Florida bans AP psychology, College Board says, because of lessons on gender identity and sexual orientation, which violate state rules.
I’m going to take a step back from the topic itself.
I think the real problem here is that we can’t agree on what “fact” is. Both sides are certain that they are correct. Both sides can present what they believe is scientific evidence. How do we move forward from that? Both sides simply discredit the sources used in the science the other side is presenting. It seems that both sides are using brute force to push their belief. And that seems to just make the other side angrier and more dug in. How do we have conversations anymore?
Edit: oof. Yeah, that is where we are.
My parents are gay. Do you think it’s wrong to “brute force” that they do, indeed, exist and are harmless?
I appreciate that you’re trying to be reasonable, but one side (and you know which) isn’t even going to be…
It’s both. I’ve been called a Trump supporter, a “Jew shill”, and a liberal snowflake, all in the same week. I find it fascinating, talking to very opinionated people. Doesn’t matter what it is. Even if I think they’re right about whatever that topic is, I find that people become incredibly hostile if you ask them something they don’t have an answer for, if it might challenge their beliefs.
I find that the people who purport to an academic view of fights over human rights tend to be those whose rights are not (now) in question, and that they find more entertainment in the emotions at play than in empathizing with those who feel said emotions makes me question their willingness or ability to change their own stance.
Neutrality is a starting point. Where you choose to go from there is an expression of your character.
The problem is you’re approaching this from a place of complete ignorance on what the science actually is. You’re saying “both sides have science,” but that’s fundamentally not true. One side has the entire fields of medicine and psychology, which contain some internal disagreement on issues around the margins, but overwhelmingly agree on basic concepts. The other side latches on to single studies or portions of conclusions of studies taken out of context that confirm their existing beliefs. If there were science behind the Republican position on these issues, you’d be able to cite it here, so please do
We can’t have conversations because one side argues in bad faith, makes shit up, and behaves like fucking gremlins by defunding services then claiming they don’t work.
Sure, step away from the topic itself. Blue states don’t have post birth abortions, slavery did not benefit African American, climate change is not a hoax, and Rosa Parks was protesting racism. Claiming otherwise isn’t “alternative facts”, they’re just fucking lies.
“Both sides” - fucking brainlet.
Yeah, the left is definitely one side, and they definitely argue in bad faith.
No, you.
Great input.
Only one side chooses to lie because the facts actually aren’t on their side
I mean, liberals and leftists lie too, but not in the same way. I’ve read right wing articles from “climate activists” where googling the author’s name reveals they’re associated with the oil industry. Judicial Watch misrepresented IRS transcripts and created articles linking to the transcripts, claiming they said things they just do not say.
I don’t run into those same kinds of lies from liberals and the left. It’s notable.
A long time ago we actually agreed on a process for fact finding. It is one that has served us well for hundreds of years (more so in the last 150 years, once we really had a foundational understanding of the world based on previously established facts). The whole “you look at the world, draw conclusions and test them” - system is not new and it works. That is science. It’s not a question of what people believe to be fact, but in believing in the process of establishing them. One side is systematically trying to undermine the very basis of science. It is impossible to use science or data or facts to convince someone like that that their position is wrong.
Postmodernism has no place in the sciences, really.
Yes, if only there were some kind of systemized method of some sort for approaching scientific questions. Alas…
bOtH SiDeS
What the hell are you on about? The APA’s official statement on the treatment of transgender individuals is far more prudent than bigoted politics. Here it is if you actually care, but I’m betting you dont.
This is typically why they want to discredit science. So they can just make up facts on the fly.
- This new science is woke, old science that agrees precisely with what I believe is fact.
- The science is not true period. Why? Because listen to these made up fuckin anecdotes and just go with me what if it wasn’t true.
- That homeless dude right there is an actual scientist.
Whatever it takes.
The subject at hand is accreditation of a course in psychology,. Tell me how you on one hand call transgenderism a mental illness and on the other refuse to teach - in an AP course - the subject of gender and sexuality. I’d submit there are a number subjects we can “both sides” about, but what’s happening in Florida ain’t it. There’s nothing to be debated here anyway, College Board (may they step on Lego) says if you don’t teach the AP curriculum, you don’t get the credit.
Why would you waste a perfectly good Lego?
I got some thumb tacks I won’t ever use because they’re kinda big and ugly. You’re welcome to them…
That’s just the thing. One side isn’t using scientific evidence. There is a process to science. You can’t use the simplified version of gender taught to kids and say it’s scientific. Just like you can’t say that the year is 365 days long like kids are taught at first. Then they learn about leap years and it’s actually 365 and a quarter days. Then they learn about leap seconds. Ok so then there must be some fraction of a second in addition to the 365.25 days. Then they learn about wobble, the gravity of the planets, and everything else that makes it not a constant. It’s something that has to be analyzed every year to decide if one is needed yet. It’s complicated. So just like kids are taught 365 days in a year, they are taught that there are 2 genders that are caused by one of two combinations of chromosomes. Then they learn about intersex people and people born with vaginas who have an x chromosome and people with 3 chromosomes, etc.
So sure, if you’re a child it’s ok to think there are two genders chosen based on a single chromosome difference. But it’s not ok to pretend it’s that simple and call it truth and scientific evidence that your teachers taught it that way.
Don’tbother, lemmy is filled with leftists.
Can’t have any of that scary compassion getting in to your heads, eh?
The fact that you even think that “both sides” is a valid argument, means that your opinion is literally worthless.
Because either you are intentionally arguing in bad faith and you know you’re lying, or you actually believe that. Which means you lack the mental capacity to see something objectively.
Enlightened centrism at its finest, completely missing the entire point.
… not even really all that enlightened….
Centrists in a fascist era are simply part of the fascist movement.
Group 1: I understand that transgenderism is legitimate and supported by science. People should be able to identify as the gender they feel most comfortable.
Group 2: I want to FUCKING kill EVERYONE in group one!
Centrists: Why can’t both sides just see eye to eye already and get along? I am so smart.
I’m not sure Group 2 is being fairly represented.
Well, one side has the APA. The other side has Jesus. I wonder who actually has facts. It’s a mystery.
One side presets a handful random jankie ass studies as science, the other side presents mountains of massive rigorous studies, that people have rerun and pressure tested.
There is no “both sides.”
One side is using the scientific method, the other is cherry picking crap to support a belief they’ve already formed.
I think the sky is green, and that homeless dude down on the corner agrees with me. But everyone else just insists that the sky is blue and calls me crazy. Why can’t we agree on facts? I know the sky is green so I’m never going to change my mind, but why can’t we just agree? How do we fix that?
Removed by mod
can we just take the colleges out of Florida
I suspect Florida’s censorship laws will eventually affect accreditation.
That’s what the Florida government wants. More specifically, the GOP wants to end accreditation.
And education.
Educated people tend to become skeptics. Skeptics tend to see through the religious bullshit, and there goes their power
Can we just take the Florida out of Florida
This is the silver lining of climate change.
No but we can wall it off and make them pay for it,
Apparently my free article limit was 0
Perhaps this will help. (Tool to get around paywall.)
Use archive.is. The 12 ft. ladder dev sold out to the NYT.
Gee, it’s almost as if when you have such a massive shift from the DSM-IV to the DSM-V you cause a rift. Who’d a thunk.
Florida will not allow public school students to take Advanced Placement psychology because the course includes lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity, topics forbidden by the state, the College Board said Thursday.
No, it’s because of bigots that want to suppress people who aren’t exactly like them.
Geee it’s almost like science progresses and we learn new things and change our opinions based on evidence?
The DSM 5 was out when I was taking this class years ago. Don’t think that’s the problem…
The dsm-v released a decade ago, what are you talking about?
