| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) 01:14 - Feb 8 with 17397 views | SWBlue22 |
|  | | |  |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 21:32 - Feb 8 with 1752 views | WeWereZombies |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 17:57 - Feb 8 by lowhouseblue |
you say: the discussion they want people to engage in is not about gender issues.
the science museum says: "Lego bricks are often described in a gendered way"
perhaps reading what you're promoting would be a start?
"we refer to them as male and female is a reflection of heteronormativity" - no it's not, it's a reflection of the biology of reproduction. components have always been refereed to as male and female as a simple biological analogy that in a simpler age everyone could understand. it was not intended to be a sex manual or to express any moral stance. anyone who takes their understanding of the mechanics and possibilities of sex from the names attached to plumbing parts or children's toys needs help. males can indeed insert things into males and and females into females as they so chose - and discussion of the biology of reproduction, and analogies to the biology of reproduction contained within our language, have no implication for that whatsoever.
The science museum says: "Lego bricks are often described in a gendered way. The top of the brick with sticking out pins is male, the bottom of the brick with holes to receive the pins is female, and the process of the two sides being put together is called mating." but things sticking out and things "with holes to receive" has absolutely nothing to do with gender - it is all to do with biology. confusing the two here seems to be intentional. |
So if Lego bricks have male bits on top and female bits underneath that makes them hermaphrodites... |  |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 21:39 - Feb 8 with 1715 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 20:06 - Feb 8 by Herbivore |
I did read it, the Science Museum also said this: "This is an example of applying heteronormative language to topics unrelated to gender, sex and reproduction". So yeah, I think I understand the point and I think I understand it a lot better than you in all honesty. You do know that Lego bricks aren't made biologically through a mummy and daddy Lego brick having sex, right? |
"also said". you know what also means don't you? |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 21:49 - Feb 8 with 1675 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 18:32 - Feb 8 by NedPlimpton |
Sorry, but I don't think they've got anything muddled
By definition a heteronormative relationship is male bits going into female bits, and that's the only way these bits can go together. Lego bricks are exactly that, right?
You can't put male bits with male bits in Lego. They just won't go, no matter how hard you force it!
No, I don't think anyone believes it's done to express a hidden view on sexuality or gender. As someone else has mentioned, it shows how a heteronormative view of the world has influenced language, dating back decades and probably long before that. They're not saying it's wrong or deliberate, right? It just is what it is. But in a non heteronormative view of the world the male Lego bricks would be all over those other male bricks and they'd fit just as well as the lady bricks do |
"By definition a heteronormative relationship is male bits going into female bits". no it's not heteronormative, male bits going into female bits is the biology of reproduction.
"it shows how a heteronormative view of the world has influenced language". nonsense. 'male' and 'female' has been used to describe interconnecting parts for centuries. long before the term 'heteronormative' was invented or any one knew what gender was. the reading of 'male' and 'female' in this context (interconnecting parts) as anything other than biological is entirely modern and recently made up. to pretend that the historical naming of interconnecting parts carries any moral message or is intended as instruction as to how people should have sex is nonsense of the highest possible order. it's people just inventing something that they can then call out. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 21:52 - Feb 8 with 1664 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 21:32 - Feb 8 by WeWereZombies |
So if Lego bricks have male bits on top and female bits underneath that makes them hermaphrodites... |
i'm not the one reading hidden intent onto the naming of lego bricks. you need to take up such technical conundrums with the science museum. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 21:59 - Feb 8 with 1625 views | NedPlimpton |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 21:49 - Feb 8 by lowhouseblue |
"By definition a heteronormative relationship is male bits going into female bits". no it's not heteronormative, male bits going into female bits is the biology of reproduction.
"it shows how a heteronormative view of the world has influenced language". nonsense. 'male' and 'female' has been used to describe interconnecting parts for centuries. long before the term 'heteronormative' was invented or any one knew what gender was. the reading of 'male' and 'female' in this context (interconnecting parts) as anything other than biological is entirely modern and recently made up. to pretend that the historical naming of interconnecting parts carries any moral message or is intended as instruction as to how people should have sex is nonsense of the highest possible order. it's people just inventing something that they can then call out. |
So what is the definition of heteronormative if it's not that then?
Also just because a word was invented later than the thing it describes, it doesn't make it nonsense. Cavemen getting jiggy with cave ladies is still heteronormative |  | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 22:24 - Feb 8 with 1570 views | CoachRob |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 21:49 - Feb 8 by lowhouseblue |
"By definition a heteronormative relationship is male bits going into female bits". no it's not heteronormative, male bits going into female bits is the biology of reproduction.
"it shows how a heteronormative view of the world has influenced language". nonsense. 'male' and 'female' has been used to describe interconnecting parts for centuries. long before the term 'heteronormative' was invented or any one knew what gender was. the reading of 'male' and 'female' in this context (interconnecting parts) as anything other than biological is entirely modern and recently made up. to pretend that the historical naming of interconnecting parts carries any moral message or is intended as instruction as to how people should have sex is nonsense of the highest possible order. it's people just inventing something that they can then call out. |
You clearly don't know this otherwise you would have referenced it, but Patrick West (the climate change denier at The Spectator) has plagiarised your thoughts and written the exact same thing. The construction of the argument is identical.
I can understand why you wouldn't want to reference The Spectator given it's strong anti-science position on climate change, but it seems a bizarre coincidence that this crank has written the same as you. Do you get a free set of crayons with The Spectator these days?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/lego-isnt-homophobic/
Since you have suddenly become a natural sciences scholar, here is a piece by Toby Young on climate change that you might find similar to your own thinking. Why do people who take a profoundly anti-science position keep referencing science?
*It's total drivel in case anyone was wondering.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ive-found-the-cure-for-climate-anxiety/ |  | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 22:33 - Feb 8 with 1538 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 22:24 - Feb 8 by CoachRob |
You clearly don't know this otherwise you would have referenced it, but Patrick West (the climate change denier at The Spectator) has plagiarised your thoughts and written the exact same thing. The construction of the argument is identical.
I can understand why you wouldn't want to reference The Spectator given it's strong anti-science position on climate change, but it seems a bizarre coincidence that this crank has written the same as you. Do you get a free set of crayons with The Spectator these days?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/lego-isnt-homophobic/
Since you have suddenly become a natural sciences scholar, here is a piece by Toby Young on climate change that you might find similar to your own thinking. Why do people who take a profoundly anti-science position keep referencing science?
*It's total drivel in case anyone was wondering.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ive-found-the-cure-for-climate-anxiety/ |
haven't read anything in the spectator about this. i have no knowledge of any such article. never heard of patrick west. don't subscribe to the spectator - don't very often visit the website. you could try engaging with what has been posted rather than trying to damn by (bogus) association. you could even engage with patrick west's argument if that's easier. and i make no claim to be a natural scientist - the but a basic understanding of what male and female mean in a biological context is not complex. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 22:53 - Feb 8 with 1461 views | vapour_trail |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 18:22 - Feb 8 by lowhouseblue |
my reading skills are good thanks. again, as you have done before, you are falling back on patronising abuse. try arguing better rather than belittling people. |
Patronising abuse??
Two minutes before you wrote this post, you called him thick in your previous post. You’d be funny if you weren’t so damaging.
Part of the problem. |  |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 22:58 - Feb 8 with 1422 views | redrickstuhaart |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 21:52 - Feb 8 by lowhouseblue |
i'm not the one reading hidden intent onto the naming of lego bricks. you need to take up such technical conundrums with the science museum. |
For the umpteenth time. There is no one reading hidden intent into the naming of lego bricks. This is the point I have been making repeatedly... [Post edited 8 Feb 23:01]
|  | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 22:59 - Feb 8 with 1421 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 22:53 - Feb 8 by vapour_trail |
Patronising abuse??
Two minutes before you wrote this post, you called him thick in your previous post. You’d be funny if you weren’t so damaging.
Part of the problem. |
thick was a reference to the science museum's decision to focus on lego bricks. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:00 - Feb 8 with 1406 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 22:58 - Feb 8 by redrickstuhaart |
For the umpteenth time. There is no one reading hidden intent into the naming of lego bricks. This is the point I have been making repeatedly... [Post edited 8 Feb 23:01]
|
apart from the science museum. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:08 - Feb 8 with 1339 views | redrickstuhaart |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:00 - Feb 8 by lowhouseblue |
apart from the science museum. |
No!!! Thats not what they are saying. Which is what you have kept missing despite being taken through it carefulyl and getting upset when I invited you to read what was said more carefully!
I give up. | | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:12 - Feb 8 with 1310 views | Herbivore |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:00 - Feb 8 by lowhouseblue |
apart from the science museum. |
That's a pretty wilful misrepresentation, as your posts have been throughout this thread. Pretty shameful stuff. |  |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:14 - Feb 8 with 1296 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:08 - Feb 8 by redrickstuhaart |
No!!! Thats not what they are saying. Which is what you have kept missing despite being taken through it carefulyl and getting upset when I invited you to read what was said more carefully!
I give up. |
the science museum says: “Lego bricks are often described in a gendered way." and “This is an example of applying heteronormative language ... It illustrates how heteronormativity ... shapes the way we speak about science, technology, and the world in general.”
and you're saying that the science museum isn't reading hidden intent into the naming of lego bricks? hmmmm. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:15 - Feb 8 with 1286 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:12 - Feb 8 by Herbivore |
That's a pretty wilful misrepresentation, as your posts have been throughout this thread. Pretty shameful stuff. |
seriously read what the science museum has said. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:17 - Feb 8 with 1250 views | Kievthegreat |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:08 - Feb 8 by redrickstuhaart |
No!!! Thats not what they are saying. Which is what you have kept missing despite being taken through it carefulyl and getting upset when I invited you to read what was said more carefully!
I give up. |
Apologies for the accidental downvote! |  | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:19 - Feb 8 with 1226 views | redrickstuhaart |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:14 - Feb 8 by lowhouseblue |
the science museum says: “Lego bricks are often described in a gendered way." and “This is an example of applying heteronormative language ... It illustrates how heteronormativity ... shapes the way we speak about science, technology, and the world in general.”
and you're saying that the science museum isn't reading hidden intent into the naming of lego bricks? hmmmm. |
Read it again. Carefully. And tell us where is suggests an "intent".
As I said- no great conspiracy here. | | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:26 - Feb 8 with 1183 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:19 - Feb 8 by redrickstuhaart |
Read it again. Carefully. And tell us where is suggests an "intent".
As I said- no great conspiracy here. |
"described in a gendered way"
"applying heteronormative language"
both 'described' and 'applying' imply active choice and therefore suggest intent.
i've explained repeatedly why 'male' and 'female' are used in the context of connectors - no sane person intends those terms to be gendered of intends to apply them as heteronormative language. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:35 - Feb 8 with 1133 views | redrickstuhaart |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:26 - Feb 8 by lowhouseblue |
"described in a gendered way"
"applying heteronormative language"
both 'described' and 'applying' imply active choice and therefore suggest intent.
i've explained repeatedly why 'male' and 'female' are used in the context of connectors - no sane person intends those terms to be gendered of intends to apply them as heteronormative language. |
NO!!!! They do not suggest intent.
You have "repeatedly explained" someone everyone agrees with, because its easier to pretend that its a woke conspiracy than to engage with the actual words. | | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:36 - Feb 8 with 1129 views | Herbivore |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:15 - Feb 8 by lowhouseblue |
seriously read what the science museum has said. |
I have. And I've understood it too. Maybe you could try the latter, assuming you've done the former. | |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:38 - Feb 8 with 1115 views | Herbivore |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:14 - Feb 8 by lowhouseblue |
the science museum says: “Lego bricks are often described in a gendered way." and “This is an example of applying heteronormative language ... It illustrates how heteronormativity ... shapes the way we speak about science, technology, and the world in general.”
and you're saying that the science museum isn't reading hidden intent into the naming of lego bricks? hmmmm. |
Literally nothing in there about intent, hidden or otherwise. It's about the impact of language, not the intent. I can see now why you've got this so horribly, horribly wrong. | |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:41 - Feb 8 with 1108 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:35 - Feb 8 by redrickstuhaart |
NO!!!! They do not suggest intent.
You have "repeatedly explained" someone everyone agrees with, because its easier to pretend that its a woke conspiracy than to engage with the actual words. |
YES!! they do suggest intent. who is doing the describing and the applying? and if those people don't in fact intend the terms to be gendered or heteronormative then on what basis can you claim they are?
again - you're the only one to have mentioned a woke conspiracy - please don't try to link me to that nonsense. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:45 - Feb 8 with 1080 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:38 - Feb 8 by Herbivore |
Literally nothing in there about intent, hidden or otherwise. It's about the impact of language, not the intent. I can see now why you've got this so horribly, horribly wrong. |
the language doesn't have that impact outside of the imagination of the science museum - everyone knows that in the context of connectors 'male' and 'female' is a traditional analogy to biological reproduction. no one really thinks that the naming of lego bricks is any statement about sexuality or gender. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:47 - Feb 8 with 1064 views | Herbivore |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 23:45 - Feb 8 by lowhouseblue |
the language doesn't have that impact outside of the imagination of the science museum - everyone knows that in the context of connectors 'male' and 'female' is a traditional analogy to biological reproduction. no one really thinks that the naming of lego bricks is any statement about sexuality or gender. |
It's okay to admit you just don't get it. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
