#professor dave

when i first found him i thought he was smart and right about everything and funny

now i still find the humor in his videos but i really don't like how he's extremely smug and acts like he knows more about a topic than people affected by a topic (for instance, trans people) and isn't really open to a lot of criticism from a non-hard-scientific angle. and his new thing, which is in response to extreme evangelical xtians being stupid, to shit all over jewish texts and willfully misinterpret them to make a point

and i understand that point. but his point isn't made well by shitting on his idea of what jewish texts are saying when his misinterpretation is the exact same as the culturally xtian misinterpretation that is pushed on everyone. like, the dumbass evangelical misinterpretation is also going to be your average interpretation by someone who is culturally xtian but doesn't really think about it or hear other views. so the point really falls flat. satire requires a clarity of purpose and target lest it be mistaken for and contribute to that which it intends to criticize.

and dave's satire often does contribute to that which it intends to criticize. his comments sections are full of people being like, "lol imagine believing in sky daddy 🤣" or "old testament g-d is so scary amirite" and while a lot of people are respectful, tolerating and working within misinterpretations and appropriations of judaism is going to create an environment where that kind of shit thrives.

so I watched a professor Dave’s video today and I felt that some things he said were kinda wrong?? here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpGqFUStcxc

In the video he said that gender was “a different phenomenon [than sex]. It is still biological, but it is a neurochemical construct... it is still genetic in basis, but it absolutely is not determined by sex chromosomes... researchers are still working to understand the biological basis of gender identity.” It is strange to me that he would argue that gender is genetic but doesn’t explain how gender is connected to your genes. He just says that researchers are trying to understand it which doesn’t mean that his claim that gender identity is genetic is true or is some fact of reality. 

He later claims that “liberals” are wrong when they say that gender is a social construct, yet he can’t explain how gender is not a social construct. Here is the quote, “...please stop saying gender is a social construct. No it is not. It is a biological construct. Society can’t turn you any more trans anymore than it can turn you gay... [gender] is an incredibly complex neurochemical phenomena.” He claims that gender is this “neurochemical phenomena”, but he can’t even explain what this phenomena is or how it chooses your gender. And he tries to sound more wise by comparing gender and sexuality. Society definitely does determine whether if you are queer or not. Your experience with people as partners can influence what your preferences are. And your experience with a different name and pronouns can influence what your preferences are as well. It’s like choosing that you prefer straight hair over curly hair. No, I do not think that people are born gay or trans because that would suggest that being those things are connected to your genes which does not make since at all!

Your gender is as neurochemical as your own name.

Your gender is your identity. To claim that your gender is some impervious chemical force that dictates your whole being??? I think someone is a little insecure in his masculinity. “If my manhood isn’t a neurochemical reaction causing a instinctive sniff to my armpit every ten minutes... then what is it?” /t

Yeah, gender is a social construct. It’s strange to me that professor Dave of all people wouldn’t get that! Atheists are all the same :( /j

And he didn’t mention non binary people or cultures that had something other than a gender binary

Here's another dumbass cringe bitchass do-your-fucking-research get-your-facts-straight headass quote: “[Gender roles are] a social construct, and [they have] became obsolete immediately upon evolving beyond a hunter-gatherer society. It has only persisted due to deeply rooted misogyny and the desire to treat women as private property.” While the latter is true (that gender roles are rooted in misogyny and whatnot). The former is actually a false retelling of history written by colonizers; colonizers who actually came and enforced their gender roles onto the native people. Hunter gatherer societies were egalitarian and had no gender roles. The colonizers claimed that the natives did follow gender roles in order to make their way of life look natural, more pure, INTENED BY GOD.

Women in hunter-gatherer societies did not have to cover their breasts. Not like they do in your painting.

Gender roles are not natural.

shit i’m getting too worked up by this. i really thought of professor dave as an inspiration. now i think he is dumb. weird man.

I want to debunk other talking points but I feel like what I said already explains my arguments against it. Like how you have to be gender dysphoric to be trans those are the real transgenders. Well I would just say that people can choose to fucking change their name and pronouns and appearance and you shouldn't have a say in that. What is the point of arguing the validity of their identity if we could just call them socks or whatever i dont know lol. what i’m trying to say is that people should be who they want to be without repercussions unless who you are is TW shane dawson.

The Trump administration is a septic tank of corporate shoe shiners (no offense to actual shoe shiners who do an honest day's work), opportunistic lawbreakers, malicious destroyers of public health, monomaniacal anti-vax cranks, science illiterate climate change deniars, abject authoritarian yes men, and Christian nationalists with chips on their shoulders about universities, people with PhDs, scientists, critics of religion, and all those sundry elites who don't take their faith nearly as seriously as the theocrats do.