Tanoomba's Toxic Tank of Traducement

fanaskin said:

You would think a class dedicated to differences between men and women would have biology in the curriculum, if it doesn't how could it be legit in any way shape or form? How can you claim any scientific basis for what you're doing when you ignore science?

Click to expand...

Are the only differences between men and women biological? Sarkeesian isn't a biologist and never pretended to be one. That doesn't automatically invalidate everything she says, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean she's dangerous or harmful.

Also, who are you to say she ignores science? You're using hyperbolic terms to push your ideological agenda here. Instead of coming to the reasonable conclusion that there is more than one way to look at gender issues in society, you've decided (more than a little arbitrarily) that the only valid framework is biology, and that anything that isn't explicitly about biology is "ignoring science" and therefore not only wrong but harmful. That's asinine. One can talk about video game design without ever having written a line of code. One can analyze a movie without ever having set foot behind a video camera.

If Sark was making provably false claims that directly contradict established science, and doing so specifically to push for destructive social change, then you might have had a point. But she isn't talking about biology. She isn't making provably false claims. And she isn't pushing for destructive social change, even if it makes you feel high and mighty to claim otherwise. If she was doing any of those things, you know what would reflect that? HER WORDS.

fanaskin said:

every word out of her mouth that isn't science, based, since you seem so confident this exists, you have many examples ready to quote right?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying she's making biology-based arguments, I'm saying the arguments she's making aren't necessarily dependent on a knowledge of biology.

Who are you to decide the only framework from which certain topics must be discussed? Do you know when biology would be relevant to something Sark talks about? When she makes a statement that can be proven false with facts about biology. You saying "She MUST mention biology or her entire stance is invalid" is an entirely feels-based assessment that makes no logical sense. It's also a form of thought-policing, incidentally.

fanaskin said:

"How can you have any substantive discussion about men and women and you never talk about hormones or biology, not once at all?

Click to expand...

Why not? There's no rule saying we can't, except the arbitrary one made up by you to suit your ideological purposes and discredit people you disagree with. Well, I'm assuming you disagree with her. You have yet to mention a single stance she has taken that you have a problem with.