Intellectual Conservatives.

[Zero]

Link

I don't know if there's a point in saying much about this.

You know what I think of it.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Link

I don't know if there's a point in saying much about this.

You mean beyond the oxymoronic title?

Or is this supposed to be a discussion on gender identity? In which case the post in the link missed the mark by a wide margin, using equally off the mark quotes from the other "side" of the issue to make his point seem correct in comparison.

 

[Waterstiller]

Semenya has become the focus of suspicion (I'll use masculine pronouns, as I'm convinced this individual is a boy who experienced abnormal intrauterine development) because of his masculine physique, deep voice, development of facial hair, male mannerisms and the fact that he has been winning races by wide margins. As a result, a battery of medical exams to determine his true sex has been conducted, although the results have not been officially released. Yet the real story here is not what investigation may tell us about Semenya. It is what our reaction to Semenya tells us about ourselves.

She's still a she despite finding out she's intersex. Ugh. She grew up just like any other girl and just recently found all of this junk out. Many women find out at puberty that they have Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and are genetically XY - it doesn't make them 'men' though. Stupid fuck even cites David Reimer without even understanding the point of his tragic story (that gender identity is in the brain and cannot be changed).

Then the author goes on to attack transgender kids? And blames it all on some 'agenda'? These people conveniently leave out all the suicide, murder, and poverty statistics. And the miles and miles of red tape and many thousands of dollars just to legitimate transgender identities in society. And how often people lose their children or are disowned and put on the street by their families. And how difficult it would be to go to school as yourself being trans and deal with all the mocking. It's this sort of ignorance that nearly killed me, and I supposedly have an agenda for making a (weak) decision to live.

That's interesting. What if you're a lunkhead who identifies himself as intelligent?"

This blog talking about how intelligent it is reminds me of how fox news always talks about how 'fair and balanced' it is.


And I'll just leave off with this:
YouTube- 20/20 "My Secret Self" Part 4 of 5


xxboys.net:

 

[Yellow]

Gender is such a complicated thing. I mean, we still don't know exactly what genes trigger the chemical reaction to turn a fetus into a male. The existance of XX males and XY females shows that at least one of them has long since been transferred to the X chromosome. I get so irritated by people who insist on specifically defined genders. There is overwhelming evidence that gender identity is not that simple. I like to try to give people the benefit of the doubt where intelligent thought is concerned, but that article was just ridiculus.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Intellectual? It sounded more like an opinion to me, and even an idiot can have an opinion. I could sum up the entire article with "I believe men are men and women are women, so there." I generally try to give every view point a chance, but it's too difficult to read such pernicious nonsense like this that I only got about two thirds of the way through before I gave up.

 

[truthseeker72]

You mean beyond the oxymoronic title?

Or is this supposed to be a discussion on gender identity? In which case the post in the link missed the mark by a wide margin, using equally off the mark quotes from the other "side" of the issue to make his point seem correct in comparison.

Hey, I know plenty of intellectual conservatives, and I consider myself to be one

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Hey, I know plenty of intellectual conservatives, and I consider myself to be one

Hehe, well I didn't see much intellectual conservatism at that website that named itself intellectual conservatism. Perhaps you would prefer misnomer?

I think of you as more libertarian anyway. Conservative libertarian to be sure but deeper on the libertarian scale. There was some test here about that some time ago.....Edit: Here.

 

[Zero]

Being someone who's interested in genetic variation and particularly hermaphroditism, I didn't think much of the article. It's out of date and additionally he doesn't use the terms gender and sex in clear context.

Nor does he focus on a specific element. He talks about doctors, he talks about trangender and transexual people, he talks about society, he tries to tie in biology and doctrine. For what would seem to be a single subject he somehow managed to make it into a tangled mess. I thought the article was rather confusing. The end line left us with the fact that doctors were wrong and transgender people were wrong and society is wrong, because no one follows a doctrine. But was the decline of doctrine the focus?

I was more curious about this whole idea of intellectual conservative. First, why must they qualify that they're intellectual. And as others noted, his writing is very "blog" like. It doesn't resemble an intellectual argument. It's based on doctrine and appears to be an attack on medical professionals and trangender people.

Gender is a broad terms and it's flexible almost for the purpose of psychological exploration. It seems we can't expect certain conservatives to understand that. Sex is biological and gender is social. If one simply looks at the biological and considers the variations then gender has an even looser meaning. What exactly is gender and how does femininity, masculinity (and are there others?) play into this discussion?

I was somewhat annoyed by his usage of words and the fact that he goes so far as to mock intellectuals and intelligences. It doesn't matter if you're a liberal or conservative, this article should be somewhat offensive.

What irritates me about this article the most, is not the basic content or the obvious bias and agenda, it's simply how poorly presented it was. It's an absolute insult to intellectuals for something like this to be published under any sort of "Intellectual" premise.

I would've rather this man addressed the subject from the doctrine perspective if that meant him writing maturely.

I think conservatives ought to find themselves embarrassed by this article and by this site. This "intellectual conservative" has no idea how to proper address a general audiences.

Even though I disagree with the content, I want to edit the writing. It's an eyesore, especially when it's supposedly coming, not from a blog, but from an intellectual article.

Anyway, I tried to say little about my opinion, because I wanted to see what people would see in it and what they'd consider.

Edit:
I checked that thread and site that was posted. I would say that was somewhat bias itself, but this is what I got on it.

LINK

I'm quite surprised that I'm on the left and not on the right, seeing as I don't exactly support "government funded". Some of the answers came down to semantics and whether or not something was logically true.

I would say I'm socially somewhat libertarian and more right winged than this graph figured.