OU Student given a zero for citing the bible in essay

[ThatRobGuy]

Not sure where you pulled that definition from.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No. Similarly to "theory," just because a word has a certain meaning in contemporary lay discourse, that does not erase its meaning in an academic context.

That ties into what I stated in on of my replies. The semantic overload word game.

The academic meaning is leveraged on the defense
The contemporary lay discourse is leveraged on the offense


Inverse Example:
"Florida Republican Legislators propose Religious Freedom bill"

Democratic opponent: "I don't support that, because that's just code for wanting the right to discriminate against people and avoid legal consequences for doing so"

Republican defender: "Why are you opposing this? Religious Freedom just means the ability to practice your religion without the government telling you that you can't, why are you against that?"

I tire of following your Gish Gallop around. Pick a topic and stick to it.

I've been touching on the same 2 or 3 themes the entire time. Calling is "gish gallop" isn't a valid rebuttal.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Wouldn't have I needed to look at it to know that they constructed it around surveying a few dozen Jr. High kids?

That's in the abstract. Which is the only part of the article not behind the Wiley paywall.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So boys get teased if they're swishy or timid about rough sports and girls get teased if they're tomboys or too butch. Even if they're straight. The study, as far as I can see, does not dwell on the causes of their atypicality.

Be sure and look under your bed tonight before you go to sleep--the LGBT agenda might be hiding there.

Cute... but no

That's not the extent of the implications involved in the material featured in the assignment.


Based on the rigorous academic findings of that paper... if I were to, for instance, say that the gender norms that have emerged in almost every successful society in recorded history aren't merely "stereotypes", but rather, the organic survival-oriented evolutionary-driven pattern recognition by the human race...and the people objecting to that organic pattern recognition are too laser focused on "smash the patriarchy" stuff... I'm basically complicit in suicidal ideation and depression in 8th graders.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's in the abstract. Which is the only part of the article not behind the Wiley paywall.

The full piece is here:

https://kfor.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2025/12/jewell-brown-2014.pdf

 

[BCP1928]

Based on the rigorous academic findings of that paper... if I were to, for instance, say that the gender norms that have emerged in almost every successful society in recorded history aren't merely "stereotypes", but rather, the organic survival-oriented evolutionary-driven pattern recognition by the human race..

Which is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about how those values are socialized and how strictly they are enforced. There is always some gender atypicality in all human societies. How it is handled, how "horrifying" it is to other varies quite a bit.

.and the people objecting to that organic pattern recognition are too laser focused on "smash the patriarchy" stuff... I'm basically complicit in suicidal ideation and depression in 8th graders.

I'm sorry you are so bitter about this. How much conformity do you expect there to be?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

That ties into what I stated in on of my replies. The semantic overload word game.

The academic meaning is leveraged on the defense
The contemporary lay discourse is leveraged on the offense

The academic definition is the dictionary definition. The fact that it's changed a bit in common discourse over time to have negative connotations isn't relevant - you can read the paper and see that the word is not used in a negative manner.

Inverse Example:
"Florida Republican Legislators propose Religious Freedom bill"

Democratic opponent: "I don't support that, because that's just code for wanting the right to discriminate against people and avoid legal consequences for doing so"

Republican defender: "Why are you opposing this? Religious Freedom just means the ability to practice your religion without the government telling you that you can't, why are you against that?"

Not even close to the same thing.

I've been touching on the same 2 or 3 themes the entire time. Calling is "gish gallop" isn't a valid rebuttal.

See above. We're currently arguing about the meaning of the word "stereotype". Not sure what that has to do with anything you've been talking about before.

It's the old song and dance where someone responds to your entire argument, then you pick one thing they said that has only a peripheral relationship to the topic and make that the new topic of discussion. In this case, the meaning of the word "stereotype" had basically nothing to do with my point aside from illustrating that Fulnecky did not understand the paper.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Which is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about how those values are socialized and how strictly they are enforced. There is always some gender atypicality in all human societies. How it is handled, how "horrifying" it is to other varies quite a bit.

Wouldn't that be a symptom of how radical the "we need to just scrap everything we know about gender roles" has gotten and the reaction to said proposal?

I suspect that "some boys like to play with a doll house, and some girls like to play with trucks" wouldn't be a hot topic absent the social catalysts that have become ubiquitous over the past 5-10 years.

If that fact wasn't leveraged as a segue into much more sweeping radical shifts, I suspect this may not be much of an issue.

I'm sorry you are so bitter about this. How much conformity do you expect there to be?

It's not about some sort of conformity mandate.

It's about rejecting the notion that "change, for change's sake" is somehow inherently noble or good, absent any other rationale or reasoning.

"This is the way my grandpa would have wanted things done...therefore, I need to fight to do the opposite" isn't good stand-alone reasoning.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The academic definition is the dictionary definition. The fact that it's changed a bit in common discourse over time to have negative connotations isn't relevant - you can read the paper and see that the word is not used in a negative manner.

Not even close to the same thing.

See above. We're currently arguing about the meaning of the word "stereotype". Not sure what that has to do with anything you've been talking about before.

It's the old song and dance where someone responds to your entire argument, then you pick one thing they said that has only a peripheral relationship to the topic and make that the new topic of discussion. In this case, the meaning of the word "stereotype" had basically nothing to do with my point aside from illustrating that Fulnecky did not understand the paper.

"Stereotypes" was literally mentioned in the OP. (and this tread wasn't started by me)

 

[Hans Blaster]

The full piece is here:

https://kfor.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2025/12/jewell-brown-2014.pdf

OK. (Though I'm not sure Wiley would appreciate a local TV station violating their copywrite like that.)

I have read through it and as the reporting and abstract suggested, this is a manufactured outrage over a perfectly normal psychology research paper. The student subjects rated themselves and their peers on how typical (masculine for boys feminine for girls) they were and how popular/likeable they were.

Despite the panicky response by the RW culture warriors, it isn't about "gender identity."

 

[ThatRobGuy]

OK. (Though I'm not sure Wiley would appreciate a local TV station violating their copywrite like that.)

I have read through it and as the reporting and abstract suggested, this is a manufactured outrage over a perfectly normal psychology research paper. The student subjects rated themselves and their peers on how typical (masculine for boys feminine for girls) they were and how popular/likeable they were.

Despite the panicky response by the RW culture warriors, it isn't about "gender identity."

As I replied to the other user

I suspect that "some boys like to play with a doll house, and some girls like to play with trucks" wouldn't be a hot topic absent the social catalysts that have become ubiquitous over the past 5-10 years.

If that fact wasn't leveraged as a segue into much more sweeping radical shifts, I suspect this may not be much of an issue.

Concession to the premise has often been the precursor to much more radical proposals.

It's the same reason why a more progressive person may bristle at someone with an established conservative bias saying "secure borders".

It's not because they inherently reject "secure borders" by the strict definition of the words. It's more of a "oh boy, we've seen this routine before, if I concede to their premise, then they'll just use it against me when I argue against the much more extreme things they actually want to do"


"We need to rethink the gender norms" has almost always been the lead-in to other facets of modern gender ideology.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Which is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about how those values are socialized and how strictly they are enforced. There is always some gender atypicality in all human societies. How it is handled, how "horrifying" it is to other varies quite a bit.

I think perhaps one of the more glaring issues with this assignment (as it delves into the bullying, popularity, impact on mental health, etc. aspects of this topic)

The research paper they had the students review was from 2014. (students were surveyed in 2013)

With how much has changed in regards to that subject in the last 11-12 years, it seems like that paper may no longer even be an accurate reflection of how atypical gender expression would even impact those areas of an adolescent's life, fair to say?

I would go as far as saying that in many parts of the country, there's become a certain "coolness" associated with atypical expression, and that Kentucky circa 2013 is likely not reflective of the current environment.

 

[BCP1928]

As I replied to the other user

I suspect that "some boys like to play with a doll house, and some girls like to play with trucks" wouldn't be a hot topic absent the social catalysts that have become ubiquitous over the past 5-10 years.

If that fact wasn't leveraged as a segue into much more sweeping radical shifts, I suspect this may not be much of an issue.

Concession to the premise has often been the precursor to much more radical proposals.

It's the same reason why a more progressive person may bristle at someone with an established conservative bias saying "secure borders".

It's not because they inherently reject "secure borders" by the strict definition of the words. It's more of a "oh boy, we've seen this routine before, if I concede to their premise, then they'll just use it against me when I argue against the much more extreme things they actually want to do"

Not if they know anything about argumentation and logic.

"We need to rethink the gender norms" has almost always been the lead-in to other facets of modern gender ideology.

We've been rethinking them on a continuous basis as long as I've been alive. When I was a kid in school seventy years ago I was not femmie, just a bookish sort of nerd but still I was bullied for it. By some of my more "masculine" classmates but most unpleasant of all by PE coaches on the theory that "it would make a man of me." Fortunately, coaches don't give wedgies in the locker room any more, something we can thank what you call "modern gender ideology" for. Nowadays a nerd (or a gay or a trans) is only being bullied by one of his peers, (except in Christian schools, I imagine) which can usually be settled with a bloody nose. Hazing goes on in all schools, of course, and a certain amount of it is just part of normal socialization. Only Christians make it overtly sexual in nature and deem it virtue.

 

[BCP1928]

I think perhaps one of the more glaring issues with this assignment (as it delves into the bullying, popularity, impact on mental health, etc. aspects of this topic)

The research paper they had the students review was from 2014. (students were surveyed in 2013)

With how much has changed in regards to that subject in the last 11-12 years, it seems like that paper may no longer even be an accurate reflection of how atypical gender expression would even impact those areas of an adolescent's life, fair to say?

I would go as far as saying that in many parts of the country, there's become a certain "coolness" associated with atypical expression, and that Kentucky circa 2013 is likely not reflective of the current environment.

It doesn't really matter, as the purpose of the assignment was to teach how to evaluate such studies in general. It was not chosen to reflect current events or as part of a global LGBT conspiracy to deprive you of your manhood.

 

[durangodawood]

I think perhaps one of the more glaring issues with this assignment (as it delves into the bullying, popularity, impact on mental health, etc. aspects of this topic)

The research paper they had the students review was from 2014. (students were surveyed in 2013)

With how much has changed in regards to that subject in the last 11-12 years, it seems like that paper may no longer even be an accurate reflection of how atypical gender expression would even impact those areas of an adolescent's life, fair to say?

I would go as far as saying that in many parts of the country, there's become a certain "coolness" associated with atypical expression, and that Kentucky circa 2013 is likely not reflective of the current environment.

That might have been an interesting angle for the student to take rather than completely ignoring the assignment (and then shopping around her failure for culture war sympathies).

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It doesn't really matter, as the purpose of the assignment was to teach how to evaluate such studies in general. It was not chosen to reflect current events or as part of a global LGBT conspiracy to deprive you of your manhood.

So the particular paper they "just so happened to pick" for the students to review was one that discussed, in detail, "the bullying of people who present an atypical gender expression, how that's created by traditional gender norms being instilled in the home during early childhood, and how it creates depression and anxiety"?

Seems like an oddly specific choice if the point of the exercise is just to evaluate psychology studies "in general".

If a pro-gun professor gave an assignment of:
"We're going to learn how to properly evaluate a study...oh here's a good one I totally picked at random, it's a narrow scope study from 11 years ago that just so happens delve heavily into themes of more mass shootings happen in gun free zones"

Nobody would suggest that was just a happy coincidence.

 

[BCP1928]

So the particular paper they "just so happened to pick" for the students to review was one that discussed, in detail, "the bullying of people who present an atypical gender expression, how that's created by traditional gender norms being instilled in the home during early childhood, and how it creates depression and anxiety"?

It's sure to create depression and anxiety if you are failing to live up to your parent's expectations and are bullied for it at school as well.

Seems like an oddly specific choice if the point of the exercise is just to evaluate psychology studies "in general".

If a pro-gun professor gave an assignment of:
"We're going to learn how to properly evaluate a study...oh here's a good one I totally picked at random, it's a narrow scope study from 11 years ago that just so happens delve heavily into themes of more mass shootings happen in gun free zones"

Nobody would suggest that was just a happy coincidence.

At least you are beginning to acknowledge that gender atypicality exists. Remember that even a sociology TA who happens to be trans has other things on his agenda besides the LGBT conspiracy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As I replied to the other user

I suspect that "some boys like to play with a doll house, and some girls like to play with trucks" wouldn't be a hot topic absent the social catalysts that have become ubiquitous over the past 5-10 years.

If that fact wasn't leveraged as a segue into much more sweeping radical shifts, I suspect this may not be much of an issue.

Concession to the premise has often been the precursor to much more radical proposals.

It's the same reason why a more progressive person may bristle at someone with an established conservative bias saying "secure borders".

It's not because they inherently reject "secure borders" by the strict definition of the words. It's more of a "oh boy, we've seen this routine before, if I concede to their premise, then they'll just use it against me when I argue against the much more extreme things they actually want to do"


"We need to rethink the gender norms" has almost always been the lead-in to other facets of modern gender ideology.

You are arguing with a paper of your own imagination. This is not connected to the reality of the paper in the assignment. It really makes me doubt the sincerity or connection to reality of the cultural conservative movement.

 

[Hans Blaster]

At least you are beginning to acknowledge that gender atypicality exists. Remember that even a sociology TA who happens to be trans has other things on his agenda besides the LGBT conspiracy.

The TA in question was with the OU psychology department. Presumably a Ph.D. student given they had a published paper (with the department chair).

 

[BCP1928]

The TA in question was with the OU psychology department. Presumably a Ph.D. student given they had a published paper (with the department chair).

I doubt if psychology department TAs have any more spare time than sociology department TAs to participate in a global conspiracy to steal Rob's manhood.