Quote from: Mordo on January 06, 2016, 03:20:25 AM

I don't know why it became so controversial to say that men and women are psychologically and anatomically different.

It never has been. It is controversial to say that because of these differences some people don't have a right to something as basic as voting.

But there is however, an emerging line of thought which purports that there is absolutely no innate statistical differences between men and women whatsoever, and that gender is a social construct etc.

Hell, it's becoming the law of the land in the hallmarks of British academia.

Quote from: Mordo on January 06, 2016, 11:09:53 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 06, 2016, 10:46:15 AM

Quote from: Mordo on January 06, 2016, 03:20:25 AM

I don't know why it became so controversial to say that men and women are psychologically and anatomically different.

It never has been. It is controversial to say that because of these differences some people don't have a right to something as basic as voting.

But there is however, an emerging line of thought which purports that there is absolutely no innate statistical differences between men and women whatsoever, and that gender is a social construct etc.

Hell, it's becoming the law of the land in the hallmarks of British academia.

Do you have any examples of this in academia? And for the record, gender is partially a social construct.

People like Mordo and I accept that gender is partly social, the problem is that the discussion/definition is being shut down in regards to any biological facet completely in some circles.

Quote from: Mordo on January 06, 2016, 11:09:53 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 06, 2016, 10:46:15 AM

Quote from: Mordo on January 06, 2016, 03:20:25 AM

I don't know why it became so controversial to say that men and women are psychologically and anatomically different.

It never has been. It is controversial to say that because of these differences some people don't have a right to something as basic as voting.

But there is however, an emerging line of thought which purports that there is absolutely no innate statistical differences between men and women whatsoever, and that gender is a social construct etc.

Hell, it's becoming the law of the land in the hallmarks of British academia.

Do you have any examples of this in academia? And for the record, gender is partially a social construct.

http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/news/0033654-i-don-t-believe-in-transphobia-germaine-greer-speaks-out-at-the-union.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jan/31/gender.weekend7
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/08/kellie-maloney-newsnight-and-debate-transgender-community-refused-have

And yes, gender is partially socially constructed, but mostly biological, and I never contested otherwise.

Quote from: Luciana on January 05, 2016, 09:00:40 PM

In terms of the more OT issue, I don't believe everyone should vote. Why? Because so many people are uneducated in who they vote for, and what they vote for. They just listen to the masses or popular opinion without doing the research themselves and coming to their own conclusion.

This is one of my biggest problems with democracy; I'm the most politically knowledgeable person in my family and circle of friends and yet I'm hilariously uninformed about most things needed to run a country; it's ridiculous that I'll be able to vote at the next election despite knowing almost nothing about any of the politicians, let alone having the ability to compare them and choose the best one.

You can't blame democracy on plain ignorance. It's the job of a citizen to do his or her own research.

Quote from: Cadenza on January 07, 2016, 01:54:05 AM

Quote from: Luciana on January 05, 2016, 09:00:40 PM

In terms of the more OT issue, I don't believe everyone should vote. Why? Because so many people are uneducated in who they vote for, and what they vote for. They just listen to the masses or popular opinion without doing the research themselves and coming to their own conclusion.

This is one of my biggest problems with democracy; I'm the most politically knowledgeable person in my family and circle of friends and yet I'm hilariously uninformed about most things needed to run a country; it's ridiculous that I'll be able to vote at the next election despite knowing almost nothing about any of the politicians, let alone having the ability to compare them and choose the best one.

You can't blame democracy on plain ignorance. It's the job of a citizen to do his or her own research.

That's exactly the problem, democracy requires that all the voters make a full time job out of educating themselves on every single issue, anything less and you have uninformed people making uninformed decisions. As far as I can see it's infeasible to get people to invest so much time into a topic that they're apathetic about. I'm a politically interested person who's on holiday right now, and I live in a small country; I have all this free time and motivation and significantly less information regarding the legal structures to go through and yet It will still take years of active resarch just to get up to a baseline "alright now I vaguely understand most issues" level of information, and that's still not enough to justify my opinions effecting the government with my vote. I don't see how this could work at all for the other 3 million voters here, let alone any country with orders of magnitude more people and centuries more history to work with.