opinions, are harming other people. Cheers.

[The spartan]

I strongly dislike both of these changes in your examples. I applaud that women can now work properly and be elected etc. though which is a drastic change of gender norms.

You can just roll the clock back further and see if your standards still hold: is it unseemly for a woman to expose her ankle or calf in public? Is a man unkempt if he is just wearing a t-shirt and jeans? Standards and expectations change constantly, and each generation feels like the next is "doing it wrong".

I don't want women on the battlefield though.

As long as a soldier is effective and qualified, I couldn't care less who they are. There are plenty of roles women are suited for, I am pretty sure there are more women pilots than people generally expect in the military these days. And I wouldn't doubt they could make effective tankers either, small frames are well suited for armored fighting.

[alhoon]

As long as a soldier is effective and qualified, I couldn't care less who they are. There are plenty of roles women are suited for, I am pretty sure there are more women pilots than people generally expect in the military these days. And I wouldn't doubt they could make effective tankers either, small frames are well suited for armored fighting.

It is more ... primal than that. I feel much worse over a woman being hurt than a man. If I was a soldier, and I am not alone in that line of thought mind you, I would prioretize the well-being of a woman comrade in arms than a man. And the reason for many men to fight in a conflict is to protect their loved ones.
As for women pilots or tankers or submarine personnel, I would agree. Especially in submarines that have less to do with acts of aggression and more to do with waaaaiting, women would be more suited because they are more patient and less aggressive. And less likely to do something stupid while bored that would give the ship's location away.
But I would be more shocked and demoralized to learn that a submarine with women, mothers, sisters, daughters, went to the bottom of the sea than a submarine with men, fathers, brothers, sons.

There are probably many women that can beat me silly and I have no reason to think women won't be as good marksmen as men. And as you said for some combat roles women would be better.
But no, I don't feel easy about it. I don't want women in combat roles the same way I don't want 14-year-olds in combat roles.

[swabian]

It's a new concept, but it comes with a lot of utility. Gender norms have changed drastically even less than 100 years ago, long hair can be masculine, women can have body hair again. The truth is we base our gender assumptions based on presentation and assumptions rather than innate and immutable characteristics. That's why I can post this picture without violating terms even though they have two X chromosomes and a vagina:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yes it's a new concept with a lot of utility, which is why it's unscientific character strikes even harder. It's simply not true, or better: it is a confusion. If you are born a biological female, you will remain a biological female. If you are born a biological male you will remain a biological man. Gender and sex were originally mutually exchangeable words for the same thing in the English language. Because at some point the word "sex" was deemed too offensive, they introduced "gender" probably in the still very prudish Puritanist USA of the 50s. There was however no original difference between the "gender" and "the sex" (it was probably early pornography that might have caused the fork of wording in prude, puritan USA and Britain).

Just because some effeminate male with blue hairs is prattling on about how he feels enamoured with his newly found gender, doesn't mean his idea is worth a donkey's fart. It's very easy:

Sex=/=Gender, Gender=fairy dragon magic.

Is that being understood now?

[alhoon]

as always, this is just your opinions, your personal tastes, your beliefs.

for years you have maintained that there is a campaign of progressives, SJWs etc. regarding this topic (gender/sex). I suppose that this thread, like others that you have started, is nothing more than a excuse for, in your opinion, expose "the madness". (soon you will start another discussion about the same topic with any excuse). you have no interest in a particular topic, you don't want to debate, you ignore arguments from your peers here and you reject even authorities on the matter (you despise the "new science imposed by progressives"). You are only interested, as you have said, in fighting the "culture war." So it seems useless to me to continue participating in this discussion; everything that needed to be said has been said. I just wanted to make it clear to you that in the real world (this world controlled by progressive radicals and marxist elites) your beliefs will be respected as long as they are not harmful to other people. In this matter, no one is hurting you, you, with your beliefs and opinions, are harming other people. Cheers.

That I am not convinced by your arguments doesn't mean that I don't want to debate, or that I ignore said arguments.
You claim that my beliefs will be respected as long as they are not harmful to other people and no one is going to hurt me. You are wrong on the second count demonstrably as I have already lost funding for a project with the reviewer comments being "We liked this but there's no gender balance in the team." <== the team was a team of two people, mind you. So yeah, progressives and their quest to right the wrongs of the past by doing the same wrongs on the other gender is hurting me.

The first count, that my beliefs will be respected ... "As long as they are not harmful". And who decides what is "harmful"? Because there are laws going up in much of Europe from progressives that decided that saying "Men can't be pregnant" is harmful but saying "Men can be pregnant" is not.
And to return to the topic at hand, we have Havard practicing their new take on gender on kids. Apparently, that was not deemed "harmful" by the progressives. As I stated my opinion that such beliefs ARE harmful to other people.