| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) 01:14 - Feb 8 with 16984 views | SWBlue22 |
|  | | |  |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 14:45 - Feb 8 with 1947 views | WeWereZombies |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 14:30 - Feb 8 by lowhouseblue |
"innocent everyday language that helps ground things as "normal""
biology is a perfectly 'normal' scientific reality. throughout biology it is common for male reproductive organs to stick out externally and female reproductive organs to be internal and accessed for reproduction via an opening. what could possibly be wrong with language which grounds that biological reality as "normal"? biological sex is normal.
what the science museum is doing is pretending that a long established biological analogy which is grounded in our language is instead saying something about gender, that is socially constructed categories which didn't even exist in common use when people started talking about connecting mechanical parts as 'male' and 'female'. whatever point they may be trying to make involves them knowingly distorting the very etymology of our language. |
I don't to think you need to bring reproduction into this debate, the make and female aspect of plumbing and similar terminology is to do with coupling, i.e. fitting components together in a way that they hold, do not leak and make an effective channel etc. So whilst I agree that there is a normality in using male and female as terms for the protruding and accepting aspects it doesn't have to stop us thinking about how it affirms gender roles is pushed (sic) to extremes. |  |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 14:57 - Feb 8 with 1919 views | J2BLUE |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 14:44 - Feb 8 by redrickstuhaart |
It can also mean sensible empathetic discussion and support, rather than opposition which is widely demontrated to lead to serious issues and suicidal ideation. |
Is there any minimum age? What happens if one parent supports it and one opposes it?
Genuine questions. I have no idea. |  |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 14:59 - Feb 8 with 1901 views | redrickstuhaart |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 14:57 - Feb 8 by J2BLUE |
Is there any minimum age? What happens if one parent supports it and one opposes it?
Genuine questions. I have no idea. |
Then you have all sorts of problems to discuss.
What we do know is that children who express serious concerns about gender identity, who receive a negative reaction from parents, are much more likely to end up a serious mess or dead. |  | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:10 - Feb 8 with 1847 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 14:45 - Feb 8 by WeWereZombies |
I don't to think you need to bring reproduction into this debate, the make and female aspect of plumbing and similar terminology is to do with coupling, i.e. fitting components together in a way that they hold, do not leak and make an effective channel etc. So whilst I agree that there is a normality in using male and female as terms for the protruding and accepting aspects it doesn't have to stop us thinking about how it affirms gender roles is pushed (sic) to extremes. |
again, components are called male and female in an analogy to biological sex. the terminology has nothing to do with gender. one part is inserted into the other part - is a biological metaphor. pretending that terminology has anything to do with gender is disingenuous and is part of an attempt to distort language to pretend that biological realities don't matter. it has nothing at all to do with gender roles - gender is not the same as biological sense. jeez. |  |
| 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 15:16 - Feb 8 with 1822 views | redrickstuhaart |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:10 - Feb 8 by lowhouseblue |
again, components are called male and female in an analogy to biological sex. the terminology has nothing to do with gender. one part is inserted into the other part - is a biological metaphor. pretending that terminology has anything to do with gender is disingenuous and is part of an attempt to distort language to pretend that biological realities don't matter. it has nothing at all to do with gender roles - gender is not the same as biological sense. jeez. |
Again. You are missing the point. Everyone understands the metaphor, and no one is saying its a massive problem or ought to change. No one is trying to distort language. Stop inventing motives for things that arent there. | | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:40 - Feb 8 with 1760 views | Herbivore |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:10 - Feb 8 by lowhouseblue |
again, components are called male and female in an analogy to biological sex. the terminology has nothing to do with gender. one part is inserted into the other part - is a biological metaphor. pretending that terminology has anything to do with gender is disingenuous and is part of an attempt to distort language to pretend that biological realities don't matter. it has nothing at all to do with gender roles - gender is not the same as biological sense. jeez. |
The discussion they want people to engage in at the Science Museum is about heteronormativity, not about gender issues, so I think you're missing the point. Males can insert things into males and females can insert things into females, that we refer to them as male and female is a reflection of heteronormativity. |  |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 17:57 - Feb 8 with 1693 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:40 - Feb 8 by Herbivore |
The discussion they want people to engage in at the Science Museum is about heteronormativity, not about gender issues, so I think you're missing the point. Males can insert things into males and females can insert things into females, that we refer to them as male and female is a reflection of heteronormativity. |
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. | |
| 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 18:04 - Feb 8 with 1659 views | redrickstuhaart |
| 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. |
Stop and read what people have explained to you rather than looking for things to pick apart. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 18:05 - Feb 8 with 1656 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 15:16 - Feb 8 by redrickstuhaart |
Again. You are missing the point. Everyone understands the metaphor, and no one is saying its a massive problem or ought to change. No one is trying to distort language. Stop inventing motives for things that arent there. |
no you're missing the point. the people who are inventing things are the science museum. the language they have picked on doesn't refer to gender and doesn't express any view on the possibilities for people's sex lives. it's a narrow analogy reflecting the biology of reproduction. or do you think that other items in your home are also trying to indoctrinate you about how sex should be done? keys and locks? plugs and sockets? cos one bit always going into another bit is all a bit heteronormative according to 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 18:09 - Feb 8 with 1616 views | redrickstuhaart |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 18:05 - Feb 8 by lowhouseblue |
no you're missing the point. the people who are inventing things are the science museum. the language they have picked on doesn't refer to gender and doesn't express any view on the possibilities for people's sex lives. it's a narrow analogy reflecting the biology of reproduction. or do you think that other items in your home are also trying to indoctrinate you about how sex should be done? keys and locks? plugs and sockets? cos one bit always going into another bit is all a bit heteronormative according to the science museum.. |
No. You are picking arguments about buzzwords rather than seeing the point that people are making to you.
You think there is some great woke conspiracy. In reality you are just being invited to notice and perhaps think about how it is for people who are different.
Of course- its not actually you who are so invited, now I think about it. Its people who actively choose to visit a display explicitly about LGBTQ perspectives. [Post edited 8 Feb 18:11]
| | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 18:20 - Feb 8 with 1565 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 18:09 - Feb 8 by redrickstuhaart |
No. You are picking arguments about buzzwords rather than seeing the point that people are making to you.
You think there is some great woke conspiracy. In reality you are just being invited to notice and perhaps think about how it is for people who are different.
Of course- its not actually you who are so invited, now I think about it. Its people who actively choose to visit a display explicitly about LGBTQ perspectives. [Post edited 8 Feb 18:11]
|
i haven't mentioned woke. i haven't mentioned conspiracy. please don't suggest i believe things which i don't - it's something you have done before. i think there are good occasions on which to make people think about how things impact different people in different ways. but this isn't a good example - it is really pretty thick and muddles concepts such as sex and gender. it is things like this which are done badly and then make a mockery of more genuine and thought through attempts to challenge preconceptions. no one seriously believes that the description of lego bricks or plumbing parts is done to express some hidden view on sexuality or gender. people just laugh at this sort of nonsense and at those who push it. | |
| 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 18:22 - Feb 8 with 1535 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 18:04 - Feb 8 by redrickstuhaart |
Stop and read what people have explained to you rather than looking for things to pick apart. |
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. | |
| 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 18:32 - Feb 8 with 1488 views | NedPlimpton |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 18:20 - Feb 8 by lowhouseblue |
i haven't mentioned woke. i haven't mentioned conspiracy. please don't suggest i believe things which i don't - it's something you have done before. i think there are good occasions on which to make people think about how things impact different people in different ways. but this isn't a good example - it is really pretty thick and muddles concepts such as sex and gender. it is things like this which are done badly and then make a mockery of more genuine and thought through attempts to challenge preconceptions. no one seriously believes that the description of lego bricks or plumbing parts is done to express some hidden view on sexuality or gender. people just laugh at this sort of nonsense and at those who push it. |
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 |  | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 18:37 - Feb 8 with 1461 views | redrickstuhaart |
| 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. |
Its funny. People only resort to what you describe as patronising abuse when you ignore what is written.
It wasnt intended that way- I was serious. You are so keen to argue the point you have in your head, that you are not seeing the point made. | | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 18:41 - Feb 8 with 1443 views | J2BLUE |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 18:37 - Feb 8 by redrickstuhaart |
Its funny. People only resort to what you describe as patronising abuse when you ignore what is written.
It wasnt intended that way- I was serious. You are so keen to argue the point you have in your head, that you are not seeing the point made. |
You keep repeating the same point while denying that is what you mean.
Keep repeating that no one is saying it but we're being 'invited' to consider it is just odd. | |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 18:51 - Feb 8 with 1383 views | redrickstuhaart |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 18:41 - Feb 8 by J2BLUE |
You keep repeating the same point while denying that is what you mean.
Keep repeating that no one is saying it but we're being 'invited' to consider it is just odd. |
I repeat the same point, but Lowhouse then makes a different one in response. From which I deduce he has missed the point or is distracting from it by arguing over semantics.
Your comment is slippery too. You suggest that my comments about things noone is saying, are on the same points as my comments that this particular display (aimed explicitly at people interested in an LGBTQ point of view....) is inviting thought about something. They are totally different and in no way contradictory despite your attempt to insinuate that they are. [Post edited 8 Feb 18:52]
| | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 20:06 - Feb 8 with 1251 views | Herbivore |
| 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. |
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? | |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 20:09 - Feb 8 with 1235 views | NedPlimpton |
| 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? |
Obviously the Lego stork brings the baby Lego bricks | | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 20:13 - Feb 8 with 1210 views | J2BLUE |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 18:51 - Feb 8 by redrickstuhaart |
I repeat the same point, but Lowhouse then makes a different one in response. From which I deduce he has missed the point or is distracting from it by arguing over semantics.
Your comment is slippery too. You suggest that my comments about things noone is saying, are on the same points as my comments that this particular display (aimed explicitly at people interested in an LGBTQ point of view....) is inviting thought about something. They are totally different and in no way contradictory despite your attempt to insinuate that they are. [Post edited 8 Feb 18:52]
|
I think he's replying to your points perfectly clearly. | |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 20:40 - Feb 8 with 1143 views | Fenland_Blue |
The prices are offensive, what a rip off. |  |
| Up and mainly down, following Town since 88 |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 20:47 - Feb 8 with 1119 views | Swansea_Blue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 14:45 - Feb 8 by WeWereZombies |
I don't to think you need to bring reproduction into this debate, the make and female aspect of plumbing and similar terminology is to do with coupling, i.e. fitting components together in a way that they hold, do not leak and make an effective channel etc. So whilst I agree that there is a normality in using male and female as terms for the protruding and accepting aspects it doesn't have to stop us thinking about how it affirms gender roles is pushed (sic) to extremes. |
Which seems to have been exactly the museum’s point. I despair how we’re becoming adverse to intellectual exploration in the name of culture wars. So what if we reflect on how we refer to things? It doesn’t hurt anyone. Potentially it could even stop us inadvertently hurting anyone. |  |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 20:47 - Feb 8 with 1119 views | Bigalhunter |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 20:40 - Feb 8 by Fenland_Blue |
The prices are offensive, what a rip off. |
Whenever Lego is mentioned, I’m reminded of the ‘overheard in Waitrose’ thread from years back.
‘Daddy, why doesn’t Lego have a silent ‘t’ like Merlot?’ |  |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 21:12 - Feb 8 with 1046 views | Herbivore |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 20:47 - Feb 8 by Swansea_Blue |
Which seems to have been exactly the museum’s point. I despair how we’re becoming adverse to intellectual exploration in the name of culture wars. So what if we reflect on how we refer to things? It doesn’t hurt anyone. Potentially it could even stop us inadvertently hurting anyone. |
And bonkers that some are drawing a false equivalence between a queer exhibit at the Science Museum encouraging people to consider an alternative perspective about the language we use and how it may normalise and other particular people and behaviours, and a couple of right wing rags lying about what is actually going on. Both "sides" are "baiting" apparently. | |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 21:16 - Feb 8 with 1037 views | Swansea_Blue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 14:45 - Feb 8 by WeWereZombies |
I don't to think you need to bring reproduction into this debate, the make and female aspect of plumbing and similar terminology is to do with coupling, i.e. fitting components together in a way that they hold, do not leak and make an effective channel etc. So whilst I agree that there is a normality in using male and female as terms for the protruding and accepting aspects it doesn't have to stop us thinking about how it affirms gender roles is pushed (sic) to extremes. |
It might help our understanding of the point the museum was making if we refer back to their exact words, rather than selective quotes to reinforce an incorrect view:
“This is an example of applying heteronormative language to topics unrelated to gender, sex and reproduction. It illustrates how heteronormativity (the idea that heterosexuality and the male/female gender binary are the norm and everything that falls outside is unusual) shapes the way we speak about science, technology, and the world in general.” [Post edited 8 Feb 21:39]
| |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 21:21 - Feb 8 with 1002 views | Swansea_Blue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 21:12 - Feb 8 by Herbivore |
And bonkers that some are drawing a false equivalence between a queer exhibit at the Science Museum encouraging people to consider an alternative perspective about the language we use and how it may normalise and other particular people and behaviours, and a couple of right wing rags lying about what is actually going on. Both "sides" are "baiting" apparently. |
It the usual sh*t innit. Outrage, flounce and feckwittery. Again, I can’t see how thinking about the language we use causes any issues. Unless we find thinking really hard. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
