OU Student given a zero for citing the bible in essay

BCP1928 said:

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.

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.

Click to expand...

A) I think we can stop calling it a "conspiracy" for things that have already happened in the last 3 years.

True of False:
People advocated for things like gender affirming care for minors, and used the fact that gender atypicality exists and "gender is just a stereotype" and "it'll make them happier if society just goes along with it and supports them in any decision they want to make" as the basis of their position?

If the answer to that question is "yes", then we can stop calling it a conspiracy. By that standard, it'd be like saying, sarcastically, "The MAGA conspiracy to deport a bunch of non-white immigrants" (as to downplay the concerns). We can stop calling things a slippery slope once the sled is already at the bottom of the hill.

B) There's lots of atypical aspects about people, some make sense to accommodate, others don't.

Hans Blaster said:

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.

Click to expand...

A) I'm not all that conservative

B) As I noted, the concern is what papers like that are a precursor to and what they may be hijacked for.

If a conservative researcher put out a perfectly respectable paper studying "Religious freedom", and all of the more simplistic non-controversial concepts associated with it...

Would you trust it?
Or would you have some concerns that once there was public buy-in on the benign version, they'll semantically overload "religious freedom" to mean "I want to use discriminatory practices against gay people using my religion as a justification"? (as they've done numerous times)


Like I said, had the last 10 years never happened, a social study of "boys who like to play with a doll house and girls who like to play with trucks, and how they're treated by their peers" would likely not be controversial at all.

ThatRobGuy said:

A) I'm not all that conservative

Click to expand...

You are certainly taking a conservative line on this issue, conspiracy theories and all.

ThatRobGuy said:

B) As I noted, the concern is what papers like that are a precursor to and what they may be hijacked for.

If a conservative researcher put out a perfectly respectable paper studying "Religious freedom", and all of the more simplistic non-controversial concepts associated with it...

Would you trust it?
Or would you have some concerns that once there was public buy-in on the benign version, they'll semantically overload "religious freedom" to mean "I want to use discriminatory practices against gay people using my religion as a justification"? (as they've done numerous times)


Like I said, had the last 10 years never happened, a social study of "boys who like to play with a doll house and girls who like to play with trucks, and how they're treated by their peers" would likely not be controversial at all.

Click to expand...

It's not a question whether there is controversy, it's whether or not university students should be protected from facts about the controversy. It's a fact that gender atypical kids exist and a university student should be able to deal with that in a rational and coherent fashion.

BCP1928 said:

You are certainly taking a conservative line on this issue, conspiracy theories and all.

Click to expand...

Again, not a conspiracy theory if it's already happened.

BCP1928 said:

It's not a question whether there is controversy, it's whether or not university students should be protected from facts about the controversy. It's a fact that gender atypical kids exist and a university student should be able to deal with that in a rational and coherent fashion.

Click to expand...

What happens when selectively chosen facts are used (without including important bits of outside context) as a metaphorical bludgeon against the ideological rivals?

For instance... A person could make a perfectly 100% factual statement (supported by rock solid stats and data) about "crime rates by race" that many in the campus environment would not enjoy.

If those statements ignored those important bits of outside context, people would understandably be standoffish (and likely even offended).

Would "should students be insulated from facts?!?" be considered a substantive rebuttal to the concerns?

"All I did is present real data, a university student should be able to deal with it in a rational fashion"

ThatRobGuy said:

A) I'm not all that conservative

Click to expand...

You do put in an awful lot of effort covering for some very "conservative" opinions and positions. Maybe someone could do a psychology study on people who claim not to be conservative, but work very hard not to be mistaken for holding a "liberal" position.

ThatRobGuy said:

B) As I noted, the concern is what papers like that are a precursor to and what they may be hijacked for.

Click to expand...

It is science. It's purpose is to learn thiings about reality. In this case, the psychology and behaviors surrounding popularity, teasing, and gender perception. If it is put to use it should be for improving the lives of adolescents.

Speaking of hijcking, a paper on the teasing of tomboys and non-athletic boys, etc. is being hijacked to push a hollow 'Christian persecution" narrative in a very Christian state and the specific torment of one trans person.

ThatRobGuy said:

If a conservative researcher put out a perfectly respectable paper studying "Religious freedom", and all of the more simplistic non-controversial concepts associated with it...

Would you trust it?
Or would you have some concerns that once there was public buy-in on the benign version, they'll semantically overload "religious freedom" to mean "I want to use discriminatory practices against gay people using my religion as a justification"? (as they've done numerous times)

Click to expand...

Religious freedom is not a subject for psychology so it would not be used in a psychology class. It isn't a scientific topic at all. I'm not interested in your hypotheticals either.

ThatRobGuy said:

Like I said, had the last 10 years never happened, a social study of "boys who like to play with a doll house and girls who like to play with trucks, and how they're treated by their peers" would likely not be controversial at all.

Click to expand...

The "last 10 years" don't change the findings of the study.

ThatRobGuy said:

Again, not a conspiracy theory if it's already happened.

Click to expand...

What conspiracy?

ThatRobGuy said:

What happens when selectively chosen facts are used (without including important bits of outside context) as a metaphorical bludgeon against the ideological rivals?

For instance... A person could make a perfectly 100% factual statement (supported by rock solid stats and data) about "crime rates by race" that many in the campus environment would not enjoy.

If those statements ignored those important bits of outside context, people would understandably be standoffish (and likely even offended).

Would "should students be insulated from facts?!?" be considered a substantive rebuttal to the concerns?

"All I did is present real data, a university student should be able to deal with it in a rational fashion"

Click to expand...

Evidently you feel quite strongly about this. But I don't know why. You seem to feel that a even a discussion of gender typicality without reference to LGBT represents some kind of grooming. But you're going to have to tell us what, exactly, you are afraid of. Your analogies aren't helping.